I know March madness is a big thing but I agree with Geno.

College basketball is terrible to watch.

This has been my belief whenever the discussion comes up about whether the college football playoffs weaken the value of the regular season when people bring up the fact that ratings are down in college basketball and blame the NCAA tournament. (Poorly worded sentence, I know)

Regular season ratings aren't down in college basketball because of the NCAA tournament. The ratings are down in college basketball because it is a boring product to watch, not the tournament. I'll watch NBA regular season games, even though it doesn't have that much impact on the regular season because the product is so much better. After watching an NBA game, it is painful to watch some college offense pass it around the perimeter for 25 seconds until they find a guy who misses an uncontested shot.

Here is another big difference from football. During the weekend, the college game doesn't compete with the pro game, so I can watch a game on Saturday and on Sunday without conflict, but probably some disappointment. Plus the majority of the games on Saturday have guys playing that will make NFL rosters eventually.

For basketball, there really is no reason for me to ever watch a college game because there is always an NBA game on, and I would rather watch a "meaningless" Pelicans v. Bulls game as opposed to a "meaningless" Wisconsin-Mich St game.

The difference in talent level between college and the nba is just night and day. The disparity is crazy.

quote:

---

The NBA is so much more enjoyable to watch than college basketball, which isn't the case with college football/NFL, college baseball/MLB,
etc. The difference in the quality of play from college to the NBA is
astronomical.

---

I completely agree with this. I remember the exact day that I realized this. I was at a high school basketball tournament 6 years ago where I watched Freshmen, JV, and Varsity games in succession. Later that afternoon I watch an Aggie basketball game on TV followed by a Rockets game. That night, I realized that the only one of those games that I enjoyed watching was the Rockets game. Since that day, the only college basketball I can stand to watch are Aggie games only because I have a strong rooting interest. Even whatever random big matchup is on Big Monday, I find too excruciating to watch.

I think the two fixes that would help the most are:
1. Shorten the shot clock (probably 30 seconds would be fine)
2. Un-clog the lane

For #2 you could do a few things. Moving the 3-point line back would also have the effect of moving out where the perimeter defense sets up, which would help un-clog things. Or, I would be in favor of instituting a defensive 3-seconds rule like the NBA. But I don't see that ever happening due to the prevalence of zone defenses in the college game.

I also can't stand the "5-seconds closely guarded" rule. A 5-second count is almost never achieved. The only outcome of this rule is that the point guard ends up getting rid of the ball to a lesser ball handler just for the sake of the rule (think: Alex Caruso being forced to pass to Jordan Green up top just to avoid a 5-second call).

They should just implement the NBA rulebook in college.

You are spot on with the same 2 problems I have with the game: long shot clock and zone defense 100% of the time.

The only hesitation I have with getting rid of zone is that it would drastically cut down on the upsets/Cinderella stories in the tournament. A lot of the small schools need zone to stay somewhat competitive.

I've heard several pundits suggest a 24 sec shot clock. But wouldn't this just play into the hands of the defense and make offenses even more atrocious? The offenses would have 11 s less to try to break down the defense.

This rule change could make Shaka Smart's Havoc defense downright nasty

The other problem with the college game is over coaching. They have roughly 1200 timeouts a game, so every time a team scores 2 baskets in a row we get a timeout. Basketball is a rhythm game, that's why NBA teams go on runs constantly. Do away with the 1 and 1 rule. Just 2 shots at the double bonus. No one wants to watch terrible foul shooting. Cut timeouts in half, no 1-1, 24 second clock, 5 seconds in the lane instead of the 3 seconds at NBA for illegal defense and the games would be alot more fun to watch.

quote:

---

But wouldn't this just play into the hands of the defense and make offenses even more atrocious? The offenses would have 11 s less to try to break down the defense.

---

Actually I think right now there is alot of "paralysis by analysis" because of the long shot clock. I don't think it actually leads to better shots. They just throw it around for 20 seconds and then get serious about taking a shot.

quote:

---

I've heard several pundits suggest a 24 sec shot clock. But wouldn't this just play into the hands of the defense and make offenses even more atrocious? The offenses would have 11 s less to try to break down the defense.

This rule change could make Shaka Smart's Havoc defense downright nasty

---

Usually if they can't get a decent shot off in 24 seconds, they aren't going to get one off in 35 either. It just means the fans have to watch 10 less seconds of "pass it around the 3pt line patty cake" on every possession.

I hate college basketball. I watch the Ags, but I don't care to watch any Big Monday or March Madness games. incompletely agree that the shot clock needs to be shorter and I loathe zone defense. Watching a guy camp out in the paint isn't defense.

Other than the Aggies, I hardly watched any pre-tournament basketball. To me it is more of a skills issue. I don't know how you get them to be more prepared before they get to college. It would help if they stuck around longer so the could be coached. I'm a firm believer in implementing a college baseball type of rule. Let them go straight from HS to the NBA. However, if they sign with a college, make them stay three years.

It hurts to watch college ball. I've heard all sorts of explanations, from AAU basketball turning out a bunch of wannabe superstars with no skills to poor coaching to all the good players leaving after a year or two to bad rules.

I tend to blame it on two things:
1) a lack of emphasis on good team offense at younger ages. There are lots of guys with good individual skills, but it seems like high school and club teams with good players pretty much ride their good players and don't teach them an offense. When these guys get to college where everyone is as good as they are, the college coach has to drag these guys up a huge learning curve. There's not time for that with limits on practice time and on the second reason, which is...

2) the best players leave early for the NBA. I didn't do an extensive study over multiple years, but last year the NBA drafted 9 freshmen, 11 sophomores, and 8 juniors. Imagine if we had 28 more future NBA players in the game this year, all with an extra year of experience and 2-3 of them not at Kentucky! Those 28 players could have played a combined 57 more seasons, so if every draft goes about the same you would have 57 more experienced future NBA players in college ball at any given time. These are the guys that you build your offense around, which means that every season you have to start all over when your freshman superstar leaves. No continuity. Plus, they would all have more incentive to improve their game in college rather than hanging out for a year until they can get drafted on measurables.


Imagine watching Big Monday games where every team had 1-2 more future NBA players, most of whom got to college knowing the basics plus now they have a couple good offseasons under college coaches. There is offensive continuity and you get to follow these guys and watch them develop as players. IMO, adjusting the shot clock or adding an illegal defense rule might get you a minor incremental improvement, but it wouldn't move the game from unwatchable to fun. The real issue is one that might be unfixable, and that is that one year isn't enough to assemble a good team.

Outside of the Ags, I no longer really watch either. I remember an article about Lionel Hollins(?) hardly being able to watch his own son play. After attending a few Rockets games, it's tough to go back to watching a game with a 35 sec. shot clock.

quote:

---

The only hesitation I have with getting rid of zone is that it would drastically cut down on the upsets/Cinderella stories in the tournament. A lot of the small schools need zone to stay somewhat competitive.

---

Upsets for upset sake are silly, and only weakens the overall product. Cinderellas are only interesting if they can actually beat more talented teams without using antiquated rules as a crutch.

It's contrived parity, in a way.

College BB is unwatchable, to be fair some NBA games are too. Overall the NBA athleticism makes it a much more enjoyable game for fans.

quote:

---

College BB is unwatchable, to be fair some NBA games are too. Overall the NBA athleticism makes it a much more enjoyable game for fans.

---

I don't think that the difference in athleticism has much, if anything, to do with it. That difference in athleticism has always been there. It is there in college football vs NFL too. Players in the past stayed longer and appeared to be more fundamentally sound. During much of the 80's and 90's you usually had some very entertaining college basketball programs.

quote:

---

1) a lack of emphasis on good team offense at younger ages. There are lots of guys with good individual skills, but it seems like high school and club teams with good players pretty much ride their good players and don't teach them an offense. When these guys get to college where everyone is as good as they are, the college coach has to drag these guys up a huge learning curve.

---

I think you may be on to something here. It's amazing how unstructured high school and AAU basketball is, and you're right, if they don't learn it as a young player, it is almost too late to learn it in college because there is not enough time to go over all of the things that you should have already learned by then.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess

Everything he said is true but I would rather watch grass grow than chicks play basketball. Why would I want to watch that when I know I can get 4 guys from the YMCA and beat the best they have. Now cue up those that say I am full of crap.

quote:

---

Everything he said is true but I would rather watch grass grow than chicks play basketball. Why would I want to watch that when I know I can get 4 guys from the YMCA and beat the best they have. Now cue up those that say I am full of crap.

---

He also said that women's college basketball is behind the times too and needs fixing. I don't think he was trying to prop up women's basketball at the expense of the men's. I think he was making a statement in general about the current state of the sport as a whole. And he is absolutely right if you ask me

I wonder if the powers that be in college basketball see the same things we do? seriously. or do they think the game is perfect the way it is...

it is really hard to watch and there is no flow

I think the only reason why people watch the tournament is for the gambling aspect and the upset aspect or if you have a rooting interest for your alma mater

Changes that would make the college game a lot better:

-24 second shot clock
-8 second backcourt
-stretch the 3-point line to 22'2" (the international distance)
-bigger restricted circle
-widen the paint
-Go from 4 to 1 media timeouts per half
-defensive 3 second (no camping in the lane not guarding anyone)
-No 1-and-1, double bonus only starting with 11th foul

Most important and most difficult one though to implement and enforce: player freedom of movement and getting the referees to enforce a more free flowing game.

The other stuff above like shot clocks and 3 point line are easy fixes. What's hurting the college game and making it unwatchable the most though is how physical it is and how much of a slugfest it's turned into. Basketball at it's best is a free flowing game of movement and coordinated skill. That goes for defense too, not just offense. You can play great, outstanding defense without being a bruising sloth. The NBA had this problem from about the mid-90s to the mid-2000s and they made a lot of changes and it took about 3 or 4 years for things to start getting better, but it worked and now it's a lot better to watch. College basketball needs to look at what the NBA did and do the same things.

quote:

---

I wonder if the powers that be in college basketball see the same things we do? seriously. or do they think the game is perfect the way it is...

it is really hard to watch and there is no flow

---

I'm sure they're fine with things the way they are as long as the money keeps rolling in

Yeah, they are getting 770 million a year from the tournament alone, I think they are ok with the state of the game.

quote:

---

Changes that would make the college game a lot better:

-24 second shot clock
-8 second backcourt
-stretch the 3-point line to 22'2" (the international distance)
-bigger restricted circle
-widen the paint
-Go from 4 to 1 media timeouts per half
-defensive 3 second (no camping in the lane not guarding anyone)
-No 1-and-1, double bonus only starting with 11th foul

Most important and most difficult one though to implement and enforce: player freedom of movement and getting the referees to enforce a more free flowing game.

The other stuff above like shot clocks and 3 point line are easy fixes. What's hurting the college game and making it unwatchable the most though is how physical it is and how much of a slugfest it's turned into. Basketball at it's best is a free flowing game of movement and coordinated skill. That goes for defense too, not just offense. You can play great, outstanding defense without being a bruising sloth. The NBA had this problem from about the mid-90s to the mid-2000s and they made a lot of changes and it took about 3 or 4 years for things to start getting better, but it worked and now it's a lot better to watch. College basketball needs to look at what the NBA did and do the same things.

---

This. All of this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

1) a lack of emphasis on good team offense at younger ages. There are lots of guys with good individual skills, but it seems like high school and club teams with good players pretty much ride their good players and don't teach them an offense. When these guys get to college where everyone is as good as they are, the college coach has to drag these guys up a huge learning curve.

---

I think you may be on to something here. It's amazing how unstructured high school and AAU basketball is, and you're right, if they don't learn it as a young player, it is almost too late to learn it in college because there is not enough time to go over all of the things that you should have already learned by then.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess

---

This is a cop out. There are good HS and AAU programs who teach fundaments and team ball. The skills are there. You could argue the mental approach is lacking. 6 or 7 hundred kids transfer every year usually due to playing time. Most of these kids never had to ride the bench and have a tough time dealing with it.

In my opinion college coaches are just too conservative as a group. They play slow and defensive on purpose because it keeps them in more games.

Take out dribbling - pointless

Well his crew and ND look like crap right now. Turnovers, traveling, missed lay ups and putbacks. Air balls and bricks.

So there's that Geno.

There are teams that teach basketball the right way, but I'm not sure those are the teams with most of the D-I players.

Geno never said the women's game is more enjoyable. He said it was worse because so few teams cam shot 50% or more in a game.

a ****ing women's coach talking about how the men's counterpart is bad. there are few things worse in life then watching women play basketball.

To me he's always seemed to have an agenda against the men's college bball, mainly built upon his animosity towards Jim Calhoun (from what I've read in the papers). In fact, I think if you put him in charge of a men's program, he'd be terrible and fired in 2-3 years. I don't think his coaching style would mix well in the men's game.

quote:

---

To me he's always seemed to have an agenda against the men's college bball, mainly built upon his animosity towards Jim Calhoun (from what I've read in the papers). In fact, I think if you put him in charge of a men's program, he'd be terrible and fired in 2-3 years. I don't think his coaching style would mix well in the men's game.

---

GA has a huge chip on his shoulder. He wants to be seen as the greatest college coach ever. The problem is the world he coaches in is not near deep enough to warrant that. That's the real difference between men and women. The talent pool.