No, CBB needs more scoring.
I know the NCAA wonders how come all these march madness games and conference tournments games are empty
It's because you can't watch a basketball game where neither team can score more then 50 points and be entertained
I truly believe no one that runs the NCAA is actually watching College Basketball
- Thread starter CrimsonTider
- Start date
No, CBB needs more scoring.
I know the NCAA wonders how come all these march madness games and conference tournments games are empty
It's because you can't watch a basketball game where neither team can score more then 50 points and be entertained
Scoring would increase with a line that's further out, it's much harder to drive with a shorter line and a zone. You effectively shrink the floor and now all you have is a bunch of ball movement on the perimeter burning up the clock looking for the 3 point shot.
You move the line out and you will see driving lanes open up, and post players actually having an impact on games.
We saw what happened to the USA Olympic Bball team when they realized that international 3 point line was so short. They fell in love with it. They were averaging 30 threes a game almost. These college teams settle for the 3 too often. Move the college line back to NBA distance and i believe you would get more scoring...
FreedS[ohh]lave
Banned
Another thign they finally changed the rule where they made a line in the paint like the nba where if youre under it u cant draw a charge right under the basket yet they dont respect it and players still can draw charges under the basket 
The spacing is just bad in College ball, very few driving lanes, no mid-range, no post play, all you're really left with is the 3 point shot. And a lot of these kids are great athletes so closing off driving lanes with such a short line is easy.
Shorten up the clock to 28-30 seconds, move the line out and the pace of the game would pick up on it's own. Also, having a 35 second shot clock in a 40 minute game is just retarded too, more than half a minute per possession that more than half the time does not end in a score. The women's game doesn't even use the 35 second clock
Majestic Pape
The-Coli = W SOHH = L
This doesn't even make sense.
Professionals >>> amateurs
It's just that simple.
And forcing guys to play for free for two years or four years (or even one year like now) when they are more than good enough to get paid is ridiculous.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Also, having a 35 second shot clock in a 40 minute game is just retarded too, more than half a minute per possession that more than half the time does not end in a score. The women's game doesn't even use the 35 second clock
most people in here dont remember when it was 45 seconds. Some how there was more scoring back then.:thefucc:
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
a lot of things have, in fairness. But the 3 point shot has been a big culprit.The love for the 3 point shot has ruined the College game
I love college basketball, the final few minutes of a college basketball game go by faster than the final few minutes of a nba game
Sent from royalty breh
Sent from royalty breh
tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
Outside the gambling factor of March Madness, college basketball is in real trouble. I'm not that old, but I remember when teams like UNLV and other powers would score regularly in the 100s and bball was entertaining as hell. Nowadays, games between top 15 teams like Oklahoma State and Kansas can go double over time and still not reach 70 points.
So what? That just means the players can only manage to score that. Why create or modify rules simply to outlaw defense?
Bullshyt and I wish the NBA would bring back hand checking.
tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
I can't agree with this. The international 3 point line sure, but imagine going from the High School 3 to the NBA 3 in a matter of 6 months. The leading 3 point shooter would shoot 30% and it still wouldn't discourage kids shooting them. The game would get that much uglier.
They wouldn't shoot them with nearly as much frequency, the game right now is built around basically just moving the ball till you get an open 3.
tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
they would though, for the same reasons why you don't see pros with much of a mid range game. I might as well take the three since it's worth more than a 2 and if I make 33% of my 3's that = 50% of my 2's.
I find it funny people are bytching about wanting more scoring yet moving the 3 point line is also wanted too. The fact of the matter is that these are kids whose games are far from refined. Kids get taught defensive fundamentals (not everything is a product of crappy scoring) but some of these kids, especially in smaller conferences depending on where, these kids just can't shoot as effectively or as effortlessly as a pro who spends his career working on doing that effortlessly.
It goes back to this fallacy that high scoring games can't be anywhere near as ugly as a low scoring game.