2015 NCAA Tournament Thread

[sancarlos]

This is the first time I've ever said this: Go, Duke and Kentucky! Because, if they both win, I win all three pools I'm in (including the Swamp pool.)

[DC47]

I'm a big winner in my pools if ineligible players are uncovered on other teams so that erasing wins (looking at you, K and Izzo) puts Virginia in the final four, Utah in the finals, and, just for kicks, Iowa State wins an extra game or two.

Given the state of the NCAA, there are certainly such ineligible players to be found, so my odds are probably 50-50. The investigation may take a few years though.

[brian]

Impossible not to root for this Wisconsin team.

[DSafetyGuy]

Tennessee got a huge upgrade with Barnes. Unless Texas already had a deal pretty much settled with Smart or Marshall, or another huge name, then I think they absolutely fucked up their basketball program.

They screwed up by running off Cuonzo Martin. Barnes sucks, but recruits well enough to keep his head above water (this complaint works for many coaches).

[A_B]

Barnes is an ace recruiter but terrible in game coach.

[Shirley]

I think Rick Barnes is unfairly criticized as a coach. He has been successful - and not just by getting blue chippers - everywhere he's been.

His problems at Texas may have been a mismatch between his style - physical defense, relatively plodding offense - and the kind of elite athletes he was able to recruit. It maybe that he didn't open things up enough or that he couldn't get those kinds of kids to buy into his preferred style.

That said, 16 NCAA Tournaments in 17 years? That's pretty damn good anywhere, particularly at a school with little prior success.

[brian]

I'm not going to kill Texas too much -- might have just been time for a change on both sides. It happens. Texas has the resources where they should be able to at a minimum make the tournament every year regardless of who is coach. If they can roll the dice right, maybe they get their Billy Donovan.

[Shirley]

I almost drove my car into a tree this morning listening to Mike & Mike talk about how broken college basketball is. They were responding to, and agreeing with, Geno Auriema's assholic rant from yesterday. They both agreed that the Tournament is great - nearly perfect even - but the regular season is really a disaster.

Now, how much regular season college basketball do you think those two morons watch? Maybe they accidentally catch a few minutes here and there when they're finished masturbating to an NFL game, but I seriously doubt they see very much at all. And then they watch the Tournament and love it - and yet as soon as some other moron (e.g. Colin Cowherd) rants about games they didn't watch (and he probably didn't either), they assume he's right, as if somehow the sport is played drastically differently starting in late March.

Frankly, that's the worst thing about the NCAA Tournament - all of the national sports media who helicopter in from their NBA or NFL coverage and act like they know a damn thing about the teams or players. It's maddening.

[Rex]

Such a huge disconnect here between the chatter and what is actually happening. The ratings are through the roof--the early rounds of the Tournament now rival the World Series and the NBA Finals (both of which are shown entirely on over the air television), and the Final Four blows away everything that is not football or a Game 7.

[mister d]

Yeah. I pretty much hate every single thing about college basketball other than the 40:00 of actual playing time.

[Rex]

Geno Auriema's assholic rant from yesterday.

I suppose we could make the men's game more watchable by cutting the athleticism in half and having only one good team, right?

[Giff]

Geno Auriema's assholic rant from yesterday.

I suppose we could make the men's game more watchable by cutting the athleticism in half and having only one good team, right?

Exactly. Women's college basketball is about the biggest joke out of all the college sports.

[sancarlos]

Agreed. But, on the other hand, didn't we just get done discussing how all the big-time men's coaches are too controlling and don't emphasize the offensive game enough? So, yeah, Auriemma is off base, and Mike and Mike are tools. But, the college men's game could certainly be improved.

[mister d]

Teams shot 30.6% against UConn this year. Is that because of the great defense men's coaches lie about or the same shitty offense the men's game is suffering from?

[Joe K]

Agreed. But, on the other hand, didn't we just get done discussing how all the big-time men's coaches are too controlling and don't emphasize the offensive game enough? So, yeah, Auriemma is off base, and Mike and Mike are tools. But, the college men's game could certainly be improved.

I agree with you. It'd be hard to quantify this, but I think that a big part of the reason why TV ratings are so strong for the NCAA tournament is because of how prevalent gambling on tournament games is. Due to the number of games and the popularity of bracket pools, the NCAA tournament is either first or second to football when it comes to being the best sport to bet on. (This is also why I think that regular season NFL games between two terrible teams will routinely get better TV ratings than the World Series.)

With respect to the quality of the college game in general, I think that coaches and officials leave a lot to be desired. However, I also think that the current batch of players receives a lot of unfair criticism. For example, for all the talk about the so-called "decline in fundamentals," this year's Kentucky team shoots free throws better and commits far fewer turnovers per game than the 1975-76 Indiana team. (And if you limit it to 2PT field goals, Kentucky's shooting percentage is almost identical to that Indiana team.) For all the criticism of AAU basketball, I think that young players today are more advanced than they've ever been. The current quality of the NBA game, which is as good as it's been in at least 20 years, and the success of young teams like Kentucky and Duke reflects this.

[DC47]

Good thoughts. I would have bet against the IU - UK comparison you cite, so count me among the baffled. Is this an anomaly having to do with those two teams? Or is there data showing a larger pattern?

[Shirley]

Good thoughts. I would have bet against the IU - UK comparison you cite, so count me among the baffled. Is this an anomaly having to do with those two teams? Or is there data showing a larger pattern?

Well, one data point is that despite announcers every year complaining that nobody can hit free throws anymore, free throw % has continuously climbed over the past several decades.

[DC47]

That can only mean one thing. Announcers are themselves getting better at shooting free throws, at a more rapid rate than the players. So they see the players as getting weaker.

[Rex]

All components of shooting are basically unchanged over the past 15 years or so, and offensive efficiency has if anything gone up over that period. This despite the fact that every year, new teams are added to Division I that generally weigh down the overall talent pool.

What has definitely happened, and there's no denying it, is that pace is way down, as more teams prioritize transition defense over offensive rebounding. There are other factors too, but I think that's the biggest one.

It's a case where the perception is understandable, but it is not reality.

[Joe K]

Good thoughts. I would have bet against the IU - UK comparison you cite, so count me among the baffled. Is this an anomaly having to do with those two teams? Or is there data showing a larger pattern?

I just picked those teams because of the undefeated thing, but this made me curious. Chris Webber was on Mike & Mike the other day going on and on about how much better college teams were when he played. So I looked at a comparison of the 1991-92 Duke team to this year's team. This year's team has a 56.8 eFG%, compared to a 57.7 eFG% for the 1991-92 team. The 1991-92 team did have a significant edge on FT% though, which is probably due in large part to Okafor's struggles at the line. The 1991-92 team also committed more turnovers (14.9 per game compared to 11.0 for this year's team), although some of that may be due to pace. So while I'm sure the 1991-92 team would be favored over this year's team by 5-10 points, I think this year's team would have a decent shot of pulling the upset.

[Shirley]

All components of shooting are basically unchanged over the past 15 years or so, and offensive efficiency has if anything gone up over that period. This despite the fact that every year, new teams are added to Division I that generally weigh down the overall talent pool.

What has definitely happened, and there's no denying it, is that pace is way down, as more teams prioritize transition defense over offensive rebounding. There are other factors too, but I think that's the biggest one.

It's a case where the perception is understandable, but it is not reality.

Exactly. I think it was SI that had an article with a graph showing that offensive efficiency has steadily climbed over recent decades, while pace has slowed. The net result has been a decrease in scoring, because pace has slowed slightly faster than efficiency has increased. And if you consider that there any many fewer easy fast break buckets today, half court efficiency is actually growing even faster than that chart indicated.

I think it mostly comes down to coaches being more analytical than they used to be and realizing that with a 35 second shot clock, the best D is generally not to pressure but to instead eliminate easy shots. Make offenses work for their points. A shorter shot clock is not going to change that. IF anything it's going to incent even more teams to play that way. Why risk playing the passing lanes for steals or full-court press when you only have to play steady D for 20-25 seconds before the offense has to take a bad shot? Shortening the shot clock will create more uniformity in how teams play and that's bad for the sport.

[A_B]

But even if the defenses change there will be more possessions, no? More possessions equal more point regardless of defense.

[mister d]

Less possessions if offenses are better at waiting for a high percentage shot and defenses are better at not allowing high percentage shots by over-committing.

[Shirley]

Less possessions if offenses are better at waiting for a high percentage shot and defenses are better at not allowing high percentage shots by over-committing.

Exactly. I really think a shorter shot clock will create many more teams playing a pack-it-in defense and so you may not really see too many extra possessions.

Think about Shaka Smart - is he still going to run his Havoc at Texas if he only needs to defend for 20-25 seconds? Why risk giving up layups just to create extra possessions when you're gonna get those possessions anyway?

The changes I'd rather see:
1. Don't change the shotclock. I think 35 seconds is about right. 30 won't be the end of the world, but 24 is too short.

2. Change the backcourt time from 10 seconds to 8. That will now incentivize more teams to pressure in the backcourt.

3. Eliminate the help defender charge call. If that's not your man, you can't just get in his way, stand still and then fall down to get a call. You can then also get rid of that stupid semi-circle under the basket.

4. To compensate for eliminating the charge, remind refs that defenders are allowed to defend their vertical space, even if they jump. An offensive player crashing into a standing big man should not be a defensive foul.

5. Continue to call hand-checking fouls. Do the same for grabbing or shoving cutters. Free up more offensive movement.

6. This one I'm still thinking about, but I think I'd like to get rid of the alternating possession arrow and instead award those balls to the defense. Reward them for making a play on the ball. If possession was unclear (e.g. on a rebound), it goes to whoever was most recently on defense.

[A_B]

Less possessions if offenses are better at waiting for a high percentage shot and defenses are better at not allowing high percentage shots by over-committing.

Exactly. I really think a shorter shot clock will create many more teams playing a pack-it-in defense and so you may not really see too many extra possessions.

Think about Shaka Smart - is he still going to run his Havoc at Texas if he only needs to defend for 20-25 seconds? Why risk giving up layups just to create extra possessions when you're gonna get those possessions anyway?
.

Well which is is? Not too many extra possessions or extra possessions you're gonna get anyway?

I don't think every team will be good enough to pack it in, and if so, teams will get shooters to hit threes.

[Shirley]

Poorly worded on my part. Pressure D is meant to speed up the other team. Create extra possessions. Teams like VCU already play higher possession games, so shorter shot clock likely won't affect their games, at least not in terms of # of possessions. They'll more likely play a more conservative D, because they will still get the same # of possessions, but without the risk of giving up easy transition buckets.

Again, one of things I like about college basketball (football too) is the wide variety in the way teams play both offense and defense. The NFL and NBA have much less variety, and the rules - especially for the NBA - are a big part of that.

[Rex]

From what little of the NIT I saw, I couldn't tell much difference between the :30 shot clock and the :35, except that end of game situations were a little bit more interesting because teams were not forced to go into foul mode until a little bit later.

I think a little bit of what's affecting the guys who fly in from 30,000 feet is the fact that the NBA is a lot better right now than it used to be. We weren't talking this way about college ball when the NBA consisted of guys wrestling to a 79-73 final every night. I'm not an NBA snob myself, but I understand where they are coming from sometimes. Of course, college games would look more free flowing if 95% of the action was low leverage like it is in the NBA.

[DSafetyGuy]

Less possessions if offenses are better at waiting for a high percentage shot and defenses are better at not allowing high percentage shots by over-committing.

Exactly. I really think a shorter shot clock will create many more teams playing a pack-it-in defense and so you may not really see too many extra possessions.

Think about Shaka Smart - is he still going to run his Havoc at Texas if he only needs to defend for 20-25 seconds? Why risk giving up layups just to create extra possessions when you're gonna get those possessions anyway?

The changes I'd rather see:
1. Don't change the shotclock. I think 35 seconds is about right. 30 won't be the end of the world, but 24 is too short.

2. Change the backcourt time from 10 seconds to 8. That will now incentivize more teams to pressure in the backcourt.

3. Eliminate the help defender charge call. If that's not your man, you can't just get in his way, stand still and then fall down to get a call. You can then also get rid of that stupid semi-circle under the basket.

4. To compensate for eliminating the charge, remind refs that defenders are allowed to defend their vertical space, even if they jump. An offensive player crashing into a standing big man should not be a defensive foul.

5. Continue to call hand-checking fouls. Do the same for grabbing or shoving cutters. Free up more offensive movement.

6. This one I'm still thinking about, but I think I'd like to get rid of the alternating possession arrow and instead award those balls to the defense. Reward them for making a play on the ball. If possession was unclear (e.g. on a rebound), it goes to whoever was most recently on defense.

I am down with all of your odd-numbered changes. Regarding the even-numbers...

2. I think shaving five seconds off the shot clock will incentivize teams to get the ball into the front court a little faster on its own. I am open to a future change down to eight seconds, but with the 30-second shot clock, ten seconds in the back court is one-third of the shot-clock, which is the same ratio as the NBA.

4. I think the real problem with calls on the "principle of verticality" is that many defenders think they are vertical with their arms straight up, but they are not. A lot of times, the defender will have his arms at a 20- or 30-degree angle off of straight up, get called for a foul, and walk toward the official with his arms straight up to claim innocence.

6. Make it a jump ball. While I understand the reward to the defense, if two guys get to a loose ball rebound off the rim at the same time, rewarding the defense seems to be favoring them over the offense for no reason. It's a rebound, both teams have an equal shot at it, why does one team get a benefit?

I also wonder if the "all tie-ups go to the defense" would lead to guys immediately going after a rebounder to try to cause a tie up just to get the ball back quickly, especially with a lot of fouls not being seen/called prior to tie-ups.

[Nonlinear FC]

All components of shooting are basically unchanged over the past 15 years or so, and offensive efficiency has if anything gone up over that period. This despite the fact that every year, new teams are added to Division I that generally weigh down the overall talent pool.

What has definitely happened, and there's no denying it, is that pace is way down, as more teams prioritize transition defense over offensive rebounding. There are other factors too, but I think that's the biggest one.

It's a case where the perception is understandable, but it is not reality.

Exactly. I think it was SI that had an article with a graph showing that offensive efficiency has steadily climbed over recent decades, while pace has slowed. The net result has been a decrease in scoring, because pace has slowed slightly faster than efficiency has increased. And if you consider that there any many fewer easy fast break buckets today, half court efficiency is actually growing even faster than that chart indicated.

I think it mostly comes down to coaches being more analytical than they used to be and realizing that with a 35 second shot clock, the best D is generally not to pressure but to instead eliminate easy shots. Make offenses work for their points. A shorter shot clock is not going to change that. IF anything it's going to incent even more teams to play that way. Why risk playing the passing lanes for steals or full-court press when you only have to play steady D for 20-25 seconds before the offense has to take a bad shot? Shortening the shot clock will create more uniformity in how teams play and that's bad for the sport.

Brian Cook with a similar line of thinking. http://mgoblog.com/content/there-no-col ... ing-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HaulCitgo]

I like #3 and #4 especially. College hoops has gone crazy with the charges and quick whistles on contested shots. Like night and day watching NBA guys challenge shots and what the refs let college guys do. Should definitely be a lot more contact permitted on drives to the bucket and post plays. Dont know about the 8 second backcourt call. Seems like too many teams would have too much trouble against good pressing teams. Would be fun but might also see some HS girls scores, especially at the lower levels.

[Bensell]

I like #3 and #4 especially. College hoops has gone crazy with the charges and quick whistles on contested shots. Like night and day watching NBA guys challenge shots and what the refs let college guys do. Should definitely be a lot more contact permitted on drives to the bucket and post plays. Dont know about the 8 second backcourt call. Seems like too many teams would have too much trouble against good pressing teams. Would be fun but might also see some HS girls scores, especially at the lower levels.

Agree totally on #3 and #4. I would like to see the shot clock no lower than 30 and want to keep the 10 seconds back court rule. I'm in on #5 as well and would like to see a true jump ball whenever a tie up is called. I also think moving the 3 point line back to the international distance and maybe even using the international lane to widen the paint would help the game.

[Bensell]

I'm more worried about Wisconsin than any other team this season, but I see it being close until the last 5 or 6 minutes and the Cats win by low double digits...

[DC47]

They'll be adding a couple more McDonald's All-American's during the last TV time out?

[Rex]

It's kind of crazy that neither this Wisconsin team nor this Duke team will win the national title. Geno can kiss my ass.

[brian]

It's gotta suck to root for a school that cheats it's ass off to go 38-0 only to lose in incredibly ignominious fashion to a Big Ten team with a buncha white guys.

[A_B]

It's gotta suck to root for a school that cheats it's ass off to go 38-0 only to lose in incredibly ignominious fashion to a Big Ten team with a buncha white guys.

It doesn't because pretty much everything you wrote is or will prove false.

[DC47]

Even the losing and white guys part?

[howard]

This is a pretty good game. Despite a few bad calls.

[brian]

It's gotta suck to root for a school that cheats it's ass off to go 38-0 only to lose in incredibly ignominious fashion to a Big Ten team with a buncha white guys.

It doesn't because pretty much everything you wrote is or will prove false.

On the bright side you don't have to worry about the NCAA invalidating the season.

[brian]

John Calipari. Most overrated coach in history?