Tuesday: Does scoring equal entertainment?
THE FIRST THING I DID THIS MORNING WAS CHECK THE OVER-UNDER for tonight’s Virginia-Miami game (9 p.m., ESPNU). As you’d probably expect, it’s low: 116.5. Given that the Hurricanes are favored by eight, you’re looking at a projected final score of 62-54.
Considering Virginia won the last meeting between these two teams 52-51 and Miami won its most recent game (over Clemson) 45-43, a 62-54 final tonight would represent a veritable tsunami of points.
I BRING THIS UP ONLY SO I CAN POSE THIS QUESTION: Do you equate high scores to entertainment? Because if you do, college basketball might not be for you right now. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review had a fine article two days ago exploring the drop in scoring in college basketball.
Division I teams are averaging 68.1 points per game this season — down more than seven points from the high-scoring heyday of 1990. Ranked teams seem just as likely as unranked to sputter offensively. Last night, No. 25 Notre Dame slugged out a 51-42 road victory over No. 22 Pitt. ESPN’s featured game on Saturday — Texas at Kansas — wound up being a bust when the Longhorns scored only 15 points in the first half en route to a 73-47 loss.
THE ARTICLE PRESENTS SEVERAL THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THE DECLINE: the rise of physical zone defenses, the deepening of the 3-point line, the early exodus of top players to the NBA, etc. Regardless of the reasons, I’m curious as to whether the scoring drop has affected your enjoyment of the game.
I suppose I’ve never been one to wax poetic about the fluidity and beauty of basketball. Maybe it’s because I never played it at a high level. To me, the attraction of college hoops lies not in the action itself but in the atmosphere — bouncing students, deafening arenas, tight finishes. You can still get those without a ton of points, but given a choice, I’d prefer 89-88 over 54-53. I wouldn’t say the same thing for baseball, where I favor pitching duels over slugfests.
How about you? In your opinion, how much does the decrease in scoring affect your enjoyment of the game? I’ll hang up and listen.
SPEAKING OF SCORING: Crooked Road already got a jump on this in the comments section, but Berman has a nice feature today on Reggie Williams of the Charlotte Bobcats, who twice led the nation in scoring when he was at VMI. Berman (and Williams) draw some parallels between Williams’ role with the Keydets and Erick Green’s with this year’s Hokies.
TOURNEY TIME: Another big day for high school hoops. You can find all your matchups here.
NAME THAT TUNE
They got these pictures of everything
To break us down, yeah, to break me down
They make us hate and we make it bleed
But I got a lover, yeah
And she shows me how
To understand it, yeah to understand
I got a brother and
Well, he show me how
To make amends, yeah to make amends with it
February 19, 2013 - 9:00 AM
The scoring dearth does make the college game more difficult to watch. Sure, some of it is defense-related, but a lot of it is that the players just aren’t that good. A lot of 1-and-done players bolting for the NBA means that the best-talented players in hoops aren;t playing the college game for very long. What that leaves us with are 3- and 4-year players who are less talented, but who work into becoming solid players with time. Some of them go on to the NBA, but most do not. Changing the rules to more like the football/NFL requirements might change that, but I doubt that gets done. For me, college hoops don’t really begin to become interesting until conference tournaments and March Madness. The bulk of the rest of the season is there, but I don’t watch much of it at all. Give me a close game in the 80′s vs a close game in the 50′s. I watched a lot of those low-scoring games…I’m pretty sure I’ve taken naps during them and only missed a dozen combined points.
AMc, you might want to check on UVa’s avg. points in the last 10-12 games. IIRC, they’re averaging in the 78+ point range. I really don’t care about the betting angles, but I saw that stat before the VT-UVa game.
There are all kinds of reasons for the drop in scoring in NCAA ball. I’d put most of the blame on the AAU culture failing to instill any recognition of fundamentals in the players.
As for defensive vs offensive oriented games? You’ve got to have a good defensive team to win at the upper levels. The offense is exciting, but defensive skill wins games. Like you, AMc, I enjoy seeing games in the 80′s. I also enjoy games in the 50′s, if they’re the result of good defenses, not of inept offenses. The low scoring games make each possession seem more critical, each drive more exciting, and each 3pt shot more devastating.
The bottom line? I enjoy watching good college basketball, not bad. If it is a high scoring game between two bad teams, it’s still not interesting. A game between two good teams, regardless of the score? It’s great to watch.
You can tune in most college basketball games in the last 2 minutes of the game and most of the time you won’t have missed a thing. And the last 2 minutes usually take a half hour to play…..
If you want to watch true basketball, without all the 1 on 1 and dunks, true team baketball- the way it was meant to be played, watch the women play.
AMcF, I would be curious to know whether overal free throw percentage is down from what it was when scoring was higher. It seems like more and more bricks are being laid at the FT line. Just my 2 cents.
I’ve read several articles and columns over the last couple of weeks talking about just this. I think a big part of it is the increase in physical play to which AM referred. I half agree with CR on the AAU aspect, but not for his reasons. Unfortunately, if a kid wants to learn true fundamentals, he now has to go that route. Have you watched a kid’s rec. league game lately? I rate it somewhere between watching paint dry and grass grow. I know that level is for fun, but there are no fundamentals being taught, or at least none are being enforced. But if you’re a kid and you know the coach has to play everyone equally, or you motivated to listen to him or her?
Where AAU has changed is in the physical play that is being allowed. My son has played in 6th grade tourneys the last 2 weekends in Richmond and Winston-Salem. After the Richmond affair, he had more bruises than he does after a football game, and he’s a combo guard–he’s not banging down in the paint. The one thing that I’ve noticed is that the bigger the tourneys and the more athletic the teams, the lower the scores. There are also fewer fouls called in these games. I think some of the referees actually struggle to keep up with the action and miss a lot that takes place. It is harder for your shooters to get their shots off, and when they do, there seems to always be contact after the shot. When I played AAU, it was drilled into you: close out hard on the shooters, get a hand in their face, but whatever you do, don’t foul the jump shooters. Now the officials allow this contact.
That brings me to the last point that I’ve been wondering about that no one has mentioned. Has anyone checked to see what the average free throw avg. has done during this overall decline in scoring? It seems to me that it’s dropped like a rock. Your guards and small forwards used to always seem to be hitting in the upper 70% to 80% range. Granted, your big guys always struggled, but now it seems that 70% is considered good foul shooting. I haven’t checked lately, but UVa’s point guard, Evans, has always struggled to hit over 1/2 of his free throws. It used to be unheard of to have a point guard that struggled at the line. Just my 2 cents….
Sorry Bob H. I didn’t see your question until I finished typing mine. I guess great minds think alike:).
The game has changed from a run-and -gun (a la Loyola Marymount) to a more set offense play. There used to be two forwards and two guards and a center. Now, there is a small forward and a power forward, a point guard and a shooting guard, and a center that really is a screen setter and every so often can shoot from the perimeter (not every team has this guy, by the way). The players have become very specialized and to get them all invloved takes time. Even with the shot clock, teams take their time to get the shot they want. And, like football, if you have the ball the other team can’t score. A not so good team can hold the score differential lower by taking its time in their offense.
Coaching has made a big difference. Teams get back on defense after a missed shot. And, I would argue play better defense (Tech the notable exception). Not near as many fast break points now. There is a degree of parity among the teams from the highest to the lowest. Even teams with poor records have decent players. Therefore, it’s hard to run up a score today. And, most coaches really don’t like to run up scores. It’s all wins and RPIs and such, so the importatnt thing is to win; not run up the score. Not many teams use a full court press all of the time like UCLA did with John Wooden. No pressure equates to no pace.
And, my favorite, TV timeouts. Nothing slows a game down more than those TOs. It takes a minute or two to get cranked back up, and scoring generally suffers.
Scoring is down but it doesn’t really take away my enjoyment personally. As long as the game is close I can watch anybody play as long as both teams are executing. Now if the game is in the 40′s and teams are shooting 30 percent that is hard to watch. Fundamentals at an early age it all depends. There are good rec and AAU coaches and bad ones. My son’s team scored 57 points in a rec game of 10 and under bays Saturday so there can be scoring. The other team scored 41 and it was a ten point game early in the 4th. For young boys and girls it is harder than ever to find anybody willing to donate their time to coach a team much less teach them fundamentals. Kids are different these days too. When I was young and playing basketball we never touched a ball the first week or two of practice we just run. Now if you did that all the kids would quit. Fundamentals were taught more because kids had more patience to learn. Now you have to get into things quicker to hold kids interest.
I’d rather enjoy a competitive, well played game, than a high scoring game. It doesn’t matter what sport it is. Defense, pitching, anything else, is part of the game, and seeing a well played 38-36 basketball game is just as enjoyable as a 7-6 football game. I don’t need the scoring to make it enjoyable, but, in one of those 38-36 basketball games, if teams are missing wide open shots, free throws, throwing the ball into the stands – that isn’t a good game that is entertaining.
And . . . has anybody at the RT consulted with a real IT person to fix the disaster that is being caused on these blogs? You roll out something when it is ready, and not before. Bad links, pages not loading – Landmark should be so terribly embarrassed by this. Of course, there is a 50/50 chance this won’t even post.
People forget that the shot clock was created because of the perception at all levels that scoring=excitement.
College ball is more prone to messing around in some ways than the NBA. To wit:
1. The NCAA made the dunk illegal to stop Kareem. Because of that decision we never saw Skywalker David Thompson dunk in a college game. How much excitement did we miss?
2. The NCAA employed the shot clok to halt UNC’s 4 Corners Offense. The 4 Corners was uniquely suited to the ball skills of Phil Ford. Because of that decision we never saw an effective defense created (although UVA had them at home and let it slip away- Ford had fouled out and, I believe, John Kuester saved them – getting Ford to foul out was the secret).
3. The “Princeton Offense” was created so that undertalented teams could slow down the game against taller, faster, competition and level the field. How much excitement have we had because of that?
4. The ABA created the 3 point shot to create excitement. The NCAA eventually picked it up, but at shorter range. This allowed Providence to rain 3s deep into the NCAAs. Rick Pitino was the coach and their success started his rise to prominence. What would we have missed without that?
It seems to me that 140 -10 has an 75 point per team average but isn’t exciting. A 50-48 slowdown game is far more dramatic. I have no interest in a repeat of the Michigan State-Indiana State NCAA final between Bird and Magic. In that game, Bird and his team were so tight they tossed nothing but bricks.
Every game is a little different. Some are boring despite high drama and some are dramatic although they mean nothing.
I prefer a game with good fundamentals by both teams; well played, well coached, and well refereed. The score doesn’t matter and it doesn’t even have to be a really close barn-burner. AAU operates in a different space-time continuum. Too many games are scheduled and refs must keep it moving. The rule is “No blood, no foul.”
The new redesigned web site sucks. Takes too long to load.
I would rather watch a low scoring basketball game than watch baseball that puts me to sleep.
One problem with basketball is the fundamental of shooting have gone to the way side. Far too often, shooters are too focused at getting the ball through the rim instead of using their friend, the glass, and they need to learn to use the glass to bank their shots. That’s why rebounding have gone up.
And please, NCAA, get rid of the blocking/charging fouls. That is killing the game and far more of a judgemental call than objective call. If anybody flops, assess a technicial foul, that will cut down on the amount of flopping. Leave flopping to soccer where the men will kick anybody in the the arse for flopping.
Zman, the 4 corner offense was developed by Dean Smith because he was smart enough to realize that more possession equals more points. He was actually ahead of his time and now the possession stats are being used quite heavily. And, I still see college ball are still dunking the ball.
I would have to say the most exciting games I have ever watched were high scoring affairs. One was the 1974 ACC final won 103 to 100 by NC State over Maryland. This was when you won the tournament or you did`t go to the NCAA`s. Maryland may have had the 2nd best team in the nation and I think the next year was when they first added more teams to the tournament. The second was the NIT tournament final when Tech beat Notre Dame 92-91-thank you Bobby Stevens. In other words, I`m partial to high scoring games over multiple defenses and missed shots. Give me Bo Kimble and Loyola Marymount anytime. By the way, remember Bo shooting left handed foul shots in memory of Hank Gathers.
UNC was running the 4 corners before Phil Ford was there.
And it wasn’t done unless UNC was in the lead. It was hardly a come from behind type “offense”.
The highest scoring NBA game of all time occurred before there was ever a 3 point goal. None of Chamberlain’s 100 scored in a game were 3 pointers either.
Bob H. True but I would guess that the only Wilt 3 pointers were “and 1″.
Ralph,
LOL! Chamberlain was a horrible free throw shooter! He tried everything. He tried underhand, He even tried them from off center (to the right I believe) of the center of the basket. Nothing worked.
As he said in an interview once- they asked him to score more, block more shots, rebound, pass, everthing. But they never asked him to shoot the technical free throws!
peace out!
Bob h. what I referring to was that the 3 point basket not being in effect probably made little difference to Wilt because I doubt he would have attempted many.
I thought this was about dating…….DOH!
Trivia fact on the Four Corners offense – the first player chosen to run it was Larry Brown. Yeah, that Larry Brown, of Allen Iverson fame. When Smith first introduced it, he called it ‘Cobra’. Of course, the best guy to ever run it was Phil Ford. Ford’s unique ability with it changed it from just a time killing strategy to one where the Heels actually increased their lead, on average, under the Four Corners. In other words, they could begin it leading by 2-3 points, and they often did, and when they finally stopped running it, they might be leading by 10-12 points. It helped that Ford was great at dribble drive penetration and shot over 80% from the line.
I’m sure A-man will hit on this today, but I was reading last night about the B1G apparently extending offers to UNC and UVA to join them, and what potential implications it might have on college sports and conference alignments.
Enough already! Some of the early re-alignments made some semblance of sense, creating logical in-conference rivalries, and maintaining some sort of geographic and academic cohesion. In short, most of the moves actually made sense. Now? It’s getting ridiculous.
At leat when the ACC added Louisville, everyone admitted it was a money/sports play and not anything else…that was probably the first bit of honesty about it all. But these changes are starting to sour me on college sports. If it’s really all about the money, then I’ll just watch pro sports. The rivalries are established, it’s always been about the money so nothing is changing for the worse, and it’s a better on-field/court product anyway. I’ve primarily stuck with college sports because of the atmosphere, the rivalries, etc…things that set it apart from the pro versions. But, if longstanding rivalries are destroyed so teams can conference hop for a better deal, then that goes by the wayside, and I’ll stop watching. As it is, college hoops is a hard watch except for a couple weeks in March. A lot of college football is difficult to watch too, and bowl season is abysmal outside of a handful of games.