Proposed rules changes

[cubuffs85]

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/98473/rules-committee-talks-changes

On the agenda for discussion:

Reducing the number of timeouts allotted to each team in a game; widening the lane; limiting a coach’s ability to call a timeout in a live ball situation; allowing 10 seconds total in a backcourt situation rather than a new 10 seconds after an out of bounds play; reducing the shot clock; considering the NBA continuation; eliminating the de facto timeout that ensues after a player fouls out; and not allowing a player to score when a charge has been called.

Sign me up for this one - I'd do 30.

The most controversial -- like reducing the shot clock -- will no doubt be the hardest to sell, but Hyland remembered when coaches also were reluctant to add a 3-point line and any shot clock at all.

“I think it’s time to really consider 30,” Brey said. “If it went to 24, they’d burn the castle down.”

 

[CVilleBuff]

I'd love to go to 30, but it's debatable how it would affect Tadball.

 

[torero]

Two on there I hate: The backcourt 10 second proposal, and considering NBA continuation. Strongly dislike both of those. Everything else I think is reasonable.

Rule change I'd like to see considered: not stopping play on a shot clock violation when the defensive team has clear control. Penalizes the defense and prevents fast break opportunities.

 

[jcatcher]

I'm in favor of all of them, especially in regards to timeouts.

The continuation play is problematic in the way different refs rule it, but you shouldn't be able to kill a good play by hacking a guy on a drive at the free throw line.

 

[Goose]

Two on there I hate: The backcourt 10 second proposal, and considering NBA continuation. Strongly dislike both of those. Everything else I think is reasonable.

See, I LOVE the 10 second proposal. I hate that teams can call a time out and get bailed out after 8 seconds back there. Make them work for it.

 

[RollTad21]

See, I LOVE the 10 second proposal. I hate that teams can call a time out and get bailed out after 8 seconds back there. Make them work for it.

I agree with this. I don't understand why it is reset. Very much a bailout for the offense. Not to mention it seems like the refs just look at the shot clock anyway. There were a few times in the tourney where the refs mistakenly made a 10 second call because the shot clock hit 25, forgetting that the offense had called a timeout. I'm most in favor of this one actually.

The continuation I don't like, but it seems like refs are started to call it even though it wasn't a rule last year.

Not being able to score if a charge is called is one that doesn't ever seem to be called anyway (i.e. count the basket, but offensive foul) so not sure it would change much.

I like the 30 second shot clock because it means more possessions.

 

[Buffnik]

I'd love to go to 30, but it's debatable how it would affect Tadball.

I would think that it would improve defensive efficiency numbers a bit while somewhat raising overall scoring. Token pressure in the backcourt and teams would have about 20 seconds to find a shot from the time they got the ball up to within 25 feet of the rim.

 

[CVilleBuff]

I would think that it would improve defensive efficiency numbers a bit while somewhat raising overall scoring. Token pressure in the backcourt and teams would have about 20 seconds to find a shot from the time they got the ball up to within 25 feet of the rim.

I do think our defense would be benefitted by it. However, we struggle on offense to find a good look as it is with 35. Probably cancels each other out.

 

[jcatcher]

I do think our defense would be benefitted by it. However, we struggle on offense to find a good look as it is with 35. Probably cancels each other out.

In the halfcourt, somewhat. The Buffs actually average 17.8 seconds per offensive possession, slightly faster than the D1 average, which is 18 seconds.

 

[CVilleBuff]

In the halfcourt, somewhat. The Buffs actually average 17.8 seconds per offensive possession, slightly faster than the D1 average, which is 18 seconds.

Gotta be offset by when we can get out in transition...and the occasional contested shot 6 seconds into a possession.

 

[jcatcher]

Gotta be offset by when we can get out in transition...and the occasional contested shot 6 seconds into a possession.

Yeah, you're right, but even the slowest team in the country (Delaware State) only take an average of 22 seconds to take a shot. If you can't get a good look in 30 seconds, you're probably not going to get one with 35.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

I really hope the 10 second reset is eliminated....punishes good defensive effort...may entice more teams to go full court pressure which speeds up the game as well

Shot clock at 30 makes a lot of sense....will force teams to get into their offense sooner (I am looking at you CU)

 

[Buffnik]

I definitely think a 30 second shot clock increases CU's home court advantage by pushing the pace of the game.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

I definitely think a 30 second shot clock increases CU's home court advantage by pushing the pace of the game.

Any chance Boyle goes to more full court pressure...even without Dinwiddie we have a lot of depth and would think that pushing the defense to 94 feet would be of great benefit to us defensively and increase easy offense

 

[Buffenuf]

I definitely think a 30 second shot clock increases CU's home court advantage by pushing the pace of the game.

You want a real increase in the pace and scoring? Go to the 30 sec. SC and eliminate the full shot clock re-set after the offensive team regains possession in the forecourt.

Why should the offense get another full thirty seconds when the ball is already in the forecourt? The shot clock anticipates 10 seconds it tales the bring the ball upcourt and when the shot clock is reset when the "O" regains possession, it is really a time waster, since the average team takes only 18 secs. to run its offense.

 

[DBT]

I agree that the 30 second clock should help defensive efficiency by forcing the offense to speed up. However, if they widen the lane, wouldn't that kind of open up the offenses in the paint?

 

[Buffnik]

I agree that the 30 second clock should help defensive efficiency by forcing the offense to speed up. However, if they widen the lane, wouldn't that kind of open up the offenses in the paint?

How so? There's no prohibition against zone defense in college. The only thing a wider lane would change would be the 3 second rule on the offense, which would seem to have the effect of making the game even less about back-to-the-basket post players and more about jump shooters.

 

[DBT]

How so? There's no prohibition against zone defense in college. The only thing a wider lane would change would be the 3 second rule on the offense, which would seem to have the effect of making the game even less about back-to-the-basket post players and more about jump shooters.

NEVER ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTI0N!!

What I was thinking, anyway, and I'm no basketball expert, is that widening the lane would create more space under the basket for guys to drive to the hoop. But you are right. On top of widening the lane, they'd have to add a defensive 3 second rule.

 

[RumblinBuff]

Reducing the number of timeouts, and limiting a coach's ability to call one in-game? Sean Miller strongly disagrees.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

NEVER ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTI0N!!

What I was thinking, anyway, and I'm no basketball expert, is that widening the lane would create more space under the basket for guys to drive to the hoop. But you are right. On top of widening the lane, they'd have to add a defensive 3 second rule.

I'm not sure the refs could get that right. They have trouble calling the 3 second violation on the offense.

Count me in the contingent who would love to see the 30 second shot clock. The other proposed changes are kinda meh.

 

[RollTad21]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...aa-proposal-force-hardship-transfers-sit-year

I would like to see this rule change, or something similar. I think the transfer hardship gets abused frequently. Like the O'Neil kid at Baylor who transferred to be closer to a relative he barely knew. And just about all of the Oregon transfers.

 

[jgisland]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...aa-proposal-force-hardship-transfers-sit-year

I would like to see this rule change, or something similar. I think the transfer hardship gets abused frequently. Like the O'Neil kid at Baylor who transferred to be closer to a relative he barely knew. And just about all of the Oregon transfers.

I agree that the rule gets abused, but Royce O'Neale isn't a great example. His grandfather (who he is very close to) and his sister were both sick which led to his transfer, he picked Baylor b/c it was the closest to his hometown. He was also happy at DU, it wasn't like it was trying to get out of a situation and tried to use the rule as an easy escape.

 

[RollTad21]

I agree that the rule gets abused, but Royce O'Neale isn't a great example. His grandfather (who he is very close to) and his sister were both sick which led to his transfer, he picked Baylor b/c it was the closest to his hometown. He was also happy at DU, it wasn't like it was trying to get out of a situation and tried to use the rule as an easy escape.

Hmm thought I had heard it was him. Either bad memory or bad information. I apologize. I know that it has happened before and for various other reasons. However, if CU can get an impact transfer that doesn't have to sit out before the rule change I won't complain.

 

[Professor3]

I definitely think a 30 second shot clock increases CU's home court advantage by pushing the pace of the game.

+1