Proposed rule changes

[Dr J]

Wonder if the proposed rule changes will have a negative or positive effect on a BD coached game. Changes are reduced time clock to 30 sec, only 10 sec to bring ball into the offensive end with very few exceptions,removing one TO by one in second half.removing ability for coach to call TO when ball is active.expand the restricted zone from 3 feet to 4 feet, decreasing time allowed to replace a disqualified player and empowering the refs to enforce players being ready when the TO is officially over.
Wonder which of these will be implemented?

[wsuraider09]

College basketball fans have been waiting for the shot clock to be changed since I think forever. I hope this rule is implemented. There's no two ways about it, I think that change can only be good for the game as a whole. Some coaches (probably BD) won't like it, but it produces a more interesting product for fans to buy in to. A lot of NBA fans don't watch CBB because of how boring it can be when teams just literally pass around the circles for 20-35 seconds a possession.

I'm not sure I agree with removing the ability to use a timeout when the ball is active...Would this rule disallow a player from calling timeout while active? Hmm. I'm thinking that one through.

I'm not in favor of changing the restricted zone. That rule is so gray already. That play isn't reviewable, and is so subjective even with the arc on the floor. The charge/block call is the most subjective call in all of sports, changing the restricted area is only going to make it worse because now you've got another foot of area to have to call those calls in.

The rest is garbage. The fans come to games to watch players play, not to see the officials. This will only lead to more issues if an official makes one of these stupid calls. Look at the Bryce Harper incident yesterday for example. Not a fan of the officials being more involved in the game. Enforce the rules while they are being played, and don't be a douche bag. Plain and simple.

[mrose]

Shortening the shot clock by a mere 5 seconds will do nothing for the game. If anything we'll see the same style of play we've witnessed the past 20 years. Each team, on average, will have a few more possessions each game that's it. That doesn't mean we'll see higher scoring games, more exciting games, or better basketball. It doesn't matter if a team holds the ball for 30 seconds or 25 seconds then scurries into a last ditch play to force a shot within 5 seconds--It's still bad basketball.

Here's why it's a fallacy to think a shorter shot clock will equate to higher scoring games. The historical stats prove that. In fact, during the 45-second shot clock era 85-86 through 93-94, NCAA basketball games averaged higher scoring games than the 20+ years with a 35 second shot clock. In 1991 the average score was 76.7 pts/game. This past year it averaged 67.74 pts/game.

Scoring isn't down because the shot clock isn't short enough. It's down for a number of reasons and IMO increased physicality is the leading culprit. If the officials called every foul today what was called back in the 1980's and 1990's the game would take 4 hours to play. They've let it get too physical, but it's been that way for the last 10+ years so I don't know if they can ever get it back to the way it's a free-flowing game with room for the offense to operate.

Look at FG%. Over the past 20 years the avg. FG% per year is between 43-44%. The highest yearly avg. FG% during the 35-second era is 44.4% (1995). The FG% with the 45-second shot clock averaged per/year between 45-48%. The LOWEST FG%, by year, in the 45-second era was 45.2% (1993). Are players worse shooters today? I don't think so. I think part of it is the physicality of the game. Are they taking worse shots? Perhaps their shot selection is worse. Running the shot clock down and then needing to heave up a shot before the clock expires will do that. Now, on average, there are more 3-pt. attempts in the 35-second era which pulls down the average. No telling how this will play out, but reducing the shot clock may result in more 3 pt attempts and ironically lowering the scoring average as more shots are missed. Hmm.

IMHO, for the game to be more free-flowing and higher scoring there need to be other changes. A couple have already been addressed by the NCAA proposed changes. Originally I was agnostic on the restricted arc, but I've come to accept it. It is a reviewable call--To see if the defender is in the arc or not. Widening the restricted arc to the NBA standard (4') is a good step. An emphasis on offensive player movement and on physicality are also good points of emphasis. Other areas I would like to see: 1) Widen the lane 4 feet to the NBA standard. 2) Move the 3-Point line back to the International distance.

I believe those 4 changes are enough to give the offense more space and freedom to increase scoring. Unfortunately, points of emphasis change every year with the NCAA and even as the year progresses officials tend to resort back to the long-term trend and lose focus on that year's emphasis. So, physicality will probably creep back into play. If there are no other changes to the physical boundaries on the court (Farther back 3 pt. line, widened lane to 16') then scoring averages will continue to be below desired levels even with a 30-second shot clock. Then what? The 24-Second shot clock becomes the panacea to bad basketball played in the NCAA?

fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/trends/DI_alltime_2015.pdf

[wsutommygun]

I think some of these should have been tried out in the CBI or CIT. Good point about physical play but I'd like more consistency amongst all leagues ( with what they tell refs to enforce ).

I don't know how moving the 3 point line back will help scoring, seems like there would be less tries ( but I wouldn't fight the change...hope high school would make a change too ).

I don't think 30 or 35 would change how you play either. Five less seconds to guard on that end of the court.

The ten second rule is the one that interests me. Do they do it by the shot clock? If a ref is up to 5 but the shot clock says 24, does the inbounding team that gets the ball knocked out get 5 seconds or 6? I am also interested if that rule ( should it change ) make teams press more?

[mrose]

Tommy, in theory the farther back 3-point line should help open space. At the International distance the shooter still has to be respected (man-to-man defense can't pack it in), but there will be more driving space for the ball handler and cutters. If the defense is playing zone it will stretch the zone out exposing holes for a higher % mid-range shot. All of that's based on the assumption 3 pt FG % will remain around it's historical average (34+ %). There's no reason to believe it wouldn't...the % made from 20'9" is comparable to that of when it was a foot closer at 19'9".

[Indy Raider]

Area coaches generally in favor of proposed changes

www.daytondailynews.com/news/sports/college-basketball/area-coaches-generally-in-favor-of-proposed-change/nmLqX/