Please explain...

[nasdadjr]

Why does the NCAA make officials blow the whistle a million times until January then we get back to regular basketball? Why do you want to introduce your product as unwatchable garbage where the best players are on the bench year in and year out? I know they have rules emphasis to try and clean things up but all this garbage being called now won't be called later in the season with little player adjustment. It just doesn't make sense to put a horrible product out there when the game could be so much more fun to watch all season and not just the last half. The rationale just eludes me

[XMuskieFTW]

Yea it has been pretty painful so far. The first two games of this season for us have seen 52 and 44 fouls. That's on average 24 per team per game. Last season the most foul prone team averaged about 20 last year. It's obnoxious. I hope it changes sooner than later.

[bobbiemcgee]

The "touch' fouls were driving me crazy tonite. Can't ever get into a rhythm.

[Emp]

As long as coaches yank a player for failing to keep the offensive player in front of him, and can't figure out how to coach players to the new rules. -- could be a while-- it's going to be ugly. I favor watching unimpeded cutting, not the arm bar checking and sumo wrestling we got now.

So I'm willing to wait it out with whistles to bring the game back into balance.

[xubrew]

Why does the NCAA make officials blow the whistle a million times until January then we get back to regular basketball? Why do you want to introduce your product as unwatchable garbage where the best players are on the bench year in and year out? I know they have rules emphasis to try and clean things up but all this garbage being called now won't be called later in the season with little player adjustment. It just doesn't make sense to put a horrible product out there when the game could be so much more fun to watch all season and not just the last half. The rationale just eludes me

In short, the game is too physical. It was becoming too much like a rugby scrum and less about skill and finesse. Offenses couldn't even develop because defenses would just wipe them out. If the college game today was officiated like the NBA currently is, or how the game was officiated throughout the 1980s and 1990s, all the players would foul out in five minutes.

They tried this a few years ago, and it was on the brink of working, but they backed off of it. I realize that no one likes foul parades, but I really think the game will be better off long term if the officials stick with it. Keep calling fouls until the players adjust and stop fouling. It may take three or four weeks, but eventually it will stop and the game will be better.

[wkrq59]

Weren't the new rules supposed to feature a sixth foul instead of five?????

[xubrew]

Weren't the new rules supposed to feature a sixth foul instead of five?????

They were going to experiment with it in exhibition games and the postseason NIT (I think), but ended up changing their minds.

Having a sixth foul would do nothing to reduce the number of fouls or cut down on physical play. It was illogical to think that it would. The decision to not go forward with that was a good one.

[waggy]

If they would go to 4 fouls, now that might make players stop fouling.

[Backyard Champ]

In short, the game is too physical. It was becoming too much like a rugby scrum and less about skill and finesse. Offenses couldn't even develop because defenses would just wipe them out. If the college game today was officiated like the NBA currently is, or how the game was officiated throughout the 1980s and 1990s, all the players would foul out in five minutes.

They tried this a few years ago, and it was on the brink of working, but they backed off of it. I realize that no one likes foul parades, but I really think the game will be better off long term if the officials stick with it. Keep calling fouls until the players adjust and stop fouling. It may take three or four weeks, but eventually it will stop and the game will be better.

Agreed. Though I think it could take longer, the payoff will be worth it.

[XUFan09]

In short, the game is too physical. It was becoming too much like a rugby scrum and less about skill and finesse. Offenses couldn't even develop because defenses would just wipe them out. If the college game today was officiated like the NBA currently is, or how the game was officiated throughout the 1980s and 1990s, all the players would foul out in five minutes.

They tried this a few years ago, and it was on the brink of working, but they backed off of it. I realize that no one likes foul parades, but I really think the game will be better off long term if the officials stick with it. Keep calling fouls until the players adjust and stop fouling. It may take three or four weeks, but eventually it will stop and the game will be better.
In a couple games I watched, you even could see the adjustment from half to half. The refs need to stick to it, and the game will then be better for it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[nasdadjr]

I would think that touch fouls are not where you would go to improve the flow of the game. If you want to improve your product and the flow of the game eliminate the zone defense. That is what bogs down offenses. Add in defensive 3 seconds calls things like that but 50 plus fouls a game is just painful. I know eliminating the zone would have other effects like making it almost impossible for small conferences to have a lot of success against bigger teams but I also don't want to see the best players sit because everyone has foul trouble. Just my opinion though.

[xubrew]

I would think that touch fouls are not where you would go to improve the flow of the game. If you want to improve your product and the flow of the game eliminate the zone defense. That is what bogs down offenses. Add in defensive 3 seconds calls things like that but 50 plus fouls a game is just painful. I know eliminating the zone would have other effects like making it almost impossible for small conferences to have a lot of success against bigger teams but I also don't want to see the best players sit because everyone has foul trouble. Just my opinion though.

Well, then the best players need to adjust how they play and stop fouling. It was two years ago when they tried this and everyone was beside themselves with how many fouls were being called. But, close to mid to late December, it was starting to work. We were seeing more games where players were having to play defense that didn't resemble rugby. Had they stuck with it just a little longer then we wouldn't have this problem, but they backed away from it.

Last year, it was so aggravating that I'm to a point now where I just don't care. The players need to stop fouling. Knowing how to clobber someone in the post should not be a standard defensive strategy, and the referees need to keep calling fouls until it stops. It WILL stop IF they stick with it.

In the pre shot clock era, there were far more possessions per game and the scoring was higher. Now, I know high scoring and the number of possessions don't necessarily mean the game is better, but I think it is a very obvious indicator that SOMETHING was different back then. When you go back and watch games from the 1980s and 1990s, you'll see that teams actually had to do something on defense other than play a rugby scrum. Because of that, offensive were able to develop. So, even without a shotclock, there was more of a game. Even Hoya Paranoia, which was big bad Georgetown from the 1980s, weren't anywhere close to as physical as nearly every team is now. Shortenting the shot clock wasn't a bad idea, but ultimately that's not what was wrong with the game. The way the game is officiated is what slows it down and keeps offenses from being able to develop. They need to keep calling the fouls until that changes.

[XUFan09]

In short, eat your vegetables. They're good for you in the long run.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk