question..how can you be that

[markymark550]

Originally Posted by thumpin big

If I had my way, the 3 point line would disappear. I have never liked it. I would probably also lengthen the shot clock to 45 seconds, or more.

I think you found the way to kill college basketball. I mean, think about a team like Wisconsin playing under those rules...that game would be unbearable to watch.

[cockypanther]

Originally Posted by Cockhornleghorn

There's a big difference in hitting them in practice and hitting them in a tight game.

A little, but it is the same repetitive motion. Muscle memory is a big factor. Sure you have to block out the crowd, but that is part of sports.

[cockypanther]

Originally Posted by scfanz

It's the same reason our college kids struggle against international competition; our kids lack sound fundamentals. The whole focus in basketball has now become dunks and slams. Travelling and palming are no longer called in the NBA and rarely called in college. Our kids are extremely talented athletically, but the European kids are far better fundamentally.

Very accurate to say and it goes for both athletics and academics.

[I Bleed Garnet]

Originally Posted by scfanz

It's the same reason our college kids struggle against international competition; our kids lack sound fundamentals. The whole focus in basketball has now become dunks and slams. Travelling and palming are no longer called in the NBA and rarely called in college. Our kids are extremely talented athletically, but the European kids are far better fundamentally.

Yea but those International players are also soft and flop more than anything.

The ideal player would have international fundamentals with American's toughness

[ucan'tlickourcocks]

Could fatigue be a reason?

Nah, in games we didn't play defense we shot just as bad in games we did play defense, or at least tried to! LOL

[thumpin big]

Originally Posted by markymark550

I think you found the way to kill college basketball. I mean, think about a team like Wisconsin playing under those rules...that game would be unbearable to watch.

When USC was in the ACC, in the "glory days" of USC basketball, there was no 3 point shot, and no shot clock. USC regularly played before sellout crowds both at home and away. It was the most exciting basketball I have ever seen.

[Ole Gregg]

Originally Posted by thumpin big

When USC was in the ACC, in the "glory days" of USC basketball, there was no 3 point shot, and no shot clock. USC regularly played before sellout crowds both at home and away. It was the most exciting basketball I have ever seen.

and then Dean came out with the four corners offense.

[markymark550]

Originally Posted by thumpin big

When USC was in the ACC, in the "glory days" of USC basketball, there was no 3 point shot, and no shot clock. USC regularly played before sellout crowds both at home and away. It was the most exciting basketball I have ever seen.

With the trends in college basketball going towards more defense and slower pace of game, taking away the 3 point shot and shot clock wouldn't make the game more exciting.

[thumpin big]

Originally Posted by markymark550

With the trends in college basketball going towards more defense and slower pace of game, taking away the 3 point shot and shot clock wouldn't make the game more exciting.

The shot clock helps the defense and works against a slower paced game, but I don't think it improves the game. The 3 point shot is the easiest shot to get, but I don't see why the easiest shot to get against a defense should be rewarded with more points. If you are going to give 3 points for a shot, it should be shots inside of 5 feet, which are only gotten when you beat the defense. I don't expect the NCAA to go back to the way it used to be. But I wish it would.

[markymark550]

Originally Posted by thumpin big

The shot clock helps the defense and works against a slower paced game, but I don't think it improves the game. The 3 point shot is the easiest shot to get, but I don't see why the easiest shot to get against a defense should be rewarded with more points. If you are going to give 3 points for a shot, it should be shots inside of 5 feet, which are only gotten when you beat the defense. I don't expect the NCAA to go back to the way it used to be. But I wish it would.

Scoring trends over the last decade or so do show the game going towards a slower pace, so the shot clock really isn't affecting the pace that much. When you get two teams that grind the shot clock and get their shot in the last 5 seconds or so, the pace is slow and not as free. Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm instead of the exception -- if it wasn't, then more than 2 or 3 teams out of nearly 350 would average over 80 ppg. As for the 3 point shot, it may be easy to get but it's harder to make so it makes sense to award an extra point (if you're in favor of a 3 point line). Don't have strong feelings about the 3 one way or the other, but if they do want to keep it, I think it should be closer to the NBA line. I do hate seeing centers and power forwards thinking they can shoot and fire away from behind the arc (and miss a ton of them). Moving the line back would curb that and make it a shot for the more elite shooters, which it should be.

[gsmith4776]

Originally Posted by thumpin big

The shot clock helps the defense and works against a slower paced game, but I don't think it improves the game. The 3 point shot is the easiest shot to get, but I don't see why the easiest shot to get against a defense should be rewarded with more points. If you are going to give 3 points for a shot, it should be shots inside of 5 feet, which are only gotten when you beat the defense. I don't expect the NCAA to go back to the way it used to be. But I wish it would.

Interesting take on the points in the paint worth 3. Makes since.
But I think that the shot clock is too long as it is. Should be 25-30. and the games longer. 24 min halves.
I also hate the way the game is officiated. They should call it like soccer, playing through fouls and giving cards. I think that would reward the offense and control the game. Also speed up the game and allow more athletic and physical Play
Couldn't hurt to shake it up a bit

[thumpin big]

Originally Posted by gsmith4776

Interesting take on the points in the paint worth 3. Makes since.
But I think that the shot clock is too long as it is. Should be 25-30. and the games longer. 24 min halves.
I also hate the way the game is officiated. They should call it like soccer, playing through fouls and giving cards. I think that would reward the offense and control the game. Also speed up the game and allow more athletic and physical Play
Couldn't hurt to shake it up a bit

Interesting. I don't know enough about soccer to understand how that would work in basketball. I disagree on the shot clock. If it isn't done away with, I would like to see it lengthened to at least 45 seconds. I don't think the game should be sped up by the rules. If teams want to play fast, they can. If a team wants to slow it down, they should be allowed by the rules to do that. I think the game was fine as it was in 1970.

[Emery]

Originally Posted by robgusc76

You're asking this about a team that has trouble with layups.

Exactly, the answer to the question 'why is USC so bad at FT?' is that USC is in general bad at all aspects of basketball.

Across the board, there is a lack of attention to fundamentals, but also basketball always seemed to me the one sport where just being big with minimal athleticism can make you appear to be a good player, but when that skill is tested (eg FT) in becomes obvious who can actually make baskets out more than 5 feet.

[SportyCock]

The shot clock makes the game more about athleticism and less about fundamentals. Likewise the three point shot. Having the line so close and the clock so quick exagerates the effect. Because I enjoy watching fundamentals, discipline and teamwork, I want the shot clock longer and the three point line further away.

But those are not my pet peeves. My biggest pet peeve is calling fouls on the defender when the offensive player initiates contact. The worst case of this is the defender leaves his feet on a fake and the offensive player jumps into him deliberately and obviously. Other cases are. A defender jumping straight up with hands raised and the offensive player goes through them to the goal and is rewarded with free throws. The rule should be the player initiating contact gets the foul with a tie (both causing the contact) going to the offensive player. Another peeve is how fouling on purpose at the end of the game is somehow not "intentional". This is as stupid as allowing spiking the ball to stop the clock as if it was not "intentional grounding". I must not understand "intentional" at all -LOL!

[thumpin big]

Originally Posted by SportyCock

The shot clock makes the game more about athleticism and less about fundamentals. Likewise the three point shot. Having the line so close and the clock so quick exagerates the effect. Because I enjoy watching fundamentals, discipline and teamwork, I want the shot clock longer and the three point line further away.

But those are not my pet peeves. My biggest pet peeve is calling fouls on the defender when the offensive player initiates contact. The worst case of this is the defender leaves his feet on a fake and the offensive player jumps into him deliberately and obviously. Other cases are. A defender jumping straight up with hands raised and the offensive player goes through them to the goal and is rewarded with free throws. The rule should be the player initiating contact gets the foul with a tie (both causing the contact) going to the offensive player. Another peeve is how fouling on purpose at the end of the game is somehow not "intentional". This is as stupid as allowing spiking the ball to stop the clock as if it was not "intentional grounding". I must not understand "intentional" at all -LOL!

I pretty much agree with every thing you said.

[me4USC]

Originally Posted by gsmith4776

I also hate the way the game is officiated. They should call it like soccer, playing through fouls and giving cards. I think that would reward the offense and control the game. Also speed up the game and allow more athletic and physical Play
Couldn't hurt to shake it up a bit

Cards are also given in volleyball. I think it's a good idea. Players, coaches, and the bench can get cards. Two yellow warning cards. Red card, you are seated and out of the next conference game (in our conference). There were too many players who didn't mind getting a red card toward the end of a game, so the conference officials stepped in.

[2000grad]

The game is changing...more on power dunks and jacking it up from the outside and less on basic fundamentals.

[OldPat]

Originally Posted by COCKDIESEL

I have also wondered how kids talented enough to make it to this level and that practice as much as these guys do an be as bad a the line as we are. But I'll be honest it's not just a USC problem. I bet if you studied the numbers FT% as a whole would be down across the board. I have also wondered why we can't recruit a specialist. A guy who's only Job is to come in late in a close game and get fouled and hit 85% FT's at the end of a game.

Back in the day we had those specialists. Called them guards. Sad, but true.

[Emery]

Originally Posted by OldPat

Back in the day we had those specialists. Called them guards. Sad, but true.

And we didn't use nets, we nailed peach baskets up on trees. We didn't have basketballs, we played with 15 pound bowling balls. It wasn't a fowl if you could still walk and we felt fortunate to be able to walk the 15 miles to the field.

Sorry...it felt teed up.