Beyond the Arc : New rules

NCAA's new rules are downright nutso

Mike Miller — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:12:00 GMT

Ever read something, rub your eyes, re-read it and then just shake your head? (Don’t count this blog.)

This ESPN Insider column from Jay Bilas fits that description perfectly.

For those who don’t have an Insider account, here’s the gist: Bilas breaks down the new NCAA rules for men’s hoops, summed up perfectly with the headline “New NCAA rules: The Good, the Bad, the Goofy.” Are they ever.

Kevin C. Cox/Getty

Eric Gordon went to Indiana for one season before jumping to the NBA.

First, the good:

Bilas likes the new proposal to allow unlimited phone calls to recruits during contact periods (as does Sporting News columnist Mike DeCourcy). In an age of Facebook, e-mail, Twitter, caller ID and answering machines, recruits screen their contact with prospective schools. The NCAA doesn’t need to oversee. (This would add an interesting twist to the Kelvin Sampson violations, who was, in Bilas’ words, crucified for making essentially one extra phone call a week.)

“Soft” recruiting doesn’t bother him either. Just because a prospect like Eric Gordon gives an oral commitment to Illinois doesn’t mean he shouldn’t keep his options open, yet Gordon and Sampson were grilled when he went to Indiana. Austin Rivers is doing the same thing right now. He’s got a “soft” commitment to Florida, but is still interested in going to Duke. Unless they’ve signed something binding, recruits are fair game.

Schools can no longer establish conditions on letters of intent, which annoys Bilas. He thinks players’ futures should be tied to coaches, not to schools, because that’s who they sign with. But schools can no longer release players under certain conditions.

Now, the absurd:

Anyone camped under the basket won’t be able to draw a charge. But, unlike the NBA’s method of using an arc designating the non-charge area, the NCAA says refs should use an “imaginary box” that stretches from the front and side of the ring, to the front of the backboard that prevents a “secondary defender” from establishing initial legal guarding position.

Clear as mud, right?

Basically, defenders can’t draw a charge with any part of their body in that “box,” but can do around the “box.” I’m sure this won’t cause any outcry toward the refs and any of their calls.

But even worse is this rule. Take it away Jay.

There is a new rule in college basketball that could force a player of limited skill to the free throw line during a game. A new rule states that when a player is injured and unable to shoot his free throws, the opposing coach will get to select the new shooter among the four remaining players in the game. But if the foul that led to the injury is flagrant or intentional, the new rule states that the opposing coach may select any uniformed player on the opposing team to shoot the free throws.

Go ahead, rub your eyes and re-read that grab. Now shake your head. You read it correctly.

The rules committee thought teams were gaining an unfair advantage because players were “faking” injuries, so they are gonna let opposing coaches pick who goes to the foul line? In Twitter terms, WTF?

I can’t wait to see the first time a scrub is pulled off the bench to shoot some crucial free throws. That’s one rule that’ll go over real well with … no one.

Schools would solve a coaching salary cap

Mike Miller — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:49:00 GMT

Today’s radical idea in a cash-strapped economy? A salary cap for college coaches.

Think about a world where John Calipari wouldn’t have his eight-year, $31.65 million deal, or Bill Self doesn’t get $30 million for the next 10.

OK, maybe it’s not so radical.

Especially when some consultants think it won’t cause coaches to bolt the NCAA for the NBA. Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College in Massachusetts told the AP that “we’d still have the same talent of coaching in Division I that we currently have,” because his other options wouldn’t be as attractive, even if it meant more money.

That’s a debatable stance – given most people think money is the backbone for nearly every decision ever made – but probably not far off. After all, Memphis did offer Caliapri more money to stay put.

Maybe a salary cap could work. But it sounds like it’ll never happen.

Zimbalist says if the NCAA were controlled by the university presidents, they could go to Congress and ask for an antitrust exemption. The odds of the presidents stepping up and wresting control are only slightly better than me starting at point for Kentucky next season.

Besides, a coaching salary cap isn’t the reason schools are losing money. Funding anywhere from 15-30 varsity sports adds up and the salaries are minimal.

Calipari’s base contract is $400,000 per year. The rest comes from marketing, broadcasting and endorsement payments. Self’s monster deal includes an annual salary of $229,000 – the rest comes from private resources. No tuition dollars or state funds are used.

Those kinds of deals will become standard if a salary cap is put into place. NCAA vice president Wally Renfro thinks the top programs will always find ways to lure the top coaches.

"What'll you see is a shift in the source of compensation - not the amount of compensation,'' Renfro told the AP.

No kidding. Schools already know that trick.

Other news you may like:

Three players can significantly alter the NCAA hoops landscape next season, writes Luke Winn. Great read on what could happen depending on what John Wall, Jeff Teague and Jodie Meeks decide.
According to Gary Parrish, teams are staying away from Lance Stephenson for two reasons: His dad’s supposedly a pain, and the NCAA may question Stephenson’s amateur status. Still, it’s hard to believe that no one wants supreme scorer …
Mississippi State is elated to have shot swatter extraordinaire Jarvis Varnardo back at school. Duh. Now the Bulldogs just have to hope Renardo Sidney is eligible.
Great feature by Dana O’Neil on new Memphis coach Josh Pastner, a whirling recruiting dervish who was apparently born with a cell phone attached to his ear.
Pauley Pavilion is getting a $185 million facelift, but BruinsNation.com isn't overly impressed.
Sonny Vaccaro vs. the NCAA, summed up thusly: “Amateurism lost its virginity a long time ago.”
Finally, Rick Pitino’s would-be extorter, Karen Sypher, was indicted Tuesday. She faces a combined maximum penalty of seven years in prison and a $500,000 fine if convicted.

Common sense rule changes? (Angels singing)

Mike Miller — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:44:00 GMT

Every now and then, the NCAA tries to fix a dumb rule. Thursday was one of those times.

Thankfully. This was a win for common sense.

(Ray of light shines from heaven. Cue chorus of angels singing.)

Thank the hoop gods

Sure, the Playing Rules Oversight Panel has to approve the changes, but it should just be a formality. Starting next season, two inane rules will be history.

One rule pertains to substituting a free-throw shooter who has been injured (astute fans recognize that Missouri coach Mike Anderson utilized that rule perfectly in the Tigers’ second-round NCAA tournament win vs. Marquette).

I’m not ripping Anderson, who did what any smart coach should do. But replacing an injured player with one who can make free throws? This isn’t baseball. No pinch hitting!

But the more important change was to what Rush the Court calls the Battier Rule.

The rules committee recommended to prohibit a secondary defender from establishing position under the basket in an attempt to draw a an offensive foul (specifically, the area from the front of the rim to the front of the backboard).

Translation? No more cheap fouls!

It’s a slight change, but an important one. And one that was looooooong overdue.

Why? For that, I turn to Mike DeCourcy of the Sporting News, who’s been waiting for this change for about 20 years.

Wow. That was like 15 Star Trek movies ago.

How the new 3-point line will affect hoops

Mike Miller — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:07:00 GMT

College hoops coaches finally got their wish. The three-point line grew a foot.

Considering how unpopular the distance (19-feet-9) was when the NCAA began using the 3 in 1986, it’s surprising it took 22 years to extend the shot to 20-9. Coaches said 19-9 was a chip shot that turned the sport into a circus, i.e., took the game away from dominant big men.

“The line was so short,” Louisville coach Rick Pitino told Athlon Sports. “I’m 55 (years old) and I could go out there and shoot 45 percent if nobody played defense on me. It really was too short. Inferior shooters ended up taking it. And that’s not good.”

The new line will supposedly open up offenses. Defenses will have to stretch to guard the perimeter, allowing those big men room to work in the lane.

At least, that’s the conventional thinking.

Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

Davidson's Stephen Curry won't be fazed by the longer 3-point line.

Most shooters won’t be fazed by the extra foot. And if they connect (likely), it’ll surely open up offenses. Some coaches, like Memphis’ John Calipari, aren’t the least bit concerned. The Tigers made about 35 percent of their 3s last season, and Coach Cal can’t see them being any worse this year.

This shot selection chart from Ken Pomeroy (compiled from more than 4,000 games over the past 5 years or about 340,000 shots), shows as much.

Players make about 37 percent of their attempts from 20 feet. At 21 feet, it’s about the same. Also true from 22 feet. Percentages don’t drop significantly until they start heaving it from 25 feet (about 34.5 percent).

In theory, teams shouldn’t be overly affected by the extra foot, and defenses will have to work harder to guard the three.

Still, it may not open up the game because there will likely be fewer overall attempts.

Coaches will reign in some of their more questionable shooters. Those 6-10 power forwards? Probably not going to get the green light, which will mean fewer 3s overall. (Officials expect 3s to encompass about 30 percent of the game’s attempts.)

And if there are fewer attempts, that means more guys drifting toward the basket, which makes it easier on defenses. If that doesn’t work, expect coaches to use more zone defense.

Any changes to the game will be subtle. Teams will adjust and still play to their strengths, whether it’s hoisting 3s or scoring in the paint. (Nobody uses the mid-range game anymore.)

You can read an excellent analysis on those subtle changes here. SI.com’s Luke Winn detailed four areas that he thought would be affected and come to these conclusions: Mid-majors will be hit the hardest; UNC and UConn – two of this season’s biggest contenders – won’t have any issues; defenses that force mid-range jumpers will thrive; and marginal shooters will be ignored.

It’s good stuff. Keep the first two in mind when filling out your bracket.

The mid-major aspect doesn’t apply to every mid-major (not everyone relies on the 3), but does affect three of 2007-08’s most impressive teams, Butler, Drake and Davidson. All three relied on 3s for more than a third of their offense. If any of those three struggle with the 20-9 line, this season may not be as kind.

As to UNC and UConn not having many issues, that’s because neither relied on 3s as much as the rest of the 2008 field. The same was true for other contenders like Michigan State and UCLA. It’s reasonable to expect all four won’t miss a beat this season with the longer line.

But wait, there’s more!

Rush the Court tried to determine which teams had the fewest “pure shooters” by separating shooting percentages at home and on the road. If a team had a large disparity between the two, they will likely struggle this season at 20-9 because they benefited from a shorter line at home.

Among the most vulnerable big names? Vandy, Temple, BYU, Georgetown, Florida, Pitt and defending champion Kansas. The Owls were the worst, shooting 10 percentage points worse on the road.

Teams unfazed on the road include Oregon, Arizona, Duke, Miami (Fla.), Baylor, Gonzaga and Michigan State. The Ducks and Devils shot better than 38 percent on the road.

(RTC did have six teams who were better on the road than at home, but chalked them up as abnormalities.)

Finally, who are the players unlikely to be affected? ESPN’s Fran Fraschilla compiled a list of his top 10 shooters in the game. (Jay Bilas compiled a list of the best all-time college shooter, with Georgia Tech’s Dennis Scott atop the list. I’d go with Ray Allen.)

Most of ‘em are who you’d expect – Davidson’s Stephen Curry and Notre Dame’s Kyle McAlarney are probably the best pure shooters. Others like UAB’s Robert Vaden and Miami’s Jack McClinton are scorers who can also hit from anywhere on the court. And some, like American’s Garrison Carr and Cornell’s Ryan Wittman, are little-known players who could shoot their way into some highlights this season.

A couple of others to consider: Texas Tech’s Alan Voskuil (hit 50 percent of his 134 attempts last season), West Virginia’s Alex Ruoff (Bob Huggins always has one go-to guy who emerges as a star) and BYU’s Jonathan Tavernari (only made 37.6 of his attempts, but he has unlimited range.)

And it always helps to have that guy who can knock down a 3 when needed. Ask Kansas.

Jennings could be a trendsetter

Mike Miller — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:31:00 GMT

The Brandon Jennings watch continues.

Jennings, the McDonald’s All-American point guard, is still waiting to see if he’ll be ruled eligible for next season after taking his third SAT. Those scores won’t be released until July 11^th. And all of those delays just brew even more talk about Jennings possibly playing in Europe next season.

It’s like the Brett Favre un-retirement talk, but for us hoops junkies…

Quick back story on Jennings: He’s a B student at Oak Hill (Va.), but has had to take the SAT three times. The first time the score wasn’t high enough to qualify him academically for Arizona. The second was high enough, but he told ESPN he was red-flagged because of the extreme jump in his scores, thus the third test.

As Jennings waited, the debate began about what was best for him – should he bolt the U.S. to play in Europe? The usual answer was no.

Mike DeCourcy’s Sporting News analysis gives all the pertinent details (it wouldn’t be lucrative or help his draft stock), while Doug Gottlieb spares no feelings as to why he’d be foolish to go (he’s not a European-style point guard, he turns the ball over too much, he’s too short, etc), though both admit it would improve Jennings as a player because it would help him gain experience.

And both say it would hurt his draft stock, without question. (Especially since he wouldn’t benefit from the exposure that comes with playing at Arizona.)

The more interesting thing to me? That he could be a Kevin Garnett, of sorts.

Good piece here from AOL Fanhouse about Jennings serving as a test case for future prospects. Namely, if Jennings goes to Europe, thrives and sees his draft stock soar as a result, future prospects would do the same thing, just like when Garnett’s moderate NBA success as a rookie didn’t close the door for future prep-to-pro players.

If that happens, get ready for two things: More players following Jennings’ lead and ESPN showing more European games in the future.

Norman Dale wouldn't last 10 minutes

Mike Miller — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:52:00 GMT

The NCAA wants its coaches to be better behaved on benches this season. Unsportsmanlike action (i.e. cussing) will result in a technical without warning. The rule has always been in place, but it’s been “interpreted in various ways” and this is supposed to streamline any decision making refs have to do.

Needless to say, it hasn’t sat well with the game’s more vocal coaches.

UConn’s Jim Calhoun, one of the more colorful sideline coaches, told reporters at Big East media day “90 percent of what I say during a game is to my players.”

Furthermore, he doesn’t want the game to lose any of its spontaneity because coaches are concerned about how their actions may be interpreted.

(The NCAA also wants to cut down on excessively using gestures. Objectionable conduct is actually quite a long list, according to the NCAA: Disrespectfully addressing an official; attempting to influence an official’s decision; using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar or obscene; taunting or baiting an opponent; objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or excessively using gestures that either demonstrate officiating signals or displeasure with officiating; inciting undesirable crowd reactions; and entering the playing court unless done with permission of an official to attend to an injured player. It’s important to note that a coach could always receive a “T” for this stuff, but there’s going to be less tolerance for it from now on.)

Bob Huggins and Tom Crean also voiced their concerns, and Cincinnati’s Mick Cronin said his assistant coaches would be busy grabbing him to prevent any technicals.

Crean says one of the “great things about this league is the personality of the coaches.” That isn’t limited to the Big East, either. The ACC has two of the most animated coaches (to put it mildly) in Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski and Maryland’s Gary Williams and the Big Ten’s Tom Izzo and Indiana’s Kelvin Sampson can both be seen stalking the sideline.

And of course, there’s Bob Knight.

Krzyzewski says the rule is probably overblown because most coaches don’t go crazy on the sideline. Williams wants to know why it’ll be enforced this season when “there was no outcry last year that coaches were out of control.”

All of which are valid points.

As fewer and fewer college basketball stars stay in college for three or four seasons, the game is dominated by its high-profile coaches more than ever before. Putting limits on those coaches -- whether it’s limiting what they can say or how they interact with their players on the court -- can hurt the game because it’s dictating how one directs and instructs its team during the game.

After all, not every coach is the same. For every mild-mannered coach who doesn’t routinely use four-letter words, there is one who does. And it’s wrong to dictate how that coach goes about coaching his team.

Instead, the rule puts an emphasis on referees. And as any NBA fan can tell you, it’s always a bad sign when the refs become a focal point of the game or determine the outcome (poor officiating is bad enough without having to police the sideline.)

For more, check out ESPN’s Jay Bilas’ blog on the subject, which goes over the rule in more detail.

And if you want to read the perfect lede on bench decorum, read this editorial from the Iowa State Daily. We’ve all been there, Andy. &*%$^!# hackers!