NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (2 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

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".

We're even past that- I had to do it for you guys because I got tired of waiting!

Seriously though- I'm right. People like faster tempos. It's really weird to me that anyone would even try to argue otherwise. You want to be mad that I took an obviously valid point and used it to make some cheap cracks at Wisconsin's expense, fine, but come on. It's college sports!

I did like your comment that I should watch the games instead of looking at stat sheets, though. You bust that one out a lot. I can't wait to tell my wife that there's a guy who thinks I need to watch more basketball.

 

[TheIronSheik]

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".

We're even past that- I had to do it for you guys because I got tired of waiting!

Seriously though- I'm right. People like faster tempos. It's really weird to me that anyone would even try to argue otherwise. You want to be mad that I took an obviously valid point and used it to make some cheap cracks at Wisconsin's expense, fine, but come on. It's college sports!

I did like your comment that I should watch the games instead of looking at stat sheets, though. You bust that one out a lot. I can't wait to tell my wife that there's a guy who thinks I need to watch more basketball.

 

[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".

We're even past that- I had to do it for you guys because I got tired of waiting!

Seriously though- I'm right. People like faster tempos. It's really weird to me that anyone would even try to argue otherwise. You want to be mad that I took an obviously valid point and used it to make some cheap cracks at Wisconsin's expense, fine, but come on. It's college sports!

I'd recommend a bit more self awareness. I'm not mad at anything. You have an opinion like anyone else does and I take it as such. The "evidence" you've presented isn't much IMO. Yes, it's true that a shot clock was put in place to speed up play from Dean Smith's "four corners" BS. Oh, and don't think I missed the irony of you being a UNC fan. However, the existence of the shot clock today means that they think the game is too slow. I've heard Dickie V harp on it and Jay B mention it to (since they've changed the foul calling). He's also suggested that another foul should be added as well. Both make sense, but your coorelation doesn't.

It's all opinion at this point. Some people want to see up and down bball, others don't. It's really not any more than that. Teams take different approaches based on their skill sets. As long as it's within the rules, the solution is "correct" and part of basketball. Just because you don't like the approach doesn't mean it's not basketball which is your statement that started this whole thing.

 

[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

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 don't think you understand basketball. good defense in no way means more possessions. in fact it should take a team longer to get off a shot and thus fewer possessions. watching a team shoot 22% leading to more rebounds doesn't seem very exciting either. and quite obviously, quicker possessions would lead to more time in transition, more time dribbling the ball up the court, and less actual time setting screens. finally, floor spacing has nothing to do with the amount of possessions.

I applaud your efforts but its not coming off well here. you seem to watch basketball for the made baskets only. the more baskets (or at least attempts at the basket), the more exciting the game. if you understand the game, this is patently false.

its not like the old days when Dean Smith would run 4 corners for minutes at a time. every team has 35 seconds to hit the rim. the fact one team averages 21 seconds to do that while another can do it in 18 seconds does not make one team more boring than the other.

 

[Mr.Pack]

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.

Yea, seems to me TF would rather watch a fast paced HORSE game, than actually watch a basketball game and all of it's strategies.

 

[Premier]

I got FSU and SMU in the NIT tonight y'all.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I don't think you understand basketball.

Oh no you di'int!

 

[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.

I don't think you understand basketball. good defense in no way means more possessions. in fact it should take a team longer to get off a shot and thus fewer possessions. watching a team shoot 22% leading to more rebounds doesn't seem very exciting either. and quite obviously, quicker possessions would lead to more time in transition, more time dribbling the ball up the court, and less actual time setting screens. finally, floor spacing has nothing to do with the amount of possessions.

I applaud your efforts but its not coming off well here. you seem to watch basketball for the made baskets only. the more baskets (or at least attempts at the basket), the more exciting the game. if you understand the game, this is patently false.

its not like the old days when Dean Smith would run 4 corners for minutes at a time. every team has 35 seconds to hit the rim. the fact one team averages 21 seconds to do that while another can do it in 18 seconds does not make one team more boring than the other.

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan. I watch a ton of it a the college and pro level and spent countless hours reading and discussing it on the internet, as the NBA and ACC thread regulars will attest. I understand every argument that you have made here. But I think we got our wires crossed on the "defense" thing. I said there was more defense played in an up-tempo game. That is unquestionably true- there's more time spent out of 40 minutes actively defending when the offense spends more time per 40 minutes within 30 feet of the basket. If you walk the ball up the floor, as most slow-tempo teams do, there's less active defense per 40 minutes.

You're of course right that sometimes good defense means fewer possessions per game because teams struggle to get off shots. But I was not trashing good defense. I intentionally pointed out that Wisconsin's tempo on offense only. That's a deliberate choice, not a product of quality defense. Michigan State plays those same Big Ten defenses and manages to play at a much higher tempo (and has generally been more successful at basketball, too). Iowa played those same defenses at a blistering pace and managed to go 9-9 in conference with generally unheralded talent.

I do think the more attempts per game the more exciting the game, but that's an oversimplification. It's all the things that go with a quicker tempo. Fast breaks, secondary breaks, transition threes, mismatches, rebounds, loose balls, quick ball movement, drive-and-dishes, scorings runs- all that stuff happens more often in a quick tempo game. That's difficult to deny. There are a couple things that might happen more often that are undesirable for fans as I pointed out (play stoppages and free throws per possession), but that's small potatoes.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

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".

We're even past that- I had to do it for you guys because I got tired of waiting!

Seriously though- I'm right. People like faster tempos. It's really weird to me that anyone would even try to argue otherwise. You want to be mad that I took an obviously valid point and used it to make some cheap cracks at Wisconsin's expense, fine, but come on. It's college sports!

I did like your comment that I should watch the games instead of looking at stat sheets, though. You bust that one out a lot. I can't wait to tell my wife that there's a guy who thinks I need to watch more basketball.

It might be easier than telling her everyone likes faster tempos, and it's weird to argue otherwise ...

 

[sho nuff]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I won't watch any team that's slower than the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

STOP WEAVING GODDAMMIT!

 

[TobiasFunke]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

 

[jamil]

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 don't think you understand basketball. good defense in no way means more possessions. in fact it should take a team longer to get off a shot and thus fewer possessions. watching a team shoot 22% leading to more rebounds doesn't seem very exciting either. and quite obviously, quicker possessions would lead to more time in transition, more time dribbling the ball up the court, and less actual time setting screens. finally, floor spacing has nothing to do with the amount of possessions.

I applaud your efforts but its not coming off well here. you seem to watch basketball for the made baskets only. the more baskets (or at least attempts at the basket), the more exciting the game. if you understand the game, this is patently false.

its not like the old days when Dean Smith would run 4 corners for minutes at a time. every team has 35 seconds to hit the rim. the fact one team averages 21 seconds to do that while another can do it in 18 seconds does not make one team more boring than the other.

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan. I watch a ton of it a the college and pro level and spent countless hours reading and discussing it on the internet, as the NBA and ACC thread regulars will attest. I understand every argument that you have made here. But I think we got our wires crossed on the "defense" thing. I said there was more defense played in an up-tempo game. That is unquestionably true- there's more time spent out of 40 minutes actively defending when the offense spends more time per 40 minutes within 30 feet of the basket. If you walk the ball up the floor, as most slow-tempo teams do, there's less active defense per 40 minutes.

You're of course right that sometimes good defense means fewer possessions per game because teams struggle to get off shots. But I was not trashing good defense. I intentionally pointed out that Wisconsin's tempo on offense only. That's a deliberate choice, not a product of quality defense. Michigan State plays those same Big Ten defenses and manages to play at a much higher tempo (and has generally been more successful at basketball, too). Iowa played those same defenses at a blistering pace and managed to go 9-9 in conference with generally unheralded talent.

I do think the more attempts per game the more exciting the game, but that's an oversimplification. It's all the things that go with a quicker tempo. Fast breaks, secondary breaks, transition threes, mismatches, rebounds, loose balls, quick ball movement, drive-and-dishes, scorings runs- all that stuff happens more often in a quick tempo game. That's difficult to deny. There are a couple things that might happen more often that are undesirable for fans as I pointed out (play stoppages and free throws per possession), but that's small potatoes.

lol, wut?

 

[The Commish]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

I'm not sure what defensive number you mean. The argument that slower paced games = less time spent by the teams playing active defense is just observational/common sense, not stat based.

 

[JohnnyU]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

I don't know if UK has anyone that can guard Jimmy Chitwood. I also hear Wisconsin will be wearing those short shorts because it makes them play more fundamentally sound basketball.

 

[The Commish]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

I'm not sure what defensive number you mean. The argument that slower paced games = less time spent by the teams playing active defense is just observational/common sense, not stat based.

Sorry...I don't follow then. Is your argument "once the player crosses X point (half court I'm assuming) then defense begins" or some such? If so, why are you using that "x point" and not some other "y point"?

To me, you inbound the ball, go down the court and 15 seconds run off the shot clock, you've played 15 seconds of defense (for the purpose of this discussion of course). Obviously, if you're talking about "half court defense" then you'd start your count once they crossed half court etc.

 

[tri-man 47]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

This might be opening up the old debates on the three-point line and its effect on the game. My early memories are from the late 60s and particularly the 70s, such as watching Michigan battle the strong Indiana teams of the mid-70s, and the Magic-Bird championship contest. Great players who were in college for multiple years, and no three-point shots as a bailout option. Now those were the days ...

And to pick up on JohnnyU's edit: All of it in short-shorts.

 

[Timmay]

Bo Ryan shots fired at UK:

"I tell you, the people here in this state are crazy about basketball. They realize they didn’t invent it like some other states believe, but they also know they have a passion for it." "What I like about the Wisconsin fans is they understand these are student-athletes who actually are here for the purpose of an education first and playing ball second."

Cal shoots back:

"Our people don’t think they invented it, they just made it better. Our fans do have all the answers to every issue concerning basketball. They’re crazy. They’re nuts. They watch the tapes more than I do. I bet you there are fans out there who have watched more Wisconsin tape then I have.”

Cal playing chess, Bo Ryan trying to play checkers.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Education first.

 

[sho nuff]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

I think you are finding the majority here think Wisconsin plays "actual basketball".

I would think plenty of fans of actual basketball and fundamentals would laugh at some of what the NBA product is.

Its not back in the day...its just I enjoy fundamentals being used...not 7 step travels not being called or people just not playing defense much of the time.

Probably why I prefer college basketball...and really enjoy some of the smaller college teams more so than the uptempo teams taht are built off one and done type talent.

 

[The Commish]

Does UK only allow the uneducated out in public then?? No offense flap...you're certainly the exception to the apparent rule

 

[sho nuff]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

This might be opening up the old debates on the three-point line and its effect on the game. My early memories are from the late 60s and particularly the 70s, such as watching Michigan battle the strong Indiana teams of the mid-70s, and the Magic-Bird championship contest. Great players who were in college for multiple years, and no three-point shots as a bailout option. Now those were the days ...

And to pick up on JohnnyU's edit: All of it in short-shorts.

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

This might be opening up the old debates on the three-point line and its effect on the game. My early memories are from the late 60s and particularly the 70s, such as watching Michigan battle the strong Indiana teams of the mid-70s, and the Magic-Bird championship contest. Great players who were in college for multiple years, and no three-point shots as a bailout option. Now those were the days ...

And to pick up on JohnnyU's edit: All of it in short-shorts.

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

This might be opening up the old debates on the three-point line and its effect on the game. My early memories are from the late 60s and particularly the 70s, such as watching Michigan battle the strong Indiana teams of the mid-70s, and the Magic-Bird championship contest. Great players who were in college for multiple years, and no three-point shots as a bailout option. Now those were the days ...

And to pick up on JohnnyU's edit: All of it in short-shorts.

Agreed...I prefer a team that has played together for a while that they just gel a bit more.

Part of why I like how Wisconsin does things.

 

[TobiasFunke]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

I'm not sure what defensive number you mean. The argument that slower paced games = less time spent by the teams playing active defense is just observational/common sense, not stat based.

Sorry...I don't follow then. Is your argument "once the player crosses X point (half court I'm assuming) then defense begins" or some such? If so, why are you using that "x point" and not some other "y point"?

To me, you inbound the ball, go down the court and 15 seconds run off the shot clock, you've played 15 seconds of defense (for the purpose of this discussion of course). Obviously, if you're talking about "half court defense" then you'd start your count once they crossed half court etc.

Not sure why you're focusing only on the defense argument for the superiority of a high-tempo game, but ...

The bolded is correct. Defense- by which I mean not just time spent when the other team has the ball but actively defending against a possible score both on and off the ball- really begins when the other team is either within 40 feet of the basket or running a break. Before then you can get in position and call out assignments and prep for screens and switches and that's a less intense aspect of defense, but when the ball is within 40 feet or on a break you have to do all of that and defend the ball. It's more appealing to the viewer and more interesting to me. If you walk the ball up the floor there's less of that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

I think you are finding the majority here think Wisconsin plays "actual basketball".

I would think plenty of fans of actual basketball and fundamentals would laugh at some of what the NBA product is.

Its not back in the day...its just I enjoy fundamentals being used...not 7 step travels not being called or people just not playing defense much of the time.

Probably why I prefer college basketball...and really enjoy some of the smaller college teams more so than the uptempo teams taht are built off one and done type talent.

The majority here are fans who are getting defensive about Wisconsin and/or the 35 second shot clock and want to argue with me about what should be really not even be debatable. This is like walking out of present day and into Hoosiers. "Three passes!"

If you polled sports fans and asked them whether they'd rather watch a college game with 90 possessions per team or 50 possessions per team, how many of them do you think would chose 90 possessions? 95%? More?

BTW the bolded is pure nonsense and an instant forfeit of any credibility you might have had when talking about basketball. The NBA game has probably never been better. I doubt you can find any serious open-minded fan of the game in general who trashes the league in its current state. The 2013 Finals was the pinnacle of basketball for most fans of the sport.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan.

Every mistake made in this thread today can be traced back to this assumption.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan.

Every mistake made in this thread today can be traced back to this assumption.

Not pulling any punches, huh? You really know now to put a guy in his place.

 

[Premier]

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan.

Every mistake made in this thread today can be traced back to this assumption.

wow

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I like to skip the games and just watch the dunks on SportsCenter.

 

[The Commish]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

I'm not sure what defensive number you mean. The argument that slower paced games = less time spent by the teams playing active defense is just observational/common sense, not stat based.

Sorry...I don't follow then. Is your argument "once the player crosses X point (half court I'm assuming) then defense begins" or some such? If so, why are you using that "x point" and not some other "y point"?

To me, you inbound the ball, go down the court and 15 seconds run off the shot clock, you've played 15 seconds of defense (for the purpose of this discussion of course). Obviously, if you're talking about "half court defense" then you'd start your count once they crossed half court etc.

Not sure why you're focusing only on the defense argument for the superiority of a high-tempo game, but ...

The bolded is correct. Defense- by which I mean not just time spent when the other team has the ball but actively defending against a possible score both on and off the ball- really begins when the other team is either within 40 feet of the basket or running a break. Before then you can get in position and call out assignments and prep for screens and switches and that's a less intense aspect of defense, but when the ball is within 40 feet or on a break you have to do all of that and defend the ball. It's more appealing to the viewer and more interesting to me. If you walk the ball up the floor there's less of that.

I was asking about the defense part because you brought it up. Is asking a question about it "focusing" on it? At this point, I'm pretty much done with it and will allow someone else to swallow the hook.

 

[TobiasFunke]

TF...genuine question (as you know, I don't care much for the stats sites). When looking at defensive numbers, do they "start" at a particular time other than when the ball is inbounded? I.E. Do the stat nerds make a distinction between the 5 seconds it takes to walk over the halfcourt line (or whatever arbitrary point they choose) and the time the players "start" playing defense? Or is it as simple as looking at what time is left on the shot clock to see how long they were on defense? If it's the latter, you are treading into Tim logic and I feel obligated to warn you about that.

I'm not sure what defensive number you mean. The argument that slower paced games = less time spent by the teams playing active defense is just observational/common sense, not stat based.

Sorry...I don't follow then. Is your argument "once the player crosses X point (half court I'm assuming) then defense begins" or some such? If so, why are you using that "x point" and not some other "y point"?

To me, you inbound the ball, go down the court and 15 seconds run off the shot clock, you've played 15 seconds of defense (for the purpose of this discussion of course). Obviously, if you're talking about "half court defense" then you'd start your count once they crossed half court etc.

Not sure why you're focusing only on the defense argument for the superiority of a high-tempo game, but ...

The bolded is correct. Defense- by which I mean not just time spent when the other team has the ball but actively defending against a possible score both on and off the ball- really begins when the other team is either within 40 feet of the basket or running a break. Before then you can get in position and call out assignments and prep for screens and switches and that's a less intense aspect of defense, but when the ball is within 40 feet or on a break you have to do all of that and defend the ball. It's more appealing to the viewer and more interesting to me. If you walk the ball up the floor there's less of that.

I was asking about the defense part because you brought it up. Is asking a question about it "focusing" on it? At this point, I'm pretty much done with it and will allow someone else to swallow the hook.

I listed it as one of many things that you get more of in an up tempo game. jomar then challenged that particular assumption, so I explained what I meant. A very small piece of a larger puzzle.

 

[Short Corner]

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

USIU? Grinnell?

 

[sho nuff]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

I think you are finding the majority here think Wisconsin plays "actual basketball".

I would think plenty of fans of actual basketball and fundamentals would laugh at some of what the NBA product is.

Its not back in the day...its just I enjoy fundamentals being used...not 7 step travels not being called or people just not playing defense much of the time.

Probably why I prefer college basketball...and really enjoy some of the smaller college teams more so than the uptempo teams taht are built off one and done type talent.

The majority here are fans who are getting defensive about Wisconsin and/or the 35 second shot clock and want to argue with me about what should be really not even be debatable. This is like walking out of present day and into Hoosiers. "Three passes!"

If you polled sports fans and asked them whether they'd rather watch a college game with 90 possessions per team or 50 possessions per team, how many of them do you think would chose 90 possessions? 95%? More?

BTW the bolded is pure nonsense and an instant forfeit of any credibility you might have had when talking about basketball. The NBA game has probably never been better. I doubt you can find any serious open-minded fan of the game in general who trashes the league in its current state. The 2013 Finals was the pinnacle of basketball for most fans of the sport.

Are you seriously going to claim that the NBA product is that of fundamental and sound basketball?

BTW...seems the majority here are people who realize that "actual basketball" involves more than quick crappy forced shots and dunks.

That a team that passes well, moves the ball, and is patient and efficient is a form of "actual basketball"...as is solid and sound defense.

In addition, Im sure many "average" fans would like a faster paced game...I don't think I have denied that part.

I bet if you polled sports fans who have actually watched Wisconsin play...more would agree with the side arguing for them...than for you.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

I think you are finding the majority here think Wisconsin plays "actual basketball".

I would think plenty of fans of actual basketball and fundamentals would laugh at some of what the NBA product is.

Its not back in the day...its just I enjoy fundamentals being used...not 7 step travels not being called or people just not playing defense much of the time.

Probably why I prefer college basketball...and really enjoy some of the smaller college teams more so than the uptempo teams taht are built off one and done type talent.

The majority here are fans who are getting defensive about Wisconsin and/or the 35 second shot clock and want to argue with me about what should be really not even be debatable. This is like walking out of present day and into Hoosiers. "Three passes!"

If you polled sports fans and asked them whether they'd rather watch a college game with 90 possessions per team or 50 possessions per team, how many of them do you think would chose 90 possessions? 95%? More?

BTW the bolded is pure nonsense and an instant forfeit of any credibility you might have had when talking about basketball. The NBA game has probably never been better. I doubt you can find any serious open-minded fan of the game in general who trashes the league in its current state. The 2013 Finals was the pinnacle of basketball for most fans of the sport.

Are you seriously going to claim that the NBA product is that of fundamental and sound basketball?

Funke's actually got you here. Fundamentally speaking, the NBA is light-years ahead of college.

 

[sho nuff]

May be me talking out of my own ignorance (not watching as much NBA this year).

And while what I watched last year during the playoffs was better...the NBA had gotten to be almost complete crap to me.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I feel like I understand basketball pretty darn well compared to the average fan.

Every mistake made in this thread today can be traced back to this assumption.

Not pulling any punches, huh? You really know now to put a guy in his place.

Before you make any more statements about who the average fan is and they want, I highly recommend you listen to this. The link doesn't specifically speak to sports fandom, but should help with how to rethink the idea of "average" in this area.I'm working off the assumption that you have at least a modicum of intellectual curiosity. Based on your posting history I'm probably being a bit generous on that front, but given the non-zero chance you're shticking us, I thought I'd toss that out there.

 

[tjnc09]

Who knew FAMU and VMI were so exciting to watch?

VMI is a lot of fun to watch. Play as little defense as possible at break neck speeds

 

[tjnc09]

May be me talking out of my own ignorance (not watching as much NBA this year).

And while what I watched last year during the playoffs was better...the NBA had gotten to be almost complete crap to me.

The NBA season is too damn long. Too many teams tanking for half a season. I find the playoffs worth watching even when my team is out.

 

[Brady Marino]

I'm one of those that adores college basketball, but abhors NBA.

Does that make me a bad person?

 

[msudaisy26]

More entertaining is an opinion...and more entertaining to some does not mean its "actual basketball".

IMO, teams like Wisconsin play actual basketball. The type I grew up learning to play...the type that has been bastardized over the years in college and especially the pros.

You are absolutely right, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion of the vast majority of fans, and for good reason I think.

BTW trashing the pros as a "bastardized" version of actual basketball is not going to get you very far with me or most fans of basketball at all levels. It just makes you sound like a "back in my day" stereotype straight out of Hoosiers instead of a reasonable open-minded basketball fan.

I think you are finding the majority here think Wisconsin plays "actual basketball".

I would think plenty of fans of actual basketball and fundamentals would laugh at some of what the NBA product is.

Its not back in the day...its just I enjoy fundamentals being used...not 7 step travels not being called or people just not playing defense much of the time.

Probably why I prefer college basketball...and really enjoy some of the smaller college teams more so than the uptempo teams taht are built off one and done type talent.

The majority here are fans who are getting defensive about Wisconsin and/or the 35 second shot clock and want to argue with me about what should be really not even be debatable. This is like walking out of present day and into Hoosiers. "Three passes!"

If you polled sports fans and asked them whether they'd rather watch a college game with 90 possessions per team or 50 possessions per team, how many of them do you think would chose 90 possessions? 95%? More?

BTW the bolded is pure nonsense and an instant forfeit of any credibility you might have had when talking about basketball. The NBA game has probably never been better. I doubt you can find any serious open-minded fan of the game in general who trashes the league in its current state. The 2013 Finals was the pinnacle of basketball for most fans of the sport.

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

 

[Moe.]

The one where... is a Friends thing right? There has to be a better AD themed title.

This all really makes me miss subtitles.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anyone know what time the championship game will be on Monday? Am trying to plan some travel around it and google is not being helpful.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Anyone know what time the championship game will be on Monday? Am trying to plan some travel around it and google is not being helpful.

Usually around 9:20 Eastern

 

[Prince Myshkin]

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

and i'm not even an NBA fan/supporter.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The one where... is a Friends thing right? There has to be a better AD themed title.

This all really makes me miss subtitles.

Wisconsin fans with low self-esteem?

Dr. Funke's 100% natural good time basketball solution?

There actually are 2 AD eps that start with "The One".

 

[msudaisy26]

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

and i'm not even an NBA fan/supporter.

Obviously

 

[Premier]

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

and i'm not even an NBA fan/supporter.

Obviously

You are nuts. Lebron would destroy those defenses in the 80s. It would be completely unfair.

Your belief that everything in the league was better in the 80s has been crapped on multiple times. Almost all the players are better now.

 

[msudaisy26]

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

and i'm not even an NBA fan/supporter.

Obviously

You are nuts. Lebron would destroy those defenses in the 80s. It would be completely unfair.

Your belief that everything in the league was better in the 80s has been crapped on multiple times. Almost all the players are better now.

LOL, you are telling me Lebron would dominate Jordan, Magic, Wilkens, Bird, McHale and the list goes on and on you are insane. All the players are better now? Some guys that start on playoff teams wouldn't even be in the league in the 80's 1985 there were 23 teams in the league now there are 30 which means there is roughly 105 more players in the league now then roughly 30 years ago, the talent is diluted and the teams aren't nearly as good.

 

[Premier]

I grew up in the 80's and watched a lot of basketball with my father. You are seriously saying that the 2014 version of the NBA is better then the 80's and into the early 90's? Magic and the Showtime Lakers, Bird and the Celtics, the Bad Boy Pistons, Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The Miami Heat would be lucky to be a 4 seed back in the 80's in the Eastern Conference.

and i'm not even an NBA fan/supporter.

Obviously

You are nuts. Lebron would destroy those defenses in the 80s. It would be completely unfair.Your belief that everything in the league was better in the 80s has been crapped on multiple times. Almost all the players are better now.

LOL, you are telling me Lebron would dominate Jordan, Magic, Wilkens, Bird, McHale and the list goes on and on you are insane. All the players are better now? Some guys that start on playoff teams wouldn't even be in the league in the 80's 1985 there were 23 teams in the league now there are 30 which means there is roughly 105 more players in the league now then roughly 30 years ago, the talent is diluted and the teams aren't nearly as good.

Yea ok.

The 80s weren't nearly as good as your childhood remembers them.

And yes, Lebron would just embarrass guys like Wilkins, Bird and Magic on offense. They wouldn't have a prayer guarding him. It would be a bloodbath.