10 Second Rule for WBB

[Wbbfan1]

APStory - Link

Geno and others will be extremely happy with this change. IMHO it favors the more elite schools and will make games less competitive.

 

[alexrgct]

The argument could be made the rule change simply helps schools who press and trap, regardless of how elite they are.

 

[triaddukefan]

So now UCONN will just blow people out by 95 points as opposed to 60 next season ?

 

[Kibitzer]

Permit a contrarian, perhaps cumugeonly, view. I cling to the belief that once the shot clock was adopted -- first NBA, then NCAA, etc. -- that the ten-second rule plus that dopey five-second rule (closely defending a player with the ball) should both have been tossed.

So what if a team, whether by choice or because of full-court defensive pressure, uses many valuable seconds in the back court! Makes it more of a full court game and gives them less time to set up in the front court.

And we must recognize that the refs are already challenged (beyond their ability, often) enough, why add this to their burden?

After 40 years, I still hate the designated hitter in AL baseball, so I qualify as a diehard in some ways.

 

[Icebear]

I'm with you, Kib.

 

[Biff]

Permit a contrarian, perhaps cumugeonly, view. I cling to the belief that once the shot clock was adopted -- first NBA, then NCAA, etc. -- that the ten-second rule plus that dopey five-second rule (closely defending a player with the ball) should both have been tossed.

So what if a team, whether by choice or because of full-court defensive pressure, uses many valuable seconds in the back court! Makes it more of a full court game and gives them less time to set up in the front court.

And we must recognize that the refs are already challenged (beyond their ability, often) enough, why add this to their burden?

After 40 years, I still hate the designated hitter in AL baseball, so I qualify as a diehard in some ways.

I've said pretty much the same thing in the past on this forum (less the fringe argument about the DH) .

However we do seem to be in the minority with notables like Geno on the opposite side of the argument. I'll keep an open mind and hope that somehow it works better than I imagine it will.

We stand apart on the DH however....

 

[msf22b]

The change surely favors UConn.

 

[Sonny44]

APStory - Link

Geno and others will be extremely happy with this change. IMHO it favors the more elite schools and will make games less competitive.

I agree.

 

[Sonny44]

Permit a contrarian, perhaps cumugeonly, view. I cling to the belief that once the shot clock was adopted -- first NBA, then NCAA, etc. -- that the ten-second rule plus that dopey five-second rule (closely defending a player with the ball) should both have been tossed.

So what if a team, whether by choice or because of full-court defensive pressure, uses many valuable seconds in the back court! Makes it more of a full court game and gives them less time to set up in the front court.

And we must recognize that the refs are already challenged (beyond their ability, often) enough, why add this to their burden?

After 40 years, I still hate the designated hitter in AL baseball, so I qualify as a diehard in some ways.

I garee.

 

[Coler]

Yes Yes Yes! This will help Rutgers alot.

 

[stwainfan]

I've been in favor or the ten second rule.

 

[doggydaddy]

I've been in favor or the ten second rule.

Ok...which one?

 

[stwainfan]

Ok...which one?

The ten second backcourt rule.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Like it or not, it brings the women more on par with other BB systems, and perhaps the emphasis on ball-handling for the full court will make coaches focus on improving those skills, which can't be a bad thing. Now sports analyst Debbie Fiske says that the change slides the advantage over to the defense (at a time when increasing the offense is the mantra), but in reality much of the defensive advantage should turn into easy baskets and maybe greater scoring, so it's offense by defense. From 1996 through 2001, UConn averaged more than 12 steals a game, and not coincidentally, those were high-scoring years for the Huskies.

 

[stwainfan]

I think it's going to help the game. I don't like when teams take twenty seconds of offense in the back court.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The argument could be made the rule change simply helps schools who press and trap, regardless of how elite they are.

Yep, like with Kentucky's curtain of doom or whatever it was called. The Wildcats' stats overall were not very good, and yet they were among the top 10 elite because their defense could just press and wear a lot of teams down. The 10-second rule could give some mediocre team a prayer against better overall but less fit, deep and versatile teams. But yes, it can also give elite teams like UConn, ND, Duke, and Louisville even more of an advantage.

 

[rocky rococo]

Yes Yes Yes! This will help Rutgers alot.

Can't imagine anyone it will help more.

 

[cferraro04]

The ruling came down...the 10 second rule is in...somewhere in Philadelphia a particular division one coach sighed, pulled out whatever hair he had left and thought...Oh, no, now what do I do. I'll have to change my recruiting habits...I'm going to need faster guards...if I don't get the ball over half court I can forget about a 30 second possession...Obviously, the NCAA is anti-Will-D-Cat.

 

[Kibitzer]

I think it's going to help the game. I don't like when teams take twenty seconds of offense in the back court.

Neither does that team's coach. A big reason for UConn's dominance in wcbb in recent years (or have you noticed?) is that with quick and talented guards like Bria and Moriah (and Sue and Renee and Diana before them), they consistently cross the half-court line in 5-8 seconds and thus have 20+ seconds to use their passing/cutting/screening/post-up skills in their "half-court offense."

Meanwhile Huskies' full-court pressure with lots of trapping has not only been disruptive but has often forced their opponent to be limited to >15 seconds to organize and conduct a front court offense characterized by frequent "one-and-done" or shot clock violations.

Bad news for students of the game, Geno generally calls off the full-court pressure defense at half-time, so go early.

 

[Icebear]

I think it's going to help the game. I don't like when teams take twenty seconds of offense in the back court.

Yeah, but I love when that leaves them with only 10 seconds in the front court.

 

[trisailin]

I'm not clear how this improves the game. I hear the argument about scoring but there is a certain sport even more popular than basketball worldwide where the score very frequently is 2 - 1 and everybody finds it plenty exciting.

To me, the 10 second rule just makes all the teams play more alike and takes away a different game strategy. With no 10 second rule, on any given game, I could see Villanova beating Kentucky. Precision and finese often can beat brute force. With a 10 second clock, the historic style of play of Villanova is in trouble.

Off the top too, I think this ?might? "reward" a less fit team. If you only "have to" press full court for 10 seconds that is less energy than possibly pressing full court the full 30 seconds.

 

[doggydaddy]

I'm not clear how this improves the game. I hear the argument about scoring but there is a certain sport even more popular than basketball worldwide where the score very frequently is 2 - 1 and everybody finds it plenty exciting.

To me, the 10 second rule just makes all the teams play more alike and takes away a different game strategy. With no 10 second rule, on any given game, I could see Villanova beating Kentucky. Precision and finese often can beat brute force. With a 10 second clock, the historic style of play of Villanova is in trouble.

Off the top too, I think this ?might? "reward" a less fit team. If you only "have to" press full court for 10 seconds that is less energy than possibly pressing full court the full 30 seconds.

Lets get rid of the shot clock again and let Villanova win the NC 32-31.

 

[trisailin]

Lets get rid of the shot clock again and let Villanova win the NC 32-31.

Is that a bad thing? Is the game "poorer" for it. The team that scored more still won. I don't think the team that scored 31 LET Villanova win. I think they still tried to score more than 31 and they tried to prevent Villanova from scoring 32. It wasn't necessarily an "inferior" game. By the same token, would it somehow be a "better" game if the rules were changed so you were only allowed 3 defensive players in the defensive half of the court (keeping 5 offensive). The score would/could easily be 170 - 160. It would indeed dramatically change the game but is that more interesting or exciting?
With UCONN WBB, we've been blessed with raw athleticism AND precision. Some teams (Kentucky and North Carolina come to mind quickly) try to rely solely on athleticism while other teams focus on the "precision" aspect. As long as both teams have to play by the same rules, changing the rules doesn't make a game "better".

 

[UcMiami]

This may actually speed up the end of games as teams will have two strategies to employ in the last minute(s) - quick foul as they currently do, or try for the ten second violation first and then foul (10 second run off of game time before the foul.) And I don't think it necessarily favors any particular teams - coaches will have to coach their teams differently offensively and defensively relative to the back court, but there have been games most years where Uconn in the face of full court pressure has taken a VERY deliberate approach to bringing the ball up court. And Villanova will still be able to run their slow half court sets, and they are generally pretty good passers so they may have fewer issues than many teams breaking a press - speed can help, but the ball travels a lot faster on a pass than the fastest player can move. And speed without smarts will lead to lots of turnovers in trapping pressing defenses.

 

[doggydaddy]

Is that a bad thing? Is the game "poorer" for it. The team that scored more still won. I don't think the team that scored 31 LET Villanova win. I think they still tried to score more than 31 and they tried to prevent Villanova from scoring 32. It wasn't necessarily an "inferior" game. By the same token, would it somehow be a "better" game if the rules were changed so you were only allowed 3 defensive players in the defensive half of the court (keeping 5 offensive). The score would/could easily be 170 - 160. It would indeed dramatically change the game but is that more interesting or exciting?
With UCONN WBB, we've been blessed with raw athleticism AND precision. Some teams (Kentucky and North Carolina come to mind quickly) try to rely solely on athleticism while other teams focus on the "precision" aspect. As long as both teams have to play by the same rules, changing the rules doesn't make a game "better".

Did the shot clock make the game better? Is that what you just asked me?

Yes, the game was poorer before the shot clock. And this small change adding the 10 second clock will have minimal effect on the game.

Much ado about nothing.