Leaderboard

This will clean this thread up and put it out.

These may be small contributors to the problem, but not the primary reasons. 1. It has been proven over time that the more athletic type player is more valuable. Often times they aren't the best shooters or the best at fundamentals. But they can shut down the less athletic players. This is why so many people have the absurd argument that the NBA had way better play many moons ago. Simply an incredibly idiotic take. 2. Coaching is better than ever. There is more money in it than ever before. More coaches take it more seriously than ever before. Large incentives for assistant coaches to strive to excel than ever before. Quite simply the defensive schemes and rotations are better than ever before. The advanced scouting is better than ever before. People know who they do not want to get open looks more than ever before. This is a huge reason why scoring is down. 3. The players have gotten bigger and more athletic, yet the rules have stayed the same for the most part. There needs to be rules that create more space. Like the NBA defensive 3 seconds as an example(not saying I necessarily think that rule should go into play). Wider lane also could help. 4. Three point line too close. It is impacting the game negatively in many ways IMO. Too many guys can shoot that shot. And therefore too many guys work way too hard on that shot. It is impacting the mid range shot in a very negative way, and possibly free throws as well. It is also clogging things up. If you extend it a bit you will create more driving lanes and also possibly change the importance of the elite athlete slightly, to a more skilled shooting player. Some of these reasons can be fixed. And some don't need fixing. The fact that defensive rotations and game plans are so good is not a bad thing. I enjoy watching great defense being played. This may be because I tend to identify under situations better in my career than making over plays. I think may eye has been trained to watch and appreciate great scheming on that end. OK where do I start? 1. Referring to a position you don't agree with as idiotic is probably not going to convince too many people from the other side that your position is correct. I don't think you're an idiot but I do think you are wrong because I believe the game was much better played many moons ago. If we are talking college it's no doubt the teams from earlier that kept their best players for 3 or 4 years were much better than today's college teams. The one and dones also lead to a less popular NBA. When you had your guys play for your college for 3 or 4 years you followed them and watched them in the NBA. I don't think there is too many Kentucky fans are following all their one and dones in the NBA. And the average fan doesn't even know who those guys are. You used to have the stars playing college ball for four years and people got to know them or at least know of them and stars are what attract viewers and ticket buyers. 2. You use the term "coaching" but then just talk about scouting which is part of being a coach. Scouting work is easier with every game being able to be digitally downloaded from your house but that doesn't mean the coaching is better. Your inference that people take it more seriously now as in they didn't take it so seriously in the past doesn't seem let's say very plausible to me. It was people's jobs then and its people's jobs today and their jobs depended on them taking it seriously and doing a good job. The Jordan Rules are one example of some serious scouting work being put in and then carried to the court in a systematic fashion. I believe scoring is down because you have fewer people in the scouting report that says "you can't give them an open look." Kobe just came out and said the international players are better basketball players. I don't think there is any rule that says you can't have more athletic players be fundamentally sound players as well. There has to be some good AAU coaches but there are plenty of bad ones and there are far more games than practices. If you want fundamental players (preferably fundamental athletic players) you need at least 4 practices for every game. 3. When teams know how to play basketball you can get players shots. "Don't let Steve Alford shoot" was in everyone's scouting report but Bobby Knight's motion offense taught his players how to play the game and nobody ever really stopped Steve from getting his shots. Practice rules now do shorten the time players can practice together and it takes a ton of time to learn the pure motion offense of Knight. That also leads to lower scoring. I'm sure someone tried but apparently there wasn't enough time to effectively teach TP how to move without the ball and create some easy shots for himself and his teammates. 4. I think you are right with the 3 point line being too close and the international lane might help but more people knowing how to shoot and post up would help more. I can't even remember who I was reading but someone famous just wrote about how they think AAU is also to blame for the lack of spot up shooters and post players because those two skills require someone else to pass you the ball and that is not what the AAU game is about. 5. You start by saying my thoughts on fundamentals might be small contributing factors to the reduction in scoring. Fundamentals, both physical and mental - do they know how to play the game, are the most important factors in someone being able to play the game well. I guess I will have to address the numbers on a point by point basis so we are on the same page. 1. I don't care who changes their mind. I know that the NBA has evolved into a more athletic league. It has proven to be more valuable than shooting, good fundamentals etc. If you want to think the players are worse and could not beat those of the prior era's that is your choice. I don't care. If I was wrong then the league would not have evolved in the manner it has. And my statement was about the NBA, not college. And my statement had nothing to do with what is popluar to watch. Popularity and what is more fun for you to watch has nothing to do with which would win. The only logical argument that could be made on why teams back then would win over todays teams is that there are far more teams and the limitations on player salaries etc are much different. But by and large today's more athletic player easily wins out. That is why it has gone that direction. Even in college the most athletic team is having incredible success.(Kentucky) 2. You are grasping at straws acting like I don't know the difference between coaching and scouting. Scouting is a huge part of coaching as I suggested. If you think otherwise, I can't help you. And yes, the scouting is easier now. That is a big reason why it is better. And coaching in general is better as well. The area it has shown up the most is on the defensive end. There are all kinds of variations of the pack line defense. And they are being ran better than ever before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that coaching evolves over time. It should be better than it was in past generations. And it is. They have more coaches to learn from. Obviously, when someone has success doing something, more people try it. Think football. Chip Kelly completely changed college football. Same thing goes for college basketball, although not as drastictly. But when coaches see a defensive scheme work, they will try to replicate it. And there is way more money involved than the days of yesteryear. There is far more incentive for assitant coaches to do a great job so they can become a head coach. I never once said people didn't care or try back then. I just said coaching is getting better. And it is. 3. We are in agreement. People couldn't stop Alford. Defenses were not as good back then. Defensive schemes have evolved big time since he played. This is my entire point after all. 4. Sounds like we are in agreement on the 3 point line. I didn't address the AAU game when discussing the 3 point line so I won't address it here either. 5. I didn't even have a fifth reason. But since you went there, I think your idea of playing the game well and what has evolved into the better type of players to win games are very different. Not more fun to watch for some, but the more athletic type of player is being recruited and drafted more than the shooters. Why? Because they have proven to be better. Doug Mcdermott is a good example. Overwhelmed in the NBA because he is not athletic enough. He certainly would have been able to be a hell of a contributor in the days of yesteryear. That is why I think it is idiotic when people make the argument that todays game is not better. Not more fun to watch for some, but better. I didn't know you were one of them. I didn't mean to insinuate anyone specifically has an idiotic take. I wasn't trying to count down your points. My point is it seems to me that you are operating on a false paradigm that you have to chose between athletes and fundamentally sound players. Players are more athletic now because of the use of diet and training methods. Earlier players could also have developed themselves more athletically if those methods were available then but a lack of a time machine keeps us from doing that. They took the best athletes of the day and taught them the game both technically and tactically. Meaning they can complete skills in a fundamental manner and understand the game well enough to know when and how to use those fundamentals. There is nothing stopping the more athletic players of today from developing better fundamentals. If the coaching is so much better - teach someone a post series. I don't see anyone in coaching today that understands the full range of the elements of basketball the way Bobby Knight or Hubie Brown did/does. It is my belief that when players are younger in their most important development stage they are not receiving the coaching that is needed to create well rounded players. I blame AAU ball for that. There is huge room for improvement in today's game because we could have better athletes implementing better fundamentals. I am a basketball fan rooting for better basketball. And the small and petty part of me feels the need to point out that there are not many different variations of the pack line defense. Like the dribble drive motion previously there become certain catch phrases that become overused and misused. There are lots of different variations of a sagging M-4-M defense but there are a particular set of rules that make the pack line defense the pack line defense. Personally I don't like what I see as an overemphasis on taking away the baseline in connection with the way they guard the post. Players will make mistakes and the way it is set up when you do give up baseline there is no one to help and stop the layup. The game keeps evolving. There is no way to take away everything. When you take something away, you create openings elsewhere. When the pack line first arrives it creates new problems. You break down that defense using all that new scouting technology and create problems for the defense. Then the defense adjusts. etc.

Also Jerry Rice went to college there.

They usually have the best looking uniforms in the nation each year, so,they got that going for them...

Miss Valley St. has been one of the 20 worst teams in Div I for the last 3 years so if by "decent" you mean a "Div I squad with uniforms", then yes

It's not Rivals--it's "Drop the Mike" from KNTK. Here is a summary: --Announcer pronounces his last name as something like "choo-kwoo" --He visited Lincoln on June 1 & 2 --He is a very private peson, and no one seems to be able to get a reaction interview --The word from other sources is that he really enjoyed his visit here and developed a strong relationship with the coaching staff --He particularly hit it off well with Tim Miles --The problem is that his list of potential visits keeps getting longer, not shorter, and includes some of the bluest of blue blood schools, such as Kansas, Michigan St., Syracuse, UCONN --The Iona visit is probably a courtesy call because he is good friends with a player there --What keeps us in the mix with those big-time schools? Lincoln is his first visit, it went well, and we'll keep pushing and try to hold on in the end. Burno recruited him for Florida out of high school, so Burno is known and respected by him and by those around him--this is an excellent foot-in-the-door Also, he would probably start from day-1 when eligible and be "the guy" in the middle for three years

I know!! And the reverberations from this move are going to be felt all around the college basketball landscape. Because, now, Murray State has had to hire a new coach (for which they hired a former assistant who left to be an assistant at LA Tech), which means LA Tech will now have to find a new assistant. And whatever job that guy leaves will eventually need to be backfilled. Eventually, it'll work it's way all the way down to even our level when I take the job that the former assistant message board moderator at mugoblue.com held. And then who's going to replace me?!? It'll take at least two posters to fill my job. And then who replaces them? It's just a repeating-reoccurring cycle that just never stops. Crazy, huh?

I have a good feeling and can say that he's taking most of those visits out of courtesy/politeness and for the sake of being thorough. Give it time. Hey may not choose to come here but we'll know soon enough. And we've got a lot better chance than you would think just by glancing at his list of visits.

Reducing the TO's as well as the concept of the 4-10min quarter game should have been the extent of the rule changes. The others seem to be over the top...