NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

####### Kentucky... I'm pretty sure outside of the UK fans, everyone hates this team more than any other - Is this general consensus here?

I like them a lot. Calipari is maybe the only coach in the country who's somewhat honest about the whole NCAA charade, and he's definitely has the players' collective and individual best interests in mind. Plus they play an entertaining style of basketball- as opposed to say Wisconsin whose goal is generally to play as little actual basketball as possible.

ETA: Yeah, the fans are another story. Just awful, and definitely sufficient reason to hate them.

####### Kentucky... I'm pretty sure outside of the UK fans, everyone hates this team more than any other - Is this general consensus here?

I like them a lot. Calipari is maybe the only coach in the country who's somewhat honest about the whole NCAA charade, and he's definitely has the players' collective and individual best interests in mind. Plus they play an entertaining style of basketball- as opposed to say Wisconsin whose goal is generally to play as little actual basketball as possible.

ETA: Yeah, the fans are another story. Just awful, and definitely sufficient reason to hate them.

The bolded shows you don't know much about what Wisconsin does.

I know plenty. For example I know their average possession length on offense is 20.5 seconds, which is 341st of the 351 teams in Division 1. I also know that style of play is boring as #### to watch for any impartial observer. I also know that Wisconsin fans try to justify it by claiming it's somehow "pure" or "disciplined," which is pretty much all they can say.

They have shot clocks at every level of basketball that draws fans for a reason- because watching teams drive and shoot and score and rebound is way more fun than watching them not do those things.

Very ignorant comment. Kentucky is 46th in the nation scoring 76.4 ppg while WI is 92nd at 73.5 ppg. Not a huge difference considering Kentucky is loaded with NBA draft picks. WI isn't the slow, plodding offense you think it is.

Sorry, no. Wisconsin is 92nd in PPG because they score efficiently. If you're 92nd in ppg despite being 4th in adjusted offensive efficiency, you are pretty much the definition of slow and plodding.

I mean being 341st of 351 teams in time of offensive possession is pretty much the definition of slow and plodding as well, the conversation should end right there. There is no better statistic to measure the speed at which your offense plays than, you know, the speed at which your offense plays. But since you insist on bringing the less relevant ppg numbers into the discussion and then saying my comment was ignorant, then I guess I have to address their ppg rankings vs the efficiency ranking as well.

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

They are scoring 3 points a game less the Kentucky. Just because they don't fire up and miss a bunch of shots doesn't mean they are boring.

Me- they're one of the slowest teams in the country based on time of offensive possession

You- they score 3 fewer points a game than Kentucky

Me- that's because they're more efficient than Kentucky. That doesn't make them less boring. Missed shots are exciting too.

You- they score 3 fewer points a game than Kentucky



Sorry, but not firing up a bunch of shots (make or miss) DOES mean that they are boring. If longer offensive possessions weren't boring there wouldn't be shot clocks at all levels of basketball that try to cultivate fan interest (pros, college men, college women, international). People like more shooting and more possessions, and that doesn't mean they don't "understand Wisconsin basketball" or they "don't appreciate the purity of the game" or that Wisconsin "plays the game the right way." Those fans have every right to be bored by things that are boring. Case closed.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Is it game time yet?

 

[The Commish]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

I dunno. Less then ten hours, for sure. Does it matter? I've watched hundreds of hours of basketball this season, plenty to see lots of teams that play fast and lots that play slow and to appreciate the difference in the experience. Does 2013-14 Wisconsin do something that all the other Wisconsin teams of the last decade that I watched far too much of and all the other boring as hell slow tempo teams don't do? Does Kate Upton run across the court topless shaking red and white pom poms every time the shot clock gets under 10 seconds?

 

[jomar]

so a team could have a guy bring the ball up the floor and fire up a shot as soon as he crosses halfcourt and that is more 'exciting' than a team running screens for 15-20 seconds and getting a back door cut for a layup? its all about time of possession in the end. shorter possessions = more excitement?

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I have enjoyed watching Wisconsin in the tourney. Esp. against Baylor's zone.

 

[TobiasFunke]

so a team could have a guy bring the ball up the floor and fire up a shot as soon as he crosses halfcourt and that is more 'exciting' than a team running screens for 15-20 seconds and getting a back door cut for a layup? its all about time of possession in the end. shorter possessions = more excitement?

Correct. In fact that would be wildly entertaining. I know that's asking too much, though. There's a middle ground, though- like say UNC 2009, the nation's #1 team in terms of offensive efficiency and its #8 team in terms of adjusted pace.

I don't begrudge Wisconsin's strategy. Taking advantage of bad rules like the 35 second shot clock (even the college women play with a 30 second clock) is a part of college basketball and all games. I'm just saying it's more boring than basketball played at a faster pace, because it is. The evidence that the public agrees with me on that is overwhelming.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Who knew FAMU and VMI were so exciting to watch?

 

[The Commish]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

I dunno. Less then ten hours, for sure. Does it matter? I've watched hundreds of hours of basketball this season, plenty to see lots of teams that play fast and lots that play slow and to appreciate the difference in the experience. Does 2013-14 Wisconsin do something that all the other Wisconsin teams of the last decade that I watched far too much of and all the other boring as hell slow tempo teams don't do? Does Kate Upton run across the court topless shaking red and white pom poms every time the shot clock gets under 10 seconds?

Only if you want to be accurate I guess. This team was completely different than the teams of old. It's been a point of discussion just about everywhere this year within the news media. Their style of play was not much different than Virginia's with Virginia being better than Wisconsin on defense. That's why I was asking if you actually watched them much. I don't see you harping on UVa in the same fashion. This is what happens when you look at the stat sheet more than watching the games

 

[strykerpks]

Sounds like Duke assistant Steve Wojciechowski to Marquette

I'll defer to everyone else re: Wisconsin

 

[jomar]

so a team could have a guy bring the ball up the floor and fire up a shot as soon as he crosses halfcourt and that is more 'exciting' than a team running screens for 15-20 seconds and getting a back door cut for a layup? its all about time of possession in the end. shorter possessions = more excitement?

Correct. In fact that would be wildly entertaining. I know that's asking too much, though. There's a middle ground, though- like say UNC 2009, the nation's #1 team in terms of offensive efficiency and its #8 team in terms of adjusted pace.

I don't begrudge Wisconsin's strategy. Taking advantage of bad rules is a part of college basketball and all games. I'm just saying it's more boring than basketball played at a faster pace, because it is. The evidence that the public agrees with me on that is overwhelming.

I guess it depends if you like to watch people play basketball or if you just like to watch people shoot. I thoroughly enjoyed the MSU-UVA game but I'm guessing you and the masses thought it was boring....

defense, rebounding, screens, floor spacing all are parts of good basketball and I like to watch good basketball, not just watching people jack up shots as quickly as possible.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

I dunno. Less then ten hours, for sure. Does it matter? I've watched hundreds of hours of basketball this season, plenty to see lots of teams that play fast and lots that play slow and to appreciate the difference in the experience. Does 2013-14 Wisconsin do something that all the other Wisconsin teams of the last decade that I watched far too much of and all the other boring as hell slow tempo teams don't do? Does Kate Upton run across the court topless shaking red and white pom poms every time the shot clock gets under 10 seconds?

Only if you want to be accurate I guess. This team was completely different than the teams of old. It's been a point of discussion just about everywhere this year within the news media. Their style of play was not much different than Virginia's with Virginia being better than Wisconsin on defense. That's why I was asking if you actually watched them much. I don't see you harping on UVa in the same fashion. This is what happens when you look at the stat sheet more than watching the games

Virginia was a basketballabomination. I don't harp on them too much only because they kept Duke at bay in the ACC all year, although I think I still made one or two comments in the ACC thread. They were the absolute worst to watch.

You couldn't possibly have made a worse argument in support of Wisconsin than to call them similar to a team I did watch a lot of this year as an ACC fan- or at least that I tried to watch before inevitably getting distracted by the more interesting blank white wall next to my TV. They're boring as ####.

 

[TobiasFunke]

so a team could have a guy bring the ball up the floor and fire up a shot as soon as he crosses halfcourt and that is more 'exciting' than a team running screens for 15-20 seconds and getting a back door cut for a layup? its all about time of possession in the end. shorter possessions = more excitement?

Correct. In fact that would be wildly entertaining. I know that's asking too much, though. There's a middle ground, though- like say UNC 2009, the nation's #1 team in terms of offensive efficiency and its #8 team in terms of adjusted pace.

I don't begrudge Wisconsin's strategy. Taking advantage of bad rules is a part of college basketball and all games. I'm just saying it's more boring than basketball played at a faster pace, because it is. The evidence that the public agrees with me on that is overwhelming.

I guess it depends if you like to watch people play basketball or if you just like to watch people shoot. I thoroughly enjoyed the MSU-UVA game but I'm guessing you and the masses thought it was boring....

defense, rebounding, screens, floor spacing all are parts of good basketball and I like to watch good basketball, not just watching people jack up shots as quickly as possible.

Rebounding happens more often if there's more shots, so if you like it then you should like more shots and more possessions. Defense, screens and floor spacing happen just as much and arguably more when there's more shots and more possessions.

 

[The Commish]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

I dunno. Less then ten hours, for sure. Does it matter? I've watched hundreds of hours of basketball this season, plenty to see lots of teams that play fast and lots that play slow and to appreciate the difference in the experience. Does 2013-14 Wisconsin do something that all the other Wisconsin teams of the last decade that I watched far too much of and all the other boring as hell slow tempo teams don't do? Does Kate Upton run across the court topless shaking red and white pom poms every time the shot clock gets under 10 seconds?

Only if you want to be accurate I guess. This team was completely different than the teams of old. It's been a point of discussion just about everywhere this year within the news media. Their style of play was not much different than Virginia's with Virginia being better than Wisconsin on defense. That's why I was asking if you actually watched them much. I don't see you harping on UVa in the same fashion. This is what happens when you look at the stat sheet more than watching the games

Virginia was a basketballabomination. I don't harp on them too much only because they kept Duke at bay in the ACC all year, although I think I still made one or two comments in the ACC thread. They were the absolute worst to watch.

You couldn't possibly have made a worse argument in support of Wisconsin than to call them similar to a team I did watch a lot of this year as an ACC fan- or at least that I tried to watch before inevitably getting distracted by the more interesting blank white wall next to my TV. They're boring as ####.

That's basketball to most of us That you don't like it is fine, but it's silly to suggest that throwing up a half court shot is more "exciting" than actually running an offensive set. It's why a lot of folks were upset with the rules changes this year trying to make things more "offensively oriented" if you will.

ETA: And a commnet or two in the ACC <> your harping on Wisconsin here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I love that you guys are acting like I'm the crazy one here. Everyone thinks shorter possessions is more entertaining basketball. It's why there's shot clocks. I'm hardly the only one who's advocated it. Jay Bilas talks about the need for a shorter shot clock in the college game all he time. Google his name and "shot clock" and you'll see it. The reason is because teams like Wisconsin and Virginia play a less interesting brand of basketball, period.

Commish- people were upset with the rule changes because it meant more free throws, not because of this stuff.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And here's a poll of college coaches from April 2013 on a shorter shot clock, they voted 28-9 in favor of it.

 

[The Commish]

I love that you guys are acting like I'm the crazy one here. Everyone thinks shorter possessions is more entertaining basketball. It's why there's shot clocks. I'm hardly the only one who's advocated it. Jay Bilas talks about the need for a shorter shot clock in the college game all he time. Google his name and "shot clock" and you'll see it. The reason is because teams like Wisconsin and Virginia play a less interesting brand of basketball, period.

Commish- people were upset with the rule changes because it meant more free throws, not because of this stuff.

I certainly didn't call you crazy. Silly maybe, but not crazy and I don't know what you mean by "this stuff" in your edit. Many people were upset with the rules changes because they thought it would take away from the defensive aspects of the game. So traditional BE, B1G fans were #####ing because they believe in hardnosed defense.....making you earn your points. There were also those who were complaining that the foul shots slowed things down.

There's no question there are some that would like NCAA basketball officiated like the NBA all star game. Personally, I disagree with them. I like the defense.

 

[Premier]

NIT tonight

 

[msudaisy26]

So basically we should invent the national horse league. We would make millions because according to Tobias no one wants to see defense, pick and rolls, or blocked shots. Just shots all day long.

I give you credit for arguing your position this though. It must be hard to stay focus on something for this long.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

 

[TobiasFunke]

So basically we should invent the national horse league. We would make millions because according to Tobias no one wants to see defense, pick and rolls, or blocked shots. Just shots all day long.

I give you credit for arguing your position this though. It must be hard to stay focus on something for this long.

Taking my position to the extreme and arguing against it would be like if I said Wisconsin fans would love a basketball game where the team that wins the tip keeps it for 19:59 and shoots and then the other team tries to match them in the second half.

Faster basketball is better than slower basketball. I don't see how you can really argue otherwise. It's why every college, pro and international league has adopted a shot clock. It's why up-tempo teams are consistently described as "exciting." It's why crowds stand up and announcers raise the pitch in their voices on fast breaks. It's why everyone hated the Riley-era Knicks to the point that the NBA had to change the rules to avoid losing fans. Stop pretending this is a controversial opinion, it's obvious and widely accepted.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

My one post that caused everyone to throw a hissy fit compared Wisconsin unfavorably to another Final Four team (a program that, unlike Wisconsin, has multiple Final Fours and a national title under its belt in the last decade). There's no big disparity in quality of play there as there is in the NBA all star game vs normal games.

 

[jomar]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

My one post that caused everyone to throw a hissy fit compared Wisconsin unfavorably to another Final Four team (a program that, unlike Wisconsin, has multiple Final Fours and a national title under its belt in the last decade). There's no big disparity in quality of play there as there is in the NBA all star game vs normal games.

I think you said 'Wisconsin whose goal is generally to play as little actual basketball as possible'.....and then went on a rant about how actual basketball means shooting quickly

 

[tdoss]

I personally enjoyed watching UVA this year. Their defense was "fun" to watch...for me.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Didn't think we'd get a poster going out of their way to show that they agree with Jay Bilas in this thread.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

My one post that caused everyone to throw a hissy fit compared Wisconsin unfavorably to another Final Four team (a program that, unlike Wisconsin, has multiple Final Fours and a national title under its belt in the last decade). There's no big disparity in quality of play there as there is in the NBA all star game vs normal games.

Watching Wisconsin pass the ball on offense, working hard moving and cutting through the lanes looking for an opening ultimately trying to find a very good shot is fun to watch. It's team basketball at its finest. Boring does not describe how they play.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

My one post that caused everyone to throw a hissy fit compared Wisconsin unfavorably to another Final Four team (a program that, unlike Wisconsin, has multiple Final Fours and a national title under its belt in the last decade). There's no big disparity in quality of play there as there is in the NBA all star game vs normal games.

I think you said 'Wisconsin whose goal is generally to play as little actual basketball as possible'.....and then went on a rant about how actual basketball means shooting quickly

That was just a crack on a team I find boring ... but there's some truth behind it. You yourself said:

defense, rebounding, screens, floor spacing all are parts of good basketball and I like to watch good basketball

Defense-more possessions means more defense (no real defense during the 5-10 seconds when the ball is walked up to half court, so the less time that takes out of 40 minutes the more actual defense happens)

Rebounding- obviously the more shots/missed shots, the more rebounding

Screens- I seriously doubt a game with more offensive possessions would have less screens. It might not have more if the added possessions are cancelled out by more fast breaks, but I doubt it has less.

Floor Spacing- the more possessions, the more floor spacing. Spacing plays a vital role in fast breaks, too.

So there you have it- three of the four things you like about basketball happen more in an up-tempo game than a slow-tempo game, and one probably happens the same amount. Your preferences, not mine. I personally also like athleticism, dunks, shot blocks, runs/momentum swings, and all the other things that happen in up-tempo games more often than slow tempo games, but I don't even have to get to those things to make the case.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Imagine a 5 second shot clock, one-pass-per-possession max, only dunks and three point shots allowed. It would be like watching an entire game of ESPN highlights.

He must have a raging hard on watching the NBA all star game

My one post that caused everyone to throw a hissy fit compared Wisconsin unfavorably to another Final Four team (a program that, unlike Wisconsin, has multiple Final Fours and a national title under its belt in the last decade). There's no big disparity in quality of play there as there is in the NBA all star game vs normal games.

I think you said 'Wisconsin whose goal is generally to play as little actual basketball as possible'.....and then went on a rant about how actual basketball means shooting quickly

That was just a crack on a team I find boring ... but there's some truth behind it. You yourself said:

defense, rebounding, screens, floor spacing all are parts of good basketball and I like to watch good basketball

Defense-more possessions means more defense (no real defense during the 5-10 seconds when the ball is walked up to half court, so the less time that takes out of 40 minutes the more actual defense happens)

Rebounding- obviously the more shots/missed shots, the more rebounding

Screens- I seriously doubt a game with more offensive possessions would have less screens. It might not have more if the added possessions are cancelled out by more fast breaks, but I doubt it has less.

Floor Spacing- the more possessions, the more floor spacing. Spacing plays a vital role in fast breaks, too.

So there you have it- three of the four things you like about basketball happen more in an up-tempo game than a slow-tempo game, and one probably happens the same amount. Your preferences, not mine. I personally also like athleticism, dunks, shot blocks, runs/momentum swings, and all the other things that happen in up-tempo games more often than slow tempo games, but I don't even have to get to those things to make the case.

I guess you didn't watch the Wisconsin/Oregon game.

 

[Pipes]

Bottom line- they're boring as ####. Effective, yes, but still very clearly boring as ####.

Not sure if this is some weird fishing trip, so I'll start with this question. How much Wisconsin bball have you watched this year?

I dunno. Less then ten hours, for sure. Does it matter? I've watched hundreds of hours of basketball this season, plenty to see lots of teams that play fast and lots that play slow and to appreciate the difference in the experience. Does 2013-14 Wisconsin do something that all the other Wisconsin teams of the last decade that I watched far too much of and all the other boring as hell slow tempo teams don't do? Does Kate Upton run across the court topless shaking red and white pom poms every time the shot clock gets under 10 seconds?

Only if you want to be accurate I guess. This team was completely different than the teams of old. It's been a point of discussion just about everywhere this year within the news media. Their style of play was not much different than Virginia's with Virginia being better than Wisconsin on defense. That's why I was asking if you actually watched them much. I don't see you harping on UVa in the same fashion. This is what happens when you look at the stat sheet more than watching the games

Yeah I can admit some of WI's past teams have been boring especially last year's team that struggled offensively. This Badger team has 5 starters that can score and a couple like Dekker and Kaminsky that can score by shooting threes or taking the ball to the hoop. Nigel and Koenig are fun to watch as well.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

 

[Timmay]

I didn't know Wisconsin had this many basketball supporters.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable. I'm telling you what I personally prefer and why and pointing out that most sports fans and basketball fans agree.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Dean Smith's pre-shot clock era UNC teams running the four corners with a late lead were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

I can reductio ad absurdum arguments too!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable. I'm telling you what I personally prefer and why and pointing out that most sports fans and basketball fans agree.

Why do you like baseball then? That's even slower and more boringer.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable.

Then why exactly are you melting down? It seems like you care about this a lot for some reason.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable. I'm telling you what I personally prefer and why and pointing out that most sports fans and basketball fans agree.

Why do you like baseball then? That's even slower and more boringer.

I love baseball and basketball unconditionally. I love baseball and basketball much more when there's a higher ratio of action/inaction over time. I'll trash Josh Beckett as compared to Mark Buehrle just as readily as I'll trash Wisconsin as compared to, say, Louisville (Kentucky wasn't a great counterexample, they play at an average pace on offense).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable.

Then why exactly are you melting down? It seems like you care about this a lot for some reason.

No meltdown at all. I like talking sports, and I feel like I should try to reply to every person who replies to a post of mine with something warranting a response. I like when people answer me so I try to do the same for others.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I don't begrudge Wisconsin's strategy. Taking advantage of bad rules like the 35 second shot clock (even the college women play with a 30 second clock)

Well in fairness women can barely dribble for 10 seconds but it takes them 20 to waddle up the court.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Dean Smith's pre-shot clock era UNC teams running the four corners with a late lead were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

I can reductio ad absurdum arguments too!

I think you invite these absurd arguments when you state categorically that the mere existence of a shot clock is "overwhelming evidence" that the majority of basketball fans think 20 seconds per possession is ipso facto boring. Most fans appreciate a team that plays a smart, inside/outside game where all five players can score and defend well.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Dean Smith's pre-shot clock era UNC teams running the four corners with a late lead were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

I can reductio ad absurdum arguments too!

I think you invite these absurd arguments when you state categorically that the mere existence of a shot clock is "overwhelming evidence" that the majority of basketball fans think 20 seconds per possession is ipso facto boring. Most fans appreciate a team that plays a smart, inside/outside game where all five players can score and defend well.

I don't remember saying this, but if I did it was in jest or exaggeration.

The majority of basketball fans think longer possessions are boring as compared to shorter possessions. I have no doubt about that. There's no poll or anything but the evidence is overwhelming- shot clocks, observing fan behavior, reading/listening to media coverage, etc.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable. I'm telling you what I personally prefer and why and pointing out that most sports fans and basketball fans agree.

LOL. Come on man. How many pages are going to continue this schtick before admitting you might be a little wrong?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here are some arguments you could make in support of the Wisconsin/Virginia model being enjoyable from a fan standpoint:

1. There are fewer stoppages of play per possession when pace of play slows. People don't like stoppages of play.

2. There are fewer fouls/trips to the free throw line per possession when pace of play slows. People don't like free throws, they're way more boring than live action.

I don't know if either of those are true, but those are at least legit counterarguments. Absurd statements about Loyola Marymount or the NBA all-star game or defending the fundamentals of a basketball strategy that doesn't seem to have any prolonged record of success at the highest level? Those aren't legit counterarguments.

 

[msudaisy26]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Not Wisconsin supporters, but I don't think anyone likes to be told what they find boring or having Dr. James Naismith over here define what is and isn't basketball.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks to Tobias for letting us all know what we should and shouldn't be bored by.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a #### what anyone here personally watches and finds enjoyable. I'm telling you what I personally prefer and why and pointing out that most sports fans and basketball fans agree.

LOL. Come on man. How many pages are going to continue this schtick before admitting you might be a little wrong?

I'll probably wait until someone (other than me) at least presents something contrary to the many many things I've pointed out that convincingly demonstrate this preference.

I'm happy to drop this, folks. You guys have actual Final Four games five days away to discuss. Literally all but two of my posts here on this subject (the first one and this last one making the pro-Wisconsin arguments) were because people replied directly to something I wrote. Don't want to talk any more about how most sports fans clearly prefer quick tempo basketball to slow? Just drop it, I promise I'll do the same.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Dean Smith's pre-shot clock era UNC teams running the four corners with a late lead were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

I can reductio ad absurdum arguments too!

I think you invite these absurd arguments when you state categorically that the mere existence of a shot clock is "overwhelming evidence" that the majority of basketball fans think 20 seconds per possession is ipso facto boring. Most fans appreciate a team that plays a smart, inside/outside game where all five players can score and defend well.

I don't remember saying this, but if I did it was in jest or exaggeration.

The majority of basketball fans think longer possessions are boring as compared to shorter possessions. I have no doubt about that. There's no poll or anything but the evidence is overwhelming- shot clocks, observing fan behavior, reading/listening to media coverage, etc.

Wisconsin fans are odd then. At the Kohl Center, they actually applaud when the boys work the ball back out to set up a new play if they don't get the shot they want the first time.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Paul Westhead's Loyola Marymount squads were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

Dean Smith's pre-shot clock era UNC teams running the four corners with a late lead were really the only college basketball teams worth watching.

I can reductio ad absurdum arguments too!

I think you invite these absurd arguments when you state categorically that the mere existence of a shot clock is "overwhelming evidence" that the majority of basketball fans think 20 seconds per possession is ipso facto boring. Most fans appreciate a team that plays a smart, inside/outside game where all five players can score and defend well.

I don't remember saying this, but if I did it was in jest or exaggeration.

The majority of basketball fans think longer possessions are boring as compared to shorter possessions. I have no doubt about that. There's no poll or anything but the evidence is overwhelming- shot clocks, observing fan behavior, reading/listening to media coverage, etc.

Wisconsin fans are odd then. At the Kohl Center, they actually applaud when the boys work the ball back out to set up a new play if they don't get the shot they want the first time.

No they're not odd, they're Wisconsin fans. I'm sure Virginia fans love their style of play too. And I'm sure back when Josh Beckett didn't suck Marlins and Red Sox fans loved him too. That's how fans are. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say that the average impartial sports fan greatly prefers a faster pace of play.

 

[The Commish]

Am I reading correctly in that we've hit the "please point out how my opinion is wrong" part of the discussion? This has become very bizarre "conversation".