(12-02-2015 04:43 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Only five years ago they won 29 games. This is not ancient history.

5 years ago teams were averaging about 67-68 points per game nation-wide, falling to 66.7 in 2012-13 (lowest since 1952). Bruiser ball was a widely used and celebrated method of running a team. In '12-13, one of those teams, Pitt, held teams to just 56.0 ppg and won 24 games.

This year, scoring is at 74.6 points per game (as of Dec 1), and only expected to climb as teams continue to adapt. That's about a 10-12 % increase in scoring since Drexel won 29 games.

5 years ago might as well be ancient history.

(12-02-2015 08:33 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:43 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Only five years ago they won 29 games. This is not ancient history.

5 years ago teams were averaging about 67-68 points per game nation-wide, falling to 66.7 in 2012-13 (lowest since 1952). Bruiser ball was a widely used and celebrated method of running a team. In '12-13, one of those teams, Pitt, held teams to just 56.0 ppg and won 24 games.

This year, scoring is at 74.6 points per game (as of Dec 1), and only expected to climb as teams continue to adapt. That's about a 10-12 % increase in scoring since Drexel won 29 games.

5 years ago might as well be ancient history.

Hard nosed defense still wins. Ask Tony Bennett. Of course, you need to score also.

(12-02-2015 09:10 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:33 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:43 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Only five years ago they won 29 games. This is not ancient history.

5 years ago teams were averaging about 67-68 points per game nation-wide, falling to 66.7 in 2012-13 (lowest since 1952). Bruiser ball was a widely used and celebrated method of running a team. In '12-13, one of those teams, Pitt, held teams to just 56.0 ppg and won 24 games.

This year, scoring is at 74.6 points per game (as of Dec 1), and only expected to climb as teams continue to adapt. That's about a 10-12 % increase in scoring since Drexel won 29 games.

5 years ago might as well be ancient history.

Hard nosed defense still wins. Ask Tony Bennett. Of course, you need to score also.

Hard nosed defense gets you fouls. Ask Bruiser Flint.

Tough halfcourt D without scoring on the other end doesn't work.

The best bet for preventing teams from scoring is playing 94 feet of defense. The NCAA wants to keep bodies out of the paint. There's not much they can do to prevent errant passes and clean steals at midcourt or 10 second/shot clock violations. And why would they want to change that? It typically leads to quick, exciting buckets on the other end. Mission accomplished.

Rant time. The college game has basically been ruined from what I like to watch. The 3 point shot changed the game forever and not necessarily in a good way. Now, the reduction in the shot clock time. Trying to make it resemble the pro game and play to to the big time programs to the detriment of the mid majors. Mid majors lose their ability to control the tempo of the game and keep it close to the end of the game and have a shot at winning.

It's all about pure talent now and one and dones. Give me a Lou Campanelli vs. Dick Tarrant game any day of the week over what we have today.

Eliminate the 3 point shot and scores will go back up. Kids will learn to shoot the 12 to 15 footer again and offenses will work for good shots. You might even see a pick with 15 of the basket and not have to watch a 6'10' defender hedging 40 feet from the basket? WTH?

(12-02-2015 11:04 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  Rant time. The college game has basically been ruined from what I like to watch. The 3 point shot changed the game forever and not necessarily in a good way. Now, the reduction in the shot clock time. Trying to make it resemble the pro game and play to to the big time programs to the detriment of the mid majors. Mid majors lose their ability to control the tempo of the game and keep it close to the end of the game and have a shot at winning.

It's all about pure talent now and one and dones. Give me a Lou Campanelli vs. Dick Tarrant game any day of the week over what we have today.

Eliminate the 3 point shot and scores will go back up. Kids will learn to shoot the 12 to 15 footer again and offenses will work for good shots. You might even see a pick with 15 of the basket and not have to watch a 6'10' defender hedging 40 feet from the basket? WTH?

I've always felt that the reason college basketball was so popular and watchable is that it bore little resemblance to the NBA-both in terms of play and fans. Anything that brings it closer to pro ball makes it harder to watch for me.

(12-02-2015 11:34 AM)olddawg Wrote:  I've always felt that the reason college basketball was so popular and watchable is that it bore little resemblance to the NBA-both in terms of play and fans. Anything that brings it closer to pro ball makes it harder to watch for me.

Agree fully. I cant stand the NBA style and now we are having it forced down our throats at the collegiate level. As the other post above you says, it absolutely caters to the bigger programs. The part people like about college hoops was anyone can win on any given day. Now that is not nearly as true.

This thread is a perfect example of a team that no longer has a chance. Drexel could pull upsets because of how well we took air out of the ball and played hard-nosed defense. Now we have a shorter shot clock and more possessions for everyone that playing hard-nosed defense for more possessions is a challenge. Add to that the focus on removing contact down low/in the paint and that previous advantage is now moot. Speeding up play does make it more about who has the best athletes, and that will never favor the mids.

(12-02-2015 11:04 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  Rant time. The college game has basically been ruined from what I like to watch. The 3 point shot changed the game forever and not necessarily in a good way. Now, the reduction in the shot clock time. Trying to make it resemble the pro game and play to to the big time programs to the detriment of the mid majors. Mid majors lose their ability to control the tempo of the game and keep it close to the end of the game and have a shot at winning.

It's all about pure talent now and one and dones. Give me a Lou Campanelli vs. Dick Tarrant game any day of the week over what we have today.

Eliminate the 3 point shot and scores will go back up. Kids will learn to shoot the 12 to 15 footer again and offenses will work for good shots. You might even see a pick with 15 of the basket and not have to watch a 6'10' defender hedging 40 feet from the basket? WTH?

Amen Brother! AAU has contributed to this. Go to a AAU game and all you will see are kids chucking up 3's. Hard nosed defense doesn't necessarily mean banging bodies. It is the fundamentals of positioning and moving your feet. These are no longer being taught. Kids just stand around and try and knock the ball loose when they continually get beat off of the dribble.

I despise the NBA game and am slowly feeling the same way about the College game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand the concerns, but the NCAA also needed to prevent the all-out mugging that was going on in the paint. Of course they seem to be going TOO FAR in the other direction, a kneejerk reaction you would expect out of the NCAA. But at least some of the changes make sense.

Mid-majors can still win. I really like the way Coach Keatts is implementing his system at UNCW. The individual parts need to be less than the whole, and that's the philosophy he's been preaching. We have 11 rotational guys who play about 15 minutes apiece. I don't believe we've had the same starting lineup for any 2 games this year early on. And when the players sub in to provide fresh legs, they're playing intense pressure/trap defense for 94 feet. It's the perfect concept for the way the game has changed.

Not every mid-major can acquire a bunch of super-talented guys. But many can go get 11 guys they condition the hell out of and get to buy into a system. VCU was ahead of the curve on that under Shaka. The bigger programs with kids who have NBA aspirations will have trouble getting players to buy into a similar system. Unless you're a cult leader-esque coach like John Calipari.

(12-02-2015 12:21 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  But many can go get 11 guys they condition the hell out of and get to buy into a system.

Sounds an awful lot like Drexel, except the conditioning leads to injuries.

I may have more comment later on the changes going on in college basketball, but thought it was interesting how well former CAA players are doing on their new teams.

Lee -- leads Louisville in scoring at over 17 points a game. He would have made a huge difference at Drexel, of course. They've played a cake schedule so far...tonight they take on MI State on national TV.
Cooke -- leads Dayton in scoring at close to 15 points a game.
Rivard -- is third on Colgate in scoring, averaging close to 10 points a game.

I may be in the minority, but I like how this year's rules changes have changed scoring. I've always hated watching teams that "ugly up" the game and constantly foul until refs stop calling the fouls. It was a way for teams with less basketball skill to stay in games.

The mid majors can still upset the power programs. Why? The 3pt shot. It is the great equalizer. Skilled shooters can overcome some athletic disadvantages.

(12-02-2015 07:00 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  I may be in the minority, but I like how this year's rules changes have changed scoring. I've always hated watching teams that "ugly up" the game and constantly foul until refs stop calling the fouls. It was a way for teams with less basketball skill to stay in games.

The mid majors can still upset the power programs. Why? The 3pt shot. It is the great equalizer. Skilled shooters can overcome some athletic disadvantages.

Agree.

(12-02-2015 02:25 PM)Dukes84 Wrote:  I may have more comment later on the changes going on in college basketball, but thought it was interesting how well former CAA players are doing on their new teams.

Lee -- leads Louisville in scoring at over 17 points a game. He would have made a huge difference at Drexel, of course. They've played a cake schedule so far...tonight they take on MI State on national TV.
Cooke -- leads Dayton in scoring at close to 15 points a game.
Rivard -- is third on Colgate in scoring, averaging close to 10 points a game.

You left off Taylor Bessick - leads Iona in Personal Fouls. Pretty impressive given he is 8th on the team in minutes played.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-02-2015 07:00 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  I may be in the minority, but I like how this year's rules changes have changed scoring. I've always hated watching teams that "ugly up" the game and constantly foul until refs stop calling the fouls. It was a way for teams with less basketball skill to stay in games.

The mid majors can still upset the power programs. Why? The 3pt shot. It is the great equalizer. Skilled shooters can overcome some athletic disadvantages.

I also agree. Look at VCU and the final four. They upset teams by shooting and making a bunch or 3's. Spreads the defense.

Look at JMU women's last year. Those girls could shoot and when they didn't shoot them, they pounded the soft interior.

With the rules changes you are still going to need to play good defense to win. The rules changes aren't about preventing good defense they are just about creating a more efficient and smooth game. Good teams play defense with their feet not with their hands- beat the opponent to the spot and you won't get whistled for a foul and if you do that and the opponent has 5 less seconds to get a shot off you will be hard to beat.

(12-02-2015 08:26 PM)Dukesfan71 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:00 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  I may be in the minority, but I like how this year's rules changes have changed scoring. I've always hated watching teams that "ugly up" the game and constantly foul until refs stop calling the fouls. It was a way for teams with less basketball skill to stay in games.

The mid majors can still upset the power programs. Why? The 3pt shot. It is the great equalizer. Skilled shooters can overcome some athletic disadvantages.

Agree.

I agree.....from what I have seen so far it has seemed to create better flow to the game. You can still play good defense by moving your feet but eliminate WWE in the post.

(12-02-2015 11:34 AM)olddawg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 11:04 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  Rant time. The college game has basically been ruined from what I like to watch. The 3 point shot changed the game forever and not necessarily in a good way. Now, the reduction in the shot clock time. Trying to make it resemble the pro game and play to to the big time programs to the detriment of the mid majors. Mid majors lose their ability to control the tempo of the game and keep it close to the end of the game and have a shot at winning.

It's all about pure talent now and one and dones. Give me a Lou Campanelli vs. Dick Tarrant game any day of the week over what we have today.

Eliminate the 3 point shot and scores will go back up. Kids will learn to shoot the 12 to 15 footer again and offenses will work for good shots. You might even see a pick with 15 of the basket and not have to watch a 6'10' defender hedging 40 feet from the basket? WTH?

I've always felt that the reason college basketball was so popular and watchable is that it bore little resemblance to the NBA-both in terms of play and fans. Anything that brings it closer to pro ball makes it harder to watch for me.

100% agree. As much as I love basketball and always have, I've never been able to get in to the NBA, it's boring as hell to me. I've always had certain players that I like watching, but just can't get in to really following a team like how I can with NFL, NHL, and college football/basketball so I hate seeing any changes to make the college game closer to the pro game.

It's kind of like what's happened in football recently, a lot of rule changes have really screwed the defense and sure a lot of people act like more offense means more entertaining, but it's the exact opposite in my opinion. Too much offense generally makes every touchdown and every basket less exciting and meaningful. Sure, it's still great when you have someone as fun to watch as Vad, but in general I'll take watching a 21-14 game over a 56-49 game any day.

Bruiser Flint added to Archie Miller's staff at Indiana as an assistant.

(04-11-2017 06:32 AM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  Bruiser Flint added to Archie Miller's staff at Indiana as an assistant.

Makes no sense to me. He is too strong of a personality to be a good assistant. I am assuming his position is to recruit and coach defense. Archie is a defense first guy, so not sure what Bruiser adds to Archie's abilities.

Maybe IU is wanting recruiting ties to the east coast/Philly where he can help. Problem is he has never had to recruit the top echelon of players, so we shall see. I do not see the benefit to Bru or Archie outside of a solid pay check, since I cannot see this launching Bruiser into another head coaching job since he is a 20 year head coaching vet, everyone already knows what they would be getting.

I really assumed he would go into broadcasting or take a head coaching job at a low major.