OT: Grantland's take on the college bball scoring "crisis"
Before reading this, I suggest you read Brian's evisceration (from earlier this weekd) of the claims that college bball is having some sort of scoring crisis. That being said, Grantland attempted to stoke the phatom fires today with this article:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/college-basketballs-scoring-problem/
To his credit, Phillips mentions the real issue with college bball--the endless timeouts--but only in briefly and only after jumping on the Seth Davis scoring crisis train.
This article does raise one interesting hypothetical question. Can the NCAA make rule changes for the sake of increasing the entertainment value of the game without compromising their position that NCAA isn't really about entertainment but instead about creating student athletes? Are the two mutually exclusive?
March 20th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
Period.
28 seconds.
March 20th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^
The 8 second back court violation should be done away with. In it's wake, just have an 8 second shot clock. Think of how many scores there would be...
I take most of what I read on Grantland re: college basketball with a grain of salt. They're an NBA-centric site, particularly Simmons. I'm not interested in college ball necessarily becoming more like the league...the NBA has a few teams that play really great team basketball and then a whole lot of shit. Variety is part of what makes college ball great. Interesting article though.
I hate the timeouts. If there's automatic media timeouts, you should have no need for more than 3 per half like football, and honestly I'd like to see less than that.
ETA: the NBA also has a much worse scoring crisis than the NCAA. Namely that about 10 teams in the league are absolute trash.
The quality of basketball played in the NBA compared to the NCAA can't even be accurately put into words. NBA ball is so much more enjoyable to watch. As an avid basketball fan I can't even watch college ball outside of Michigan and the tournament. Even the tournament is torturous to watch from a pure skill/talent/play level.
Most NCAA "offenses" revolve around aimlessly passing/dribbling the ball around the perimeter before jacking up a 3. The defensive play is incredibly poor and most players don't have any clue how to rotate or where they're supposed to be on the floor.
They have a shorter 3 point line and they still can't shoot from 3 as well as the pros, let alone do anything else better (including playing team ball and giving effort).
If you know anything about basketball, you can't even compare the two because college play is so poor compared to the NBA.
I just don't understand how anyone can call themselves a basketball fan and then prefer the vastly inferior college game to the pros. I can understand how people can like/be more invested in college sports than pro sports, or find the NCAA tourney more exciting than the NBA playoffs, but to even attempt to argue that it's somehow a better overall product? That's not possible.
It's true that there are a few teams in the NBA that are trash, but there are only a handful of watchable NCAA teams in any given season. Most of it is pure garbage from a basketball standpoint.
but I don't think the overwhelming opinion on the board is surprising considering this is a college sports blog. Similar arguments could be made for college football vs. nfl...
Because so frequently, the NBA game devolves into isos and ill advised jumpers. Sure, the quality of the players in general is worse, obviously. And there are plenty of college teams that play a bland style. My point is, it depends on which team you're watching. If you're comparing watching say Kentucky to the Spurs, the Spurs are much more interesting to watch with how they pass, space the floor, use picks, etc (and Kentucky is a fairly fun NCAA team to watch).
Take the Timberwolves vs. say, I dunno, Minnesota. They're both incredibly boring.
The two sports appeal to different sets of fans. The same thing can be said about college football vs. the NFL. My point is, it rings a little disingenuous for Grantland to be taking shots at college for its poor play, when we all know they love the NBA. Again, there are certainly some really fun NBA teams to watch. Here's a list of the boring ones, in a team sense:
Wizards, Hornets, Magic, Nets, 76ers, Knicks, Pacers, Pistons, Jazz, Nuggets, Timberwolves, Clippers, Kings, Lakers.
That's pretty much half the league. Yes this is my subjective opinion. But the same can be said for Grantland's approach. And your opinion that its only worth watching the best of the best. If that's the case what's the point of being a college fan at all?
ETA: and I'm a Pistons fan, and I do understand basketball. I don't understand your blanket statement that just because the NBA has superior components (obviously it does) that it's automatically a more entertaining product. The NBA playoffs are NEVER as good as March Madness in terms of the variety of basketball you see. Is some/ a lot of it bad in college? Sure
Except it doesn't frequently devolve into ISOs. You're using arguments from over a decade ago because you probably don't watch much NBA basketball. This isn't the late 90s/early00s. This is 2015. The NBA game is about pick and roll, ball movement, and floor spacing (i.e. team basketball).
ISO play is viewed as inferior, dinosaur basketball in the NBA. Get with the times.
This is why I don't take a lot of anti-NBA opinions seriously. Most NBA haters and/or people saying college is more fun don't actually watch the NBA, or haven't since Jordan was playing.
Edit: The irony of criticizing Grantland for pushing a false narrative about the NCAA game while you yourself while pushing one about the NBA.
You're giving the league way too much credit. There are some wonderful teams that emphasize team passing and defense like the Spurs, Hawks, Golden State, Grizzlies, the Cavs are starting to as well. Miami certainly did when LeBron was there. Probably others I'm forgetting. There are also plenty of teams that still rely on one or two guys to carry the whole team which I find incredibly boring, and they do devolve into isos. Even a great team like OKC which I love to watch has way too manyisos in their play, and it's only because Westbrook and Durant make them fun (partly because Brooks is a garbage coach, but whatever).
I'm no NBA hater. I never watched Jordan play with the Bulls (unfortunately) and really didn't watch NBA until the first post-Robinson Spurs run. I think the league has been great in the last few years, and watch more NBA than college. But that coincides with all this stuff about college ball being terrible. It's a mistake to compare them in the first place. They are different. That's my point (and also that I get annoyed with NBA people just shitting on college, same with the NFL to college).
Except most NBA teams play like the Spurs, Hawks, etc...They're just not as good at it.
The Pistons under SVG play...lots of PnR, inside out, spread the floor with shooters, ball movement...they're just not that good at it. It's still team basketball. It's still fairly enjoyable to watch, but they just haven't shot the ball well, so they lose.
OKC is overly reliant on a couple of guys to win games, but that's a far cry from hero/ISO ball. Those two things aren't the same. For example, The Clippers are overly reliant on CP3 to do everything for them offensively. No one could ever accuse CP3 of just ISOing it up, playing hero ball all game. Being overly reliant on your superstar doesn't necessitate selfish play.
Carmelo Anthony is the guy you want to bring up in the context of this argument, and he gets endless amounts of shit about it in NBA circles. How it's inefficient, ineffective, and you can't win a championship in today's NBA playing that brand of basketball.
If you watch more NBA than college then the whole "the NBA devolves into too much ISO ball" is a strange criticism, seeing as, like I've said, that style of play went out of style years ago. It has also been one of the single most used criticisms of the NBA by people who hate the NBA. So forgive me for assuming you were one of those people, seeing as you used one of their most classic arguments.
OK, I agree, if I understand the argument, that the ambition of the NBA teams is all to play that nice style of basketball. That clearly isn't true of all teams at a college level...there are definitely many teams that just flat out ignore the spacing concepts.
False narrative about Grantland? Who runs the site? Bill Simmons. What's his sport? The NBA. Where is the majority of the coverage? The NBA. Which sport does ESPN hold the rights to? The NBA. Are you that oblivious to the business of sports?
I botched that edit but it's still readable.
You're simultaneously bashing Grantland for pushing a false narrative about NCAA basketball while you push a false narrative about the NBA. I find that somewhat amusing.
I'll agree to disagree. I don't think either narrative I'm pushing is completely false. I just find it funny how willing people who don't like college basketball at all are to rush to defend the NBA. I prefer the NBA in a vacuum similar to how I prefer the NHL in a vacuum to college hockey. But that doesn't mean college basketball is some kind of joke.
And I enjoy Grantland. Lowe is my favorite basketball writer around. Just think they're overboard on some of their basketball opinions, in this case Phillips is.
Would you say Beilein and SVG run similar concepts? Im not an X's and O's guy but it seems to me they both like 4 shooters and a big man, run pick and roll, penetrate and kick, mid-range is the devil basketball.
likes mid-range jumpers to punish defense for overplaying the 3 pt line and pack the paint. The majority of mid-range jumpers comes at the elbow area which is the best area to attack defense for running out 3 pt line and pack the paint.
Totally and completely agree. And as much attention as the NCAA MBB Tourney receives, some of these early games are difficult to watch from an aesthetic perspective.
Guard brings the ball up court....backcourt picks and weaves for 25 seconds...long heave for three with 2 seconds on the shotclock....long rebound....scramble....ball out of bounds....commercial....lather/rinse/repeat.
Watching Ole Miss, I said in the game thread yesterday that their offense has two plays.
The first play is to make a bunch of horrible passes and then jack up a contested 3 late in the shot clock.
The second play is to not pass the ball at all and jack up a horrific shot early in the shot clock.
The quality of play in the NBA is very good, I agree. But the games are too long. 48 minutes is too many, especially with 24-second possessions. There are so many total possessions that the importance of each one is tiny. There is no real point in watching the first three quarters of a typical game. The 4th quarter is all you need to see.
I don't understand the argument that always puts the NBA above the NCAA in terms of that amorphous "quality" argument. Yes, the NBA features more of a focus on spacing and pick-and-rolls, though as you noted below LOTS of teams don't have the talent or experience to do it as effectively as the Hawks or Spurs, which results in what you see in the two New York teams, for example. And while teams may very well run their optimal offenses during parts of the game, many still do devolve into the iso-foul shots-TOs issue that really dragged down the quality in the mid-00's. So yeah, the Spurs and Golden State are really good at basketball and have entertaining teams, but watch, I don't know, Utah and Charlotte throw rocks at each other for 48 minutes.
To college basketball's credit, I think coaches realize that they aren't going to necessarily be able to successfully run those types of offenses every year, so you have simpler systems that you can deploy with 18-year-old guys barely needing to shave. In a vacuum they aren't as pretty but the core gameplay can still be just as entertaining.
March 21st, 2015 at 12:19 AM ^
to the statement that college basketball is objectively better than high school basketball. Not sure why people can't see the same thing holds true for NBA basketball.
I'm all for hearing your argument, but...
Most NCAA "offenses" revolve around aimlessly passing/dribbling the ball around the perimeter before jacking up a 3. If you know anything about basketball, you can't even compare the two because college play is so poor compared to the NBA.
This is a stupid argument. It's actually not an argument. It undercuts your point to say things like this that are obviously not true. Beilein's offense, for example, is fairly complex. It involves back screens, down screens, handoffs, ball screens and proper spacing and it hits you with all of those in a single possession.
NBA offenses are usually less scripted and more reads - reversal to a back screen into a ball screen - if they defend the screen in ways A, B, or C, attack in ways 1, 2, or 3.
And obviously, NBA shooters are better than NCAA shooters. Next, will you tell me that college shooters are better than high school shooters?!
If you know anything about basketball, you can't even compare the two because college play is so poor compared to the NBA.
These kinds of statements are just asinine. There's a point to be made but the "I'm knowledgeable and you're not" argument is not a winning one.
Not sure why this is difficult for people to seperate but the NCAA has a pace/style of play crisis not a scoring crisis. Teams are playing slower and more conservative both on offense and defense and the result is a game that is less fun to watch even if they shoot the same percentage and score on the same % of possessions.
Even if both teams shoot 60% a 55-50 game isn't going to be that exciting to watch.
over the last decade really translates to a vastly more sluggish pace of play.
It is 5 possesions, not 2.5 and it is a pretty stark drop. It is also reflective of a change in style of play. Teams don't get out and run in tranisition nearly as much as they used to, don't press and go for steals nearly as much as they used to. These are safer ways to play and result in increased efficiency but decreased enjoyment.
was from 2002, but the 2.5 was from 2005 (ie a decade). I wouldn't be surprised if what you are saying is true, but I'd have to see actual evidence of that being the case.
Brian based his analysis of offensive efficiency. But saying offensive efficieny is going up certainly doesn't mean basketball is more fun to watch. You know who has been consistently one of the most offensively efficient teams for years? Wisconsin -- who everyone on this board seems to loathe. Turnovers are dropping because teams are playing more slowly and carefully.
The other legitimate problems are a talent pool of less skilled players due to increasing number of marginal NBA players leaving early (a couple from just Michigan come to mind) and AAU.
Brian based his analysis of offensive efficiency. But saying offensive efficieny is going up certainly doesn't mean basketball is more fun to watch. You know who has been consistently one of the most offensively efficient teams for years? Wisconsin -- who everyone on this board seems to loathe. Turnovers are dropping because teams are playing more slowly and carefully.
The other legitimate problems are a talent pool of less skilled players due to increasing number of marginal NBA players leaving early (a couple from just Michigan come to mind) and AAU.
If both teams shoot 60% in a game, it's almost impossible for the score to be in the 50s.
Expand the diameter of the rim by a foot.
Boom, instant scoring.
Right or wrong I've always viewed it this way, College basketball depends alot more on X's and O's while the NBA is all about the jimmys and the joes.
Scheme is more important in college basketball and since coaches dont' have access to 15 of the 450 best basketball players in the world they have to develop superior schemes for the talent they do have. That and the ban on zone defense in the NBA.
I honestly don't get this crisis crap. I've a been a baskteball nut for a while and am probably watching more college basketball than ever. I haven't notice anything different. It's as "entertaining" to me as it's always been. Watching the NBA and it's robotic, passionless lack of variation and lack of defensive effort is incredibly boring to me. Sure shorten the shot clock, but pace of play is also dictated by a team's style of play and strategy, in the same way a football teams offensive philosophy (or game situation) determines it's tempo. It's strategy, it's part of the game, and it's partially determined by the large variation in talent among D-1 programs. I also think there is a false equivalence between how many times the ball happens to go through the hoop and how entertaining the game is. Missed shots (i.e. not scoring more) also leads to more possessions - is that not a contradiction? Maybe I just view the game as a chess match and appreciate the contracting styles and stratgies of different teams, while the mouthbreathing pseudo fans just want to see ripped guys running back and forth dunking and ally-ooping constantly. Lastly is there any drop in college basketball tv ratings or ticket sales coinciding with this drop in possessions/scoring which supports the notion that there is a "crisis"? If people were watching less college basketball and watching more NBA and international basketball then maybe I'd believe the crisis argument.
"Lack of defensive effort" is the second easiest way to determine if someone doesn't bother to watch the NBA, right behind focus on iso's rather than running an offense.
then quit reading
The players don't care much about the regular season in the NBA. That's what happens when you have an 80 plus game season and best of 7 playoffs.
you couldn't be any more wrong about NBA defense.....
March 20th, 2015 at 10:46 PM ^
Look at the scores? lol. They score more because the shot clock is shorter, they shoot better, and the games are longer.
I was never a huge NBA fan by any stretch, but I basically quit watching after the Mavs-Heat final in...2006? I have no idea. It was basically a couple hours of watching Dwayne Wade shoot free throws. I didn't know basketball could be that boring. Having said that, I don't criticize the NBA because I don't watch it and so I can't really comment.
March 21st, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^
a sane comment from someone who doesn't watch the NBA without generalizing the NBA!
If defensive effot is so lacking in the NBA, why do so many college stars all of a sudden see their efficiency drop when they get to the league? The NBA has better shooters, athletes, and game action. If given the choice between a UM game and the NBA, I'd watch UM 100% because I love UM. But if given the choice between a random non-NCAA tourney college game and a random NBA game? I'd always pick the NBA.
All the good college basketball players are in the NBA. Maybe create a "2 and done" rule?
The title is, "The Clampdown: How the NCAA Accidentally Killed Scoring in Men’s College Basketball." So I thought I'd be reading an article about how the NCAA killed scoring. I certainly didn't see a hypothesis in the first few paragraphs, and after that, the writing was so poor I started skimming, so maybe I missed it in all that blather. Maybe I was pre-conditioned by Brian's post to be skeptical of claims that scoring has been killed, but man, I just didn't see any explanation of how the NCAA killed scoring.
is that there are some logical steps that could be made to increase scoring, but the NCAA can't implement them because it would make it appear that they are trying to sell the product as entertainment, which will hurt their narrative that college sports is about student athletes and not entertainment.
as far as I can tell, is that the NCAA did something good in 2013, but then stopped doing that this season. So, if that's the case, did they kill it by not doing anything from 2002 to 2012? And then they accidentally unkilled it and then killed it again? Seems like he's just complaining about the NCAA, which I'm totally fine with, but like others have pointed out, a 2 point drop in scoring over 40 minutes doesn't seem like something we should be getting upset about.
Maybe it was a focus on analytics that killed scoring and not the NCAA. Maybe coaches realized that a faster pace leads to more turnovers and worse offensive efficiency. Or that transition defense was more valuable than going after second chance points.