MICHIGAN'S MEN'S BASKETBALL: 2015-2016

[The Oracle]

Geez, I didn't(at least intentionally) say anything about where to put the question...this is just fine by me and what I think about that shouldn't matter anyway. All good.

If we're going back to Ewing, when there's been much worse FT shooters in college since, kind of proves my point. I don't think they should/would do anything about intentionally fouling at the end of games and incidentally, I've seen intentional fouls called at the end of games when there's no "play on the ball".

And shortening the shot clock, I don't think, isn't being done to speed up the game. It's being done to "improve" it, whatever that means. I think theoretically, shortening the clock with lengthen the game(more possessions, more chance of fouls, TOs, etc.). I don't have an issue with that either way, but I don't think it's going to do what they want it to accomplish.

[iam416]

Geezer:

I'll put it this way. Pre-shot clock=4 corners. If you were down by 2 with 5 minutes left a team could, in theory, hold the ball and run out the clock. The only way to get the ball back was to foul. That's the world of 1983. And, for that matter, 1985 when Villanova only took 10 shots in the 2nd half against Georgetown. I watched that entire tournament as a kid and I think I watched every NCS game. The Pepperdine game was the 11:30 game back when they used to have the late West Regional game on after the local news. Stayed up and watched it. There were plenty of times where they fouled -- especially against the Waves -- like virtually every other team does today when they're down. And when you're 85% FT shooters misses, well, tough. BTW, that was also the era of the pure 1-and-1 (I think). The move from 1-1 at 7 and 2 at 10 was a move to address deliberate fouling at the end of the game and to make it harder to rally based on poor FT shooting.

There were also times when they fouled in completely unconventional spots. I know they fouled Franklin with the scored tied at 50-50. And I believe they fouled a Virginia kid with the scored tied -- and he only made 1 of 2. If a coach wants to "intentionally" foul in those circumstances, I say more power to them. Ballsy move.

Oracle is correct re shot clock. It's a marginal improvement. In theory it should increase the likelihood of the "better" team winning by some small amount -- an amount equivalent to roughly 10% more trials or so.

[Da Geezer]

Talent:

Agreed. Particularly about the 30 second shot clock not affecting the game very much. It does stand to reason that more possessions will favor the better team. There won't be much resting on the offensive end either, so I think it will also favor the deeper team.

I'd forgotten about the 1-1 change at 7. That made it harder to pull a NC State. That 1983 tournament precipitated a lot of changes relating to fouling at the end of games. And I agree that the 1985 NCG was an all time great with easy Ed Pinkney making everything. IMO other than Guy Lewis, John Thompson had to be one of the worst coaches of that era.

Now, to really be a heretic, I don't think that UCLA would have won as many national championships as they did if 1) there had been 64 teams, (duh) but 2) if they had been located east of the Mississippi. The NCAA paid a lot of attention to geography back then, and UCLA rarely faced a great team in its regional. And talk about "special treatment" for the basketball players, just listen to Bill Walton.

[froot loops]

The thing about that Villanova game was they complained about the score, in today's NCAA that would not be considered a low scoring game. That game didn't have a 3 point line either.

Once they came up with the shot clock, they sent the 4 corners to the dustbin of history. It's a pretty good offense if you are actually trying to score on someone, if you see a well executed 4 corners set today the team scores pretty easily. Unfortunately those coaches used it to deflate the ball.

Getting rid of the TV timeout if a team calls one before the TV timeout can be called is good. Nothing worse than a coach having to call a timeout at 15:30 only to come back and have a TV timeout called at 15:10.

Its a good start but until coaches actually try running fast breaks scoring will be low.

[iam416]

Those early-to-mid 80s were a great time for college hoops and a time of some really great changes. The 45-second shot clock was a massive change. The 3-point shot (which I believe came in 1986) was massive. I mean, IU doesn't win the national title in 1987 if Alford's brilliance is only worth 2 per bucket. And the change to from 7 fouls to 10 fouls. Not to mention the expansion of the tournament to 64 for the 1985 tourney. The modern game was truly born then -- and it all happened in the midst of one fantastic tourney after another, though I was personally bored by 1986.

I disagree re Thompson especially if lumping him with Guy V. Lewis. But that's another debate. My point on Villanova was that without the shot clock they limited the possessions and avoided regressing to the mean. Taking only 10 shots in a half is unheard of. If they had to take 25 there's no way they make 22 or 23 and they lose. But 9 for 10 was apparently within the realm of doable.

UCLA West regional draw was a joke. As was the rule prohibiting more than 1 team from a conference. I guess an argument could be that it cuts in favor of UCLA b/c they had to win the P8/P10 every year just to get a shot. But I think more good teams in the tournament is more of a factor.

That said, those teams were sick good. I mean, no matter how you slice it, 89 in a row is 89 in a row. Alcinder and Walton were as dominant as college players could be. If I were to take issue with UCLA it wouldn't be WRT the ease of their tourney path -- though worth mentioning -- it'd be with Sam Gilbert.

[froot loops]

In the Villanova/Georgetown championship game, it really wasn't Villanova limiting possessions. The second half shot total was a byproduct of getting a lot of free throws, turning the ball over and Georgetown's relentless trapping and pressing giving them trouble. They only had one ball handler in McLain, so they had a lot of trouble getting down in the offensive set. But when they did they got some easy looks when they were able to break the trap. But it definitely wasn't a case of sitting on the ball. That was as many shots as they could get, Georgetown's length was a big problem for them.

They ran the 4 corners once when Georgetown went into a zone with under three minutes, but there was a quick foul. Geirgetown also ran the 4 corners once.

If anything Georgetown limited possessions in that game. They refused to take open jumpers, only Wingate would shoot.

Its worth noting that during that final four, a big topic was what to do with fouling people at the end of the game to force foul shots. Apparently a lot of coaches wanted to do away with that.

[WM Wolverine]

The issue is the 'intentional' foul that is only called a regular foul, putting the opponent on the FT line is a really effective strategy to lengthen the game and get back into a game when you're behind...

Calling the rules as they should is a good strategy to fix it but there is no/little movement I see being done to change that...

As a fan of basketball, I detest the strategy of turning the last 40-120 seconds of a game into a battle of my 3pt shooting ability vs your FT shooting ability. The strategy sometimes adds excitement to the game but far too often it creates a very boring and lengthy last couple minutes of what was a great basketball game.

[froot loops]

I wasn't making myself clear enough, at the Final Four in 1985 that was a big discussion. The fouling at the end of the game to lengthen the game was somewhat new. In that championship game it nearly worked for Georgetown but it's worth noting the refs were afraid to call a technical for delay of game.

[iam416]

If you rigorously enforce "intentional" fouls players will just make a play for the ball and foul. Further, you're not possibly going to start calling intentional fouls when someone beats off the bounce and you intentionally reach to stop the drive. That's ridiculous.

The game is fine. Players are limited to 5 fouls. You only have to shoot a maximum of 3 one-and-ones at the end of the game. Trading 2 FTs for a forced 3 point attempt is rarely a good bargain. If it were that would be strategy all game long. It's an awful bargain that rarely pays dividends.

That was as many shots as they could get, Georgetown's length was a big problem for them.

They would have taken, IMO, twice as many shots with even a 45-second shot clock. And Georgetown's decision to pull it out with less than 4 to play was disastrous. Villanova gets the ball back down 1, takes 50 seconds off the clock before scoring and then Wingate, who was awesome all game, turns it over and commits a foul. Then it's stall city for the final 2 minutes. I don't think Villanova attempted a shot after Jensen put them up 55-54 with 2:30 to play. Once they made the FTs they were up by 3 and all they had to do was make FTs. Think about that, up 57-54 with 2:10 left and it's a matter of possession and FTs.

So for 17:30 minutes they attempted 10 shots and 8 FTs -- so 14-15 attempted scores. Georgetown didn't play with a great deal more pace, but they certainly weren't the team slowing the game down.

But that was hoops in the day. Without a shot clock and without a three point line, teams worked offense for really good shots. I enjoy re-watching that basketball today. It's good stuff. And I enjoy watching Villanova's game against Georgetown. They played superbly once, as you noted, the crossed halfcourt. That type of basketball is way into my childhood/nostalgic wheelhouse.

And thinking about it -- rather randomly -- the most nostalgic thing for me from that era is DePaul games from the Rosemont Horizon -- with the burgundy keys and rose at halfcourt. Most likely with NBC doing the game and Al McGuire calling it.

[The Oracle]

Yeah, where is this talk coming from to stop intentional fouls at the end of games. It's not on the table nor should it be.

[Da Geezer]

I'm the guilty party Oracle, I wanted to start a conversation on the proposed new rule changes that allegedly are going to speed up the game. No one had posted on this thread for about two weeks. (Besides, it would be one way not to follow the subject of the thread, always a positive if possible). New rules were basically cut down on timeouts and put in a 30 second clock. I said calling intentional fouls when they are indeed intentional would speed up the end of the game, And we were off. . . . .

We more seasoned citizens then got to waxing nostalgic about the time before the time clock. And once again we were off. . . .

Senior citizens except for Talent that is. he is a young Buck.

Heh

[The Oracle]

I hear that, but I don't think all the rule changes are made to shorten the games. I really thing their trying to improve the game. The TO thing obviously is, but I don't think that's their lone objective. There's been screaming and crying from holy high hell to "fix the mess" that is CBB.

[Da Geezer]

and compared to the pros, CBB is far better. Another thing they might look to change is when the refs check the replay at the end of the games. IMO, the teams should not be allowed to go over to their bench and treat that time as a timeout. CBB still has far more strategy than the pros.

[froot loops]

The pros blows college basketball away. The skill level is just so much better.

[The Oracle]

Skill wise it's not close.

I'd still watch CBB 10 times out of 10 times before NBA and I like the NBA.