A digression from the depressing...

[Guest]

I'm throwing out this topic for a couple reasons: (1) I'm afraid I would disintegrate into a rant with the same observations most of us have been making about the current state of our team and (2) I want to see what people think and or if they are aware of any efforts to shift things back.

The topic is how the college game is called nowdays versus 15 to 20 years ago. I've had some discussions with faolks sometimes--well more like observations on the way college ball is currently played versus then. I think some folks here have referenced old video games they have seen of games past. But the phrase I ahve heard lately to describe the past is "soft defense." What I find interesting is that phrase implies that the current state ball is better than it was then. I think I would disagree with that. It may be a chicken-or-egg things, but although the game today is more defensive oriented, I would counter that the game is just called extremely different.

Hand-checking is prevelant even on the point in the game today, but back then, any such contact away from the post was almost always a foul. In fact, today's "handchecks" frequently involve forearming and even bodying the man with the ball, and yet there are now calls. A couple of other thing s that I have noticed for the past several years is palming the ball and how the jump-stop is now, quite literally, a hop-skip-and-a jump. I am aware that they are trying to make "point-of-emphasis" this year in order to clean things up, but I think that it is weekly being done, and it makes me wonder about the other facets of the game.

People will call me crazy, but I think that "the defense" aspect of today's game is actually very bad for the game, and is in fact an excuse for poor basic ball skills. The current game has been a slow degeneration into playground ball that I think was the result of try to appeal not only to fans, but the college players--in other words, the implicit or even explicint intent was to loosen up the game in terms of offciating (not as in fast-break, or more open floor) to bring a little of the NBA to the game. I think instead it had the opposite effect. The games tend to be ugly, and the players do not develop. I think this has become evident when we play international competition--we frequently not only lose, but look horrible. Although part of the reason is that internationl players have improved, I think you just need to look closely on how they play and note that play superior to us interms of basic play.

I guess my main question to the board would be: Is the way the game is now called/the style of play a bad thing? And, also, is anyone aware of any discussions to try to bring the game back to involve more finese? I know that Stern awhile back made a big release or speech more or less decrying the state of player development and the conduct/execution of the game even going down to the high school level. I also remember at the time the irony of this coming from the man who pretty much turned pro-ball into the WWE with its style over substance (in terms of not only marketing, but the play itself). Any thoughts?

[tornado]

It is what it is and a lot of the playground aspects have become too ingrained to expect they will ever go away...
the carrying the ball, the extra step and shuffle step everyone takes, the baggy pants, the trash talking, dunks, massive amounts of 3-pointers being taken, and the tendency to aim for the high-light play rather than the consistency.

I sure hope it doesn't deteriorate further into the thuggery and Ron-Artest-like play that the NBA has, or I won't spend my $$ any more.
So far, we have had an incredibly good bunch of kids at BU over the years, and I hope we keep it that way! And the step this season to clean up the carrying the ball and the coaches out of the box is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

[Double D]

IMO there are a variety of reasons for the evolution and physical play to today's game.

The one that I feel had the greatest impact was the widespread use of the Newell/Knight "Motion" offense during the 70's-80's. The amount of physical contact in the form of screening that was the foundation of that offense changed the game.

The Motion Offense moved the offensive game from one of spacing, passing, and cutting. with patterns to free lancing with the utilization of "rules."

The only choice that the defender has against this is to physically hold his position and not allow his man to set a screen. A player on the helpside is taught to "block" his man from crossing his face and screening.

This is just one piece to the puzzle. I am not a strong advocate for or against motion offense. It certainly has, however changed the nature of basketball, and the amount of physical contact that is part of today's game.

See, you learn something every day!

[Beninator]

It is what it is and a lot of the playground aspects have become too ingrained to expect they will ever go away...
the carrying the ball, the extra step and shuffle step everyone takes, the baggy pants, the trash talking, dunks, massive amounts of 3-pointers being taken, and the tendency to aim for the high-light play rather than the consistency.

Very true on all accounts... But lets take a look back to how our NIT team played last year and how the Illini played a couple of years ago that got their team to the NCAA finals. Both styles were TEAM concepts and very entertaining... So that gives me a little hope for the future.

As for the three pointers, I have no problem with this as long as the three is part of a diversified offensive scheme.

[ghunt]

IMO there are a variety of reasons for the evolution and physical play to today's game.

The one that I feel had the greatest impact was the widespread use of the Newell/Knight "Motion" offense during the 70's-80's. The amount of physical contact in the form of screening that was the foundation of that offense changed the game.

The Motion Offense moved the offensive game from one of spacing, passing, and cutting. with patterns to free lancing with the utilization of "rules."

The only choice that the defender has against this is to physically hold his position and not allow his man to set a screen. A player on the helpside is taught to "block" his man from crossing his face and screening.

This is just one piece to the puzzle. I am not a strong advocate for or against motion offense. It certainly has, however changed the nature of basketball, and the amount of physical contact that is part of today's game.

See, you learn something every day!

Thanks for the more technical insight. Two questions, though: (1) Would you say, though, that officiating allowed for this (either through slow implicit change or explicit "re-interpretation" of rules) in order to balance both sides of the ball, so to speak? (2) Given such offenses were in use decades ago, would this along account for the way the game is played?

Also, a couple observations/questions: (1) Basketball had always thrived when the benefit had been given to the offense--why has the NCAA allowed for the game to go the other way--"winning ugly" has downsides for the game at many levels--development, fan appeal, etc.? (2) Is it simply allowing for the lack of coaching and player execution? A screen has always been a screen, and you can always find ways defeating them besides just grabbing and fighting them--why let players and defense play the way they have been playing the past few years.

[tornado]

Both styles were TEAM concepts and very entertaining...

but that's where DRuff coming back will help a lot, as he will help with the teamwork we play

[Double D]

Thanks for the more technical insight. Two questions, though: (1) Would you say, though, that officiating allowed for this (either through slow implicit change or explicit "re-interpretation" of rules) in order to balance both sides of the ball, so to speak? (2) Given such offenses were in use decades ago, would this along account for the way the game is played?

Also, a couple observations/questions: (1) Basketball had always thrived when the benefit had been given to the offense--why has the NCAA allowed for the game to go the other way--"winning ugly" has downsides for the game at many levels--development, fan appeal, etc.? (2) Is it simply allowing for the lack of coaching and player execution? A screen has always been a screen, and you can always find ways defeating them besides just grabbing and fighting them--why let players and defense play the way they have been playing the past few years.

I think the officials have no choice. They can't foul 'em all out. Over the years the officials have adjusted with the style of play.

I personally hate the winning ugly physical stye. I think you need to reward the player who is able to hold his position without pushing or reaching, whether offense or defense. And maybe most important of all you need to PROTECT THE SHOOTER and the rebounder who is in position.

All the stuff about the Motion Offense is just a part in the evolution and it is just my opinion. I do however, think it is undeniable that it contributed to physical play on both offense and defense.

[Chico]

My only complaint with officiating over the years has been when a player fakes one way and goes another and is called for travelling, but someone can take 4 steps to dunk and no call.