Don't know Who Will Win NC Game

[DenverSooner]

Three point line?
Restricted area?
Larger lane?
Contact above the shoulders?
Shot clock?

That was five in about 15 seconds.



NBA hall of famers would have been good college players this year? Get out of here.

The best of the best would still be some of the stars, but the surrounding talent pool is so much deeper than it was 20-30-40 years ago. It isn't even really close.

The shot clock has been around for a long time. The three point line has been around for a long time. Contact above the shoulders was always a foul. The restricted area makes it easier in my opinion because prior to the rule change it was a judgment call. I didn't know the lane was increased in size but I don't see how that makes it more difficult to officiate. There was a lane and 3 second rule for a long time. I would say none of those rule changes make much difference.

If you don't like my examples look at guys like Nolan Johnson, Corey Brewer, Nate Erdman, Skeeter Henry, Jeff Webster, Brent Price, Ryan Minor, Randy Rutherford, Bryant Reeves, Byron Houston, etc. (I named guys at OU and OSU because people are more apt to be familiar with them). All of those guys would be just fine in today's college game. A star from 20 or 30 years ago would be a star today.

I also disagree that there is more talent. A solid role player from 20-30 years ago would be a solid role player today. I would argue if anything with scholarship limitations, early entries into the draft, tougher academic requirements and more teams playing d-1 there is less surrounding talent at the big schools. I think young people always want to believe their generation is better than piror generations. I just don't think it is really true. There simply isn't enough time for their to have been any measurable difference in genetics.

You can go backwords too. Siva, McGary, Hancock, Rice III, Hardaway Jr. etc. would be good players in the 80s.

 

[DenverSooner]

How about track and field records being shattered, despite far more stringent drug testing?

If no one ever recorded those results, there would be people arguing that Carl Lewis was faster than Usain Bolt.

That is a good point but I would argue reocrds fall based on glass ceilings being broken. People truly believed it was not possible to run a 4 minute mile and therefore no one could do it. You must believe it can be done before it can be done. Alan Bannister (I think that is the first guy to run 4 minute mile) proved it could be done. Once he did it, others believed they could do it too and then they did it.

 

[KBaden145]

It's easier to officiate a junior high game than it is an NBA game. Officials have to adjust to the athleticism, but it makes it more difficult.

If you think officiating is worse nowadays, I can't disprove that. However, I find it hard to believe that officials are not held more accountable and evaluated more thoroughly than they were in the past. There is just so much more at stake. With more televised games, more media coverage, more replays, DVR, etc., every aspect of the game gets so heavily scrutinized that it warps public opinion.

My point is, while the quality of the athlete has improved, the quality of the play and flow of the game of basketball has decreased for a lot of reasons. In my opinion, one of those reasons is the quality of the individual basketball officials and their ability to officiate games at a consistently high level have decreased.

I don't know the exact reasons why but I would guess the pool to draw officials from for college and the NBA, in turn, is just not as deep as it once was. Tough job. Who would want to do it? Not much gratitude and nobody cares what your name is unless you screw up. I have as much empathy for basketball officials as anyone. I've lived with one all my life but it can be better than it is right now.

 

[WTSooner]

I do not remotely believe the athletes are better.

You are wrong.

All you have to do is look at the "raw" sports, and how those records fall on an almost annual basis. I'm talking about track and field sports. Swimming. Stuff like that.

This isn't about how good players are now vs how good they were 20 years ago. Larry Bird would still be a great basketball player in today's NBA. But to say today's athlete isn't, on average, ahead of the athletes of 20 years ago, is crazy.

Edit: Just noticed this has already been discussed.

 

[WTSooner]

Three point line?
Restricted area?
Larger lane?
Contact above the shoulders?
Shot clock?

That was five in about 15 seconds.

Exactly.

Changes in emphasis. The goaltending rule as been modified. The actual backcourt rule changed several years back at certain levels.

 

[DopeCheese]

Agreed, the changing margins in calls should be consistent amongst games. And agreed, adaptation is a part of sports. However, I would not be surprised if certain teams performed better than others with a wider strike zone/easier goaltending call/etc. Is there any way to enforce consistency between games and refs?

 

[Smash Williams]

That is a good point but I would argue reocrds fall based on glass ceilings being broken. People truly believed it was not possible to run a 4 minute mile and therefore no one could do it. You must believe it can be done before it can be done. Alan Bannister (I think that is the first guy to run 4 minute mile) proved it could be done. Once he did it, others believed they could do it too and then they did it.

I don't understand this logic. You believe that because people didn't think it was possible to run a 4-minute mile, that runners didn't push themselves to do it? You think Carl Lewis didn't run a 9.58 100m like Usain Bolt because Lewis didn't believe that time was possible? There are runners today who believe that a sub-9.00 100m is humanly possible; a 9.58 20-30 years ago wasn't more unthinkable than that.

You can rely on pseudo-psychology to explain why today's runners destroy their predecessors, or you can consider that a lot more money and time are being invested in numerous areas--including nutrition, kinetics, medicine--so that there is a much better understanding of how to maximize performance. That goes for every major sport, including basketball.

 

[campbest]

They each got assignments despite their part in that game, correct?

Correct, and they were penalized a couple rounds what they would normally work (i.e. had games removed). Their schedules for next season usually don't come out until September/October, so any effect on the regular season won't be seen until then.

 

[Smash Williams]

My point is, while the quality of the athlete has improved, the quality of the play and flow of the game of basketball has decreased for a lot of reasons. In my opinion, one of those reasons is the quality of the individual basketball officials and their ability to officiate games at a consistently high level have decreased.

I don't know the exact reasons why but I would guess the pool to draw officials from for college and the NBA, in turn, is just not as deep as it once was. Tough job. Who would want to do it? Not much gratitude and nobody cares what your name is unless you screw up. I have as much empathy for basketball officials as anyone. I've lived with one all my life but it can be better than it is right now.

NBA officials start at six figures, and some of the veterans reportedly make mid-six-figures. It's a tough job, but that's a very strong incentive.

I know it's rare to reach that level, but I can't imagine the financial incentives at lower levels are any worse than they once were, though I imagine you would have more insight into that than I do.

 

[campbest]

It's easier to officiate a junior high game than it is an NBA game. Officials have to adjust to the athleticism, but it makes it more difficult.

If you think officiating is worse nowadays, I can't disprove that. However, I find it hard to believe that officials are not held more accountable and evaluated more thoroughly than they were in the past. There is just so much more at stake. With more televised games, more media coverage, more replays, DVR, etc., every aspect of the game gets so heavily scrutinized that it warps public opinion.

This. Everything is magnified in today's age and bad calls are identified almost immediately with replay, HD cameras, slow motion, etc.

 

[DenverSooner]

You are wrong.

All you have to do is look at the "raw" sports, and how those records fall on an almost annual basis. I'm talking about track and field sports. Swimming. Stuff like that.

This isn't about how good players are now vs how good they were 20 years ago. Larry Bird would still be a great basketball player in today's NBA. But to say today's athlete isn't, on average, ahead of the athletes of 20 years ago, is crazy.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do recognize that records in certain sports make a strong argument but the problem is it suggests that humans are genitically superior in a single generation or two generations and I don't believe that is possible. Evolution takes time.

I would suggest the only difference is training techniques and in some sports technology. (Golf is a good example of technology. Swim suits are also superior today).

If you acknowledge that the very best are not materially different then why do you assume the surrounding players are different? To me it is silly to suggest the very best of the prior generation are similar but there is a material difference with the surrounding players. If that was actually true wouldn't points per game go down for the best players? Wouldn't records in team sports be unattainable? How could Lebron James socre like Michael Jordan if the two are equivalent but James is playing against far superior supporting players?

 

[campbest]

The shot clock has been around for a long time. The three point line has been around for a long time. Contact above the shoulders was always a foul. The restricted area makes it easier in my opinion because prior to the rule change it was a judgment call. I didn't know the lane was increased in size but I don't see how that makes it more difficult to officiate. There was a lane and 3 second rule for a long time. I would say none of those rule changes make much difference.

The restricted area makes the block/charge more difficult IMO. Not only do you have to determine "legal guarding position", you have to check an area outside the point of contact.

Now, do I think it is a bad rule? Not at all, if only for the point it makes the players cognizant of their position on the floor. The semi-circle will, hopefully, be moved out this summer. If it doesn't, you can blame the coaches because they are the biggest supporters of it staying small.

If you don't like my examples look at guys like Nolan Johnson, Corey Brewer, Nate Erdman, Skeeter Henry, Jeff Webster, Brent Price, Ryan Minor, Randy Rutherford, Bryant Reeves, Byron Houston, etc. (I named guys at OU and OSU because people are more apt to be familiar with them). All of those guys would be just fine in today's college game. A star from 20 or 30 years ago would be a star today.

As I said before, the best players would still be good now.

also disagree that there is more talent. A solid role player from 20-30 years ago would be a solid role player today. I would argue if anything with scholarship limitations, early entries into the draft, tougher academic requirements and more teams playing d-1 there is less surrounding talent at the big schools. I think young people always want to believe their generation is better than piror generations. I just don't think it is really true. There simply isn't enough time for their to have been any measurable difference in genetics.

Yes, it's a younger generation thinking it's better for why this is a discussion. Lets ignore all the time, money, training techniques, research, etc poured into youth athletics over the past 30 years. The pool of really good basketball players is deeper than ever before. You have guys who played D-III JUCO ball starting on a Final Four team (Early from Wichita State).

 

[KBaden145]

NBA officials start at six figures, and some of the veterans reportedly make mid-six-figures. It's a tough job, but that's a very strong incentive.

I know it's rare to reach that level, but I can't imagine the financial incentives at lower levels are any worse than they once were, though I imagine you would have more insight into that than I do.

I don't know what rates are now but it isn't much. Back then, my father used it as summer vacation money. He worked probably 2-3 games a week, unless he had an in season tournament, during the season from basically the stateline west and south to I40 north and I35 east. That amounted to anywhere from $1000-1500 a season. He worked maybe 10-12 state tournaments as time and harvest allowed. His partner and he were probably the top pair of officials in the state while they were together. One official he worked some college games with wound up in the NBA. He had opportunities to move up and would have made a really good Big 8 official but the travel commitment and time away from us wasn't worth the pay. He always marveled at how many games Ed Hightower called because they had approximately the same job at the time. You have to REALLY like the work. The pay is not why these guys do this job, I promise...at least at the HS and college levels.

 

[campbest]

My point is, while the quality of the athlete has improved, the quality of the play and flow of the game of basketball has decreased for a lot of reasons. In my opinion, one of those reasons is the quality of the individual basketball officials and their ability to officiate games at a consistently high level have decreased.

I don't know the exact reasons why but I would guess the pool to draw officials from for college and the NBA, in turn, is just not as deep as it once was. Tough job. Who would want to do it? Not much gratitude and nobody cares what your name is unless you screw up. I have as much empathy for basketball officials as anyone. I've lived with one all my life but it can be better than it is right now.

I think it's a combination of things, in any particular order.
1.) Rules/athleticism combination
2.) Older officials having to adapt to a different type of generational player.
3.) Coaches refusing to let their kids play freely. As the big money flows into these programs, coaches want as much control as possible in order to keep their job. A lot of times, that kills the pace of play. The NBA is about the players, college is about figurehead coaches.

 

[campbest]

That is a good point but I would argue reocrds fall based on glass ceilings being broken. People truly believed it was not possible to run a 4 minute mile and therefore no one could do it. You must believe it can be done before it can be done. Alan Bannister (I think that is the first guy to run 4 minute mile) proved it could be done. Once he did it, others believed they could do it too and then they did it.

Yes, the little engine that could mentality is the reason records are being shattered.

 

[campbest]

I don't know what rates are now but it isn't much. Back then, my father used it as summer vacation money. He worked probably 2-3 games a week, unless had an in season tournament, during the season from basically the stateline west and south to I40 north and I35 east. That amounted to anywhere from $1000-1500 a season. He worked maybe 10-12 state tournaments as time and harvest allowed. He had opportunities to move up and would have made a really good Big 8 official but the travel commitment and time away from us wasn't worth the pay. He always marveled at how many games Ed Hightower called because they had approximately the same job at the time. You have to REALLY like the work. The pay is not why these guys do this job, I promise...at least at the HS and college levels.

Every state is different, I only know Texas. A double varsity or JV/V series will pay about $90-$110 depending on mileage. Small college (JUCO, NAIA, D-III) are all in the $125-$175 range (one game). Usually the big D-1 conferences pay $2,500/game. NCAA tournaments are actually quite a bit less.

NBA used to look at college officials as recruits, but that has mostly stopped. Last I heard, you get picked up by the D-League after going to a camp, then have five years to make it to the NBA then you are let go and can't re-apply.

 

[KBaden145]

I think it's a combination of things, in any particular order.
1.) Rules/athleticism combination
2.) Older officials having to adapt to a different type of generational player.
3.) Coaches refusing to let their kids play freely. As the big money flows into these programs, coaches want as much control as possible in order to keep their job. A lot of times, that kills the pace of play. The NBA is about the players, college is about figurehead coaches.

-Fundamental skills aren't as good.

-One and done and free agency has affected team chemistry...teams don't grow together like they once did.

-Coaching at the grade school level is not as good as it used to be, in my opinion.

-The American version of basketball has been slow to adapt to some things I think international leagues have done to make a entertaining game. I like the trapezoid lane in particular.

 

[KBaden145]

Every state is different, I only know Texas. A double varsity or JV/V series will pay about $90-$110 depending on mileage. Small college (JUCO, NAIA, D-III) are all in the $125-$175 range (one game). Usually the big D-1 conferences pay $2,500/game. NCAA tournaments are actually quite a bit less.

NBA used to look at college officials as recruits, but that has mostly stopped. Last I heard, you get picked up by the D-League after going to a camp, then have five years to make it to the NBA then you are let go and can't re-apply.

Those numbers sound about right, I guess. Dad probably made about half that, $50 a game or so, if my math isn't too far off. They had a kind of fraternity and when his contemporaries moved on, got older, it was tough to find enough officials and the quality was not there. I admit I extrapolate that nationwide to consider why things aren't better but who knows.

 

[DenverSooner]

You are wrong.

All you have to do is look at the "raw" sports, and how those records fall on an almost annual basis. I'm talking about track and field sports. Swimming. Stuff like that.

This isn't about how good players are now vs how good they were 20 years ago. Larry Bird would still be a great basketball player in today's NBA. But to say today's athlete isn't, on average, ahead of the athletes of 20 years ago, is crazy.

Edit: Just noticed this has already been discussed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do recognize that records in certain sports make a strong argument but the problem is it suggests that humans are genitically superior in a single generation or two generations and I don't believe that is possible. Evolution takes time.

I would suggest the only difference is training techniques and in some sports technology. (Golf is a good example of technology. Swim suits are also superior today).

If you acknowledge that the very best are not materially different then why do you assume the surrounding players are different? To me it is silly to suggest the very best of the prior generation are similar but there is a material difference with the surrounding players. I find that illogical.

 

[campbest]

-Fundamental skills aren't as good.

-One and done and free agency has affected team chemistry...teams don't grow together like they once did.

-Coaching at the grade school level is not as good as it used to be, in my opinion.

-The American version of basketball has been slow to adapt to some things I think international leagues have done to make a entertaining game. I like the trapezoid lane in particular.

#1 and #3 are linked, and I agree, kids play WAY too many games now. I actually prefer the European soccer approach to training/games. Places emphasis on winning and on the training grounds.

I also prefer the Euro "style" of play as opposed to the isolation game in the NBA.