10 Second Rule for WBB

[Icebear]

Much ado about nothing.

Then why bother with it.

 

[CL82]

The change will force teams to work on their press break. It's all about spacing. People will adapt. In the near term it means a few more possessions a game for UConn. In the long term it may actually take away a weapon for UConn as teams will become used to bringing the ball up under pressure.

 

[trisailin]

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

Yes, the game was poorer before the shot clock.

Why was the game poorer? What about the shot clock makes it better?
We can agree that YOU find it more entertaining/interesting but can we agree that not everybody finds having a shot clock "better"?

There are those who are entertained by different sports/different styles of play for different reasons. I'd be hard pressed to say one is better than another. Men generally play a very different brand of basketball than the women. Is one "better"?

 

[meyers7]

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?

Completely disagree with this. (although I'll permit it ). I love the 10 second rule. Been looking forward to this for years. I love having a payoff for pressing. Love seeing pressing games. Don't like the slowdown game. Like more action and more opportunity. Give some reward for defensive work.

Personally I am more worried about this change

gave referees leeway when it comes to penalties for accidentally elbowing an opponent above the shoulders.

Leeway, great, they screw up enough stuff as it is. Now they get more (as we soccer refs say) In the Opinion of the Referee (ITOTR). This can not be good.

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

Completely agree with you on this. May be the single stupidest rule ever implemented in any sport. One reason I pay hardly any attention to the junior circuit.

 

[doggydaddy]

Then why bother with it.

It will have limited impact on games. But it now comforms with the other levels of the game, both men and women.

That's not a bad thing. Just not a big deal, like lowering the basket.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

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.

No problem. Harry will merely adjust the settings of the clone machine in his basement from 5' 10"- 6' blonde 3 point shooter for a short run of ball handling sprinters.

 

[doggydaddy]

Why was the game poorer? What about the shot clock makes it better?
We can agree that YOU find it more entertaining/interesting but can we agree that not everybody finds having a shot clock "better"?

There are those who are entertained by different sports/different styles of play for different reasons. I'd be hard pressed to say one is better than another. Men generally play a very different brand of basketball than the women. Is one "better"?

I'll seriously try to answer you, even though my first response would have been not so nice but I didn't want to go there.

I don't know your age, but I do remember the game before the shot clock was around. Here is one article.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/00422949.html

In one 1973 game on the road against a powerful Tennessee team, Temple went into a dedicated stall, which succeeded in keeping the Owls in the game. They didn’t win, though, and the resulting 11-6 final score will never be matched.

On February 24, 1979, fourth-ranked North Carolina made its annual trip to Cameron Indoor Stadium to play sixth-ranked Duke. Tar Heels coach Dean Smith ran his famous Four Corners offense in an effort to force the Blue Devils out of their zone, but Duke wouldn’t budge. After the Blue Devils scored the game’s opening bucket, Carolina held the ball for 11 minutes. The score at halftime was 7-0 in Duke’s favor. The Blue Devils eventually won by those seven points, 47-40.

On December 29, 1981, an unranked Notre Dame team ran a stall against fourth-ranked Kentucky and took the game to overtime before losing. By Sports Illustrated’s count, coach Digger Phelps’ Irish made 213 consecutive passes during one particular possession.

I didn't find articles on the women's game, but I can imagine there were games like these as well.

I don't start polls, but I would imagine that over 90% of the posters here would favor a shot clock over no shot clock.

 

[connboy77]

I like the 10 second rule because it will not only speed up the game, but also make it more exciting to watch.

 

[trisailin]

Doggy: I'm mid 50's so I do remember games with no shot clock.
My point is/was that faster/higher scoring game is not necessarily "better". You cited low scoring games - but were they any less exciting or interesting? Was there any less strategy? I found some of those games actually more interesting because the outcome remained in doubt. Clearly "outmanned", the underdog found a way to make a game out of it.
I happen to be one who can enjoy watching Villanova with their precision/very deliberate style of play. It takes "cunning" to be able to be somewhat less athletic but still put the ball through the hoop more times. Part of being really really good is being able to overcome ANY opponent strategy.
I think I'm like you though in that I suspect neither of us enjoys watching aimless speed without smarts.

 

[doggydaddy]

Doggy: I'm mid 50's so I do remember games with no shot clock.
My point is/was that faster/higher scoring game is not necessarily "better". You cited low scoring games - but were they any less exciting or interesting? Was there any less strategy? I found some of those games actually more interesting because the outcome remained in doubt. Clearly "outmanned", the underdog found a way to make a game out of it.
I happen to be one who can enjoy watching Villanova with their precision/very deliberate style of play. It takes "cunning" to be able to be somewhat less athletic but still put the ball through the hoop more times. Part of being really really good is being able to overcome ANY opponent strategy.
I think I'm like you though in that I suspect neither of us enjoys watching aimless speed without smarts.

Yes, they were less exciting and interesting. You liked several minutes of passing the ball before a shot was even attempted?

And in general, a 90-88 game is more fun to watch for me than a 50-48.

Villanova can be interesting when they have good enough players. But for the most part, it's way less precision and more putting up 3 pointers after running down the clock.

If more fans liked the slowdown game they wouldn't have added the shot clock.

You really would like it eliminated?

 

[bmayuc]

One of the comparative weaknesses of the womens game are addressed by this rule.

1. lack of playmaking/ballhandling guards - We see that issue crop up near the end of games with possessions stalling out, lack of quality shots, etc. By increasing the reward for pressing, in the short term you will increase the likelihood that teams use aggressive pressing schemes. This will increase both the tempo of the game and increase easy shots in the game(steals/layups) (broken press/layups). BIG POSITIVE in terms of watchability and game play.
In the long term, the incentive to press will cause ballhandling to have increased importance, and will push development in this area. This is ONLY a good development for a sport that does not traditionally value this skill.

 

[Icebear]

One of the comparative weaknesses of the womens game are addressed by this rule.

1. lack of playmaking/ballhandling guards - We see that issue crop up near the end of games with possessions stalling out, lack of quality shots, etc. By increasing the reward for pressing, in the short term you will increase the likelihood that teams use aggressive pressing schemes. This will increase both the tempo of the game and increase easy shots in the game(steals/layups) (broken press/layups). BIG POSITIVE in terms of watchability and game play.
In the long term, the incentive to press will cause ballhandling to have increased importance, and will push development in this area. This is ONLY a good development for a sport that does not traditionally value this skill.

I see this argument pushing UCONN even further out in front because UCONN's conditioning is already better than anyone's. Second, fatigue from extensive pressing will not likely increase the watchability of the game as much as it will lead to sloppy and chaotic play and even more TOs which are the bane of the women's game and its watchability now.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Doggy: I'm mid 50's so I do remember games with no shot clock.
My point is/was that faster/higher scoring game is not necessarily "better". You cited low scoring games - but were they any less exciting or interesting? Was there any less strategy? I found some of those games actually more interesting because the outcome remained in doubt. Clearly "outmanned", the underdog found a way to make a game out of it.
I happen to be one who can enjoy watching Villanova with their precision/very deliberate style of play. It takes "cunning" to be able to be somewhat less athletic but still put the ball through the hoop more times. Part of being really really good is being able to overcome ANY opponent strategy.
I think I'm like you though in that I suspect neither of us enjoys watching aimless speed without smarts.

Although I will say I can love a game like the 2009 NC even though the score was comparatively low, the reason is because it was two of the best defensive teams going at it for a game at its best. But do I want to see a couple of guards passing the ball around the perimeter for a few minutes? Not really. The game is called basketball, not dribbleball or passball, and just wasting time and ignoring the basket takes away the essence of the game -- putting the ball through the hoop.

In soccer the situation is a little different, where the sometimes endless passing back and forth before one shot attempt is more like a chess match and you have the added drama that the defense can suddenly intercept and set up an exciting attack. But to compare soccer's low scoring to any element of basketball is just silly as the excitement of soccer is the closeness of the score between two evenly matched teams, where the game's outcome could explosively change in a few seconds of delirious celebration. Football has the same "close and few scores" element except that with bigger rewards for scoring, a 3-2 game is maybe scored as 21-14.

 

[bmayuc]

I see this argument pushing UCONN even further out in front because UCONN's conditioning is already better than anyone's. Second, fatigue from extensive pressing will not likely increase the watchability of the game as much as it will lead to sloppy and chaotic play and even more TOs which are the bane of the women's game and its watchability now.

A couple points with regards to your comment:

1. In the short term, you will see "sloppy" play. But most viewers enjoy this style because it is very exciting at the end of the day.
2. In the long term, that sloppiness that you say plagues the game should improve drastically, because the overall reason for the current sloppiness is a lack of ball skills. The increased pressure will result in far better ball handling down the line.
3. The advantage for UCONN will not be conditioning but skill. Skill is what breaks presses, not endurance.

Short term excitement, Long term better basketball.

**Also, just thought of this, but it absolutely adds another layer of strategy to the game. It will be a fun couple of years to watch it play out.

 

[reno tony]

I don't think UCONN or teams like them need any more advantages over weaker teams. I don't know how Geno feels about the rule, but if he doesn't like it, maybe he will try to shut out a weak team to make a point how unfair this rule is. I think a 10 second rule during the last five minutes of the game might make it interesting, but I really don't like it for the whole game.

 

[stwainfan]

I don't know if any one here saw the four corner offense Dean Smith ran. Is saw a game Arkansas vs North Carolina before the shot clock. NC would spread the floor and just pass the ball for like five minutes. I didn't like that I thought it made for a boring game. That's one of the reasons the shot clock came in. I like the uptempo type game myself. I think the ten second rule helps that. Also if it helps coaches focus on ball handling and skills it helps the game.

 

[Icebear]

A couple points with regards to your comment:

1. In the short term, you will see "sloppy" play. But most viewers enjoy this style because it is very exciting at the end of the day.
2. In the long term, that sloppiness that you say plagues the game should improve drastically, because the overall reason for the current sloppiness is a lack of ball skills. The increased pressure will result in far better ball handling down the line.
3. The advantage for UCONN will not be conditioning but skill. Skill is what breaks presses, not endurance.

Short term excitement, Long term better basketball.

*Also, just thought of this, but it absolutely adds another layer of strategy to the game. It will be a fun couple of years to watch it play out.

Simply disagree because nothing in the present game indicates that should be true. I do not believe that teams under pressure equates to improvement in ball skills. I have nothing in the game that proves that assumption. If it was true the old saw press a pressing team wouldn't exist because teams pressing in practice would have the best ball handlers because that skill would receive a great deal of practice.

 

[alexrgct]

Ok...which one?

If your kitchen floor is exceptionally clean and you drop food on it...

 

[Wbbfan1]

NCAA - Link. Explain Rule Change and Adds Additional Video Reviews

If they hoped to speed the game up, they just made it slower with all the Video Reviews

Geno has previously said he would like to see a 10 Second Rule

 

[meyers7]

I see this argument pushing UCONN even further out in front because UCONN's conditioning is already better than anyone's.

That's a good thing.

Second, fatigue from extensive pressing will not likely increase the watchability of the game as much as it will lead to sloppy and chaotic play and even more TOs which are the bane of the women's game and its watchability now.

Forced turnovers don't make it unwatchable, it's the unforced ones that do. This change will make more forced turnovers.

 

[meyers7]

In soccer the situation is a little different, where the sometimes endless passing back and forth before one shot attempt is more like a chess match and you have the added drama that the defense can suddenly intercept and set up an exciting attack. But to compare soccer's low scoring to any element of basketball is just silly as the excitement of soccer is the closeness of the score between two evenly matched teams, where the game's outcome could explosively change in a few seconds of delirious celebration. Football has the same "close and few scores" element except that with bigger rewards for scoring, a 3-2 game is maybe scored as 21-14.

My stepson who played soccer for quite a few years, does not like basketball. I asked him why one day, because parts of the game are very similar (dribbling, passing the ball, passing into space, defending one on one, team defending, cutting out passing lanes, off ball movement, etc.). He said because there is too much scoring in basketball. (I had not heard that before.) He said it made points cheap, they didn't mean anything. In soccer when you scored it was a big accomplishment, had value. I had not thought about it like that.

 

[meyers7]

Simply disagree because nothing in the present game indicates that should be true. I do not believe that teams under pressure equates to improvement in ball skills. I have nothing in the game that proves that assumption.

Sure there is. Men are much better ball handlers than women. Men have had the 10 second rule for a long time. There you go.

If it was true the old saw press a pressing team wouldn't exist because teams pressing in practice would have the best ball handlers because that skill would receive a great deal of practice.

Completely different. Pressing teams practice pressing. They don't necessarily practice breaking presses. Two entirely different things.

 

[Icebear]

Sure there is. Men are much better ball handlers than women. Men have had the 10 second rule for a long time. There you go.

There is no necessary cause and effect relationship. Men have bigger hands and are quicker and stronger. These be be the source of the difference, too.

Completely different. Pressing teams practice pressing. They don't necessarily practice breaking presses. Two entirely different things.

But according to the argument simply the presence of playing against pressing should improve the ball handling. That does not necessarily follow.

 

[doggydaddy]

Sure there is. Men are much better ball handlers than women. Men have had the 10 second rule for a long time. There you go.

There is no necessary cause and effect relationship. Men have bigger hands and are quicker and stronger. These be be the source of the difference, too.

Completely different. Pressing teams practice pressing. They don't necessarily practice breaking presses. Two entirely different things.

But according to the argument simply the presence of playing against pressing should improve the ball handling. That does not necessarily follow.​

Women have a smaller ball, so the bigger hand argument doesn't exactly work.

 

[Kibitzer]

Men are much better ball handlers than women. Men have had the 10 second rule for a long time. There you go.

You appear to be suggesting that the reason men are much better ball handlers than women is because of the ten-second rule. Makes as much sense as the argument by that NRA guy about how much safer we will all be once everybody is packing heat.

I am inclined to think that the thousands upon thousands of hours on playgrounds, in gymnasiums, in practices, in games -- generally far more for boys than girls -- is the biggest difference maker, without even touching on the effect of good coaching (again, generally better for boys than girls).