NCAA Basketball is as Awful (or Wonderful) as It Was Four Decades Ago
By Jason Lisk
College basketball is in something of a crisis. Scoring is down at historic lows. Plenty of folks, including at Sports Illustrated and Grantland, have written about this issue, and what needs to be done to correct it.
Of course, another view is that people have been complaining about the state of the sport for a long time. John Gasaway had this piece from a few years ago highlighting complaints about the quality of the sport over time.
So, I thought I would take a look back at the 1976 Indiana championship game, which, if you haven’t heard, was the last time a team went undefeated and won a national title. What you may not have heard is that the (mostly) same Indiana team went undefeated the previous season as well, before losing in the tournament to Kentucky (though Scott May’s broken leg impacted that team). I don’t know that this current incarnation of Kentucky will come back with nearly as many starters.
I grew up watching those 30-minute NCAA Final Four montages that ESPN would show in the afternoons, but these games pre-dated me being out of diapers. With the magic of the NCAA March Madness channel, though, I could go back and watch the complete games of the 1976 and 1977 NCAA Finals. (I also watched part of the 1975 Final between UCLA and Kentucky, which is on YouTube as well but more hit-or-miss on video quality).
Were players better at the fundamentals then? Were the games more exciting? Besides the giant hair and short shorts and very fat ties on the coaches, what were the differences? These are the things I wanted to compare to today’s games.
Of course, the biggest difference is the broadcasts. No scores up for large portions. The clock shown inconsistently. Way fewer bells and whistles. I had no sense of how much time was left and only knew the score because I was diligently keeping track. It was kind of annoying to watch the broadcast details after coming to where we are now.
As for the basketball play, the first disclaimer, of course, is that whether you are in 2015 or 1975, the specific team you are watching may influence the view. This is true now, when watching Wisconsin or Notre Dame looks visually different than watching North Carolina. The three games I viewed, that was very much evident.
Kentucky and UCLA was a wild up-and-down affair that was quite sloppy at times. There were 164 shots, 50 free throws, lots of misses and offensive rebounds and long outlet passes. For perspective, Kentucky and Wisconsin combined for 102 shots on Saturday night. UCLA employed “the all-court press” during parts of the game, Kentucky went to a 1-3-1 zone to pressure UCLA that resulted in lots of quick shots, and it was chaos. This sequence is what most of the game felt like.
Indiana-Michigan in 1976 was still played at a pretty good pace, though the total possessions in the first half were more similar to the pace of a North Carolina game in 2015. The conference rivals had played twice already, and it came down to Indiana’s big men and size advantage versus Michigan’s quickness. The first half was the polar opposite of UCLA-Kentucky, though, in that there were basically no offensive rebounds, both ran pretty good offense with shots of passes and basket cuts, there were very few outside shots, and the score was Michigan 35-29 at the half. The second half was a free throw shooting affair, particularly for Indiana, and the game basically ended with about 7 minutes left when undersized Michigan’s big men fouled out.
One thing that has definitely changed. Will we see a celebration like Scott May doing a full body leap into a teammate’s arms wearing short shorts? With Kentucky eliminated from matching the perfect season, it’s up to Frank the Tank to provide the highlight.
The North Carolina-Marquette game in 1977 was one that–if you put the three-point line and a shot clock–could have been imported to 2015. Two great coaches in Dean Smith and Al McGuire. Plenty of strategy. Marquette had length with Bo Ellis and Jerome Whiteside and played a zone most of the game. North Carolina tried to break it down with passing and outside shooting. Carolina trailed when they couldn’t hit shots early, rallied early in the second half with baseline shots from Mike O’Koren, and then, from the 13 minute mark to 8 minute mark, there were only a few shots as Carolina went “Four Corners” in a tie game to try to pull Marquette out of the zone, and Marquette also went to their delay game. Marquette got a slim lead, and then hit every free throw. (More on that in a moment).
But enough about how these games were different. How about some of the criticisms today, and some observations that stood out after watching these games.
THE END OF GAMES TAKE TOO LONG
You’ve no doubt felt this. Too many commercials. Too many late timeouts (a valid criticism, given the already large number of TV timeouts). Too many fouls.
Well, guess what? It’s nothing new. The only one of the three games that didn’t drag out late was Kentucky-UCLA. Joe B. Hall was no doubt the tactician of his day, and actually didn’t foul in that one despite no shot clock existing. After Kentucky cut it to 3 points with 1:05 left (and remember, there is also no 3-point shot, so that’s a two-possession trail late, and all fouls resulted in 1-and-1’s), they pressured but did not foul, ultimately allowing a driving layup 27 seconds later.
The Indiana-Michigan game was a tedious foul-shooting affair, with the teams combining for 42 free throws in the second half as Indiana pulled away. That Scott May celebration GIF? It is from 12 seconds remaining, after the final stoppage in the game.
But the end of Marquette-North Carolina was the piece-de-resistance. The final 1:45 took over 20 minutes of game footage time, and that doesn’t include any actual commercial break times since the footage cut away for that. It included a flagrant foul (that was called) and the discussion after, and then 16 more free throw attempts (with Marquette going 12 for 12). That’s right, the free throws actually made the final score of 67-59 look better than the game pace and offensive efficiency dictated.
THE PLAYERS ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND
Yeah, let’s just say that anyone saying this has a faulty memory. I saw passes out of bounds, sloppy dribbling, picking up a dribble without being ready to throw a pass in the games from 40 years ago. The only real indicator is free throws, because everything else is context-dependent. You might shoot worse because the defenders are better, for example. But free throw shooting certainly is no worse than 40 years ago, and by the eye test, today’s players are every bit as good at the fundamentals. The outside shooting also was inconsistent then. Some really good shooters, and plenty of misses.
BETTER RIM PROTECTION ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH SCORING TODAY?
There were 4 total blocks (2 by each team) in the 1976 game. Both of Michigan’s came late, when Indiana was spreading them out to run clock and Quinn Buckner got blocked twice on drives. The 1977 game also featured 4 blocks. I didn’t track the entire UCLA-Kentucky game, and I think there were a few more, but there were also way more shots.
Some of that is good teams facing each other. Wisconsin’s offense limited Kentucky to 4 blocks on 48 attempts, well below their season average. Still, to put the 3.7% block percentage from the 1976 and 1977 game in some perspective, only 4 of the 351 Division I school averaged blocking less than 3.7% of shots over the course of this season: Abilene Christian, UMASS-Lowell, Maine, and Mississippi Valley State.
If it’s harder to get shots up near the basket, then scoring will decrease. Let’s face it, we can talk about spacing issues, but better physical athletes are often more beneficial to defenses than offenses, and that’s true of other sports. If there are more leapers and blockers, offense is harder unless you can manipulate them out of position.
I also noticed far fewer dribble drives to the basket then, so that is a factor that is an offshoot of the three-point line. Defenses didn’t have to close out, pump fakes and drives weren’t as common. Charges still happened, and in fact, I saw more very questionable ones called then compared to now. There’s just more of them because athletes are driving more. Here’s one from the Marquette-UNC that was called a charge between two future NBA coaches, Jim Boylan of Marquette and John Kuester of North Carolina.
Thank goodness for the restricted circle. That’s terrible.
THE PICK-AND-ROLL VERSUS THE PASS-AND-CUT
Once you get past the lack of the three-pointer, the primary difference I noticed is the relative dearth of screens in the old footage. I know you might think of screens as the old fundamental way of playing, but today’s game features far, far more of them. Think about how Wisconsin was able to use Frank Kaminsky outside on the screen-and-pop, putting a defender on a switch in a bad position. I didn’t see any of that. There was also basically no screen-and-rolls, with the occasional off-the-ball rub screen on cuts.
It was the starkest strategy/style difference. This was true against man or zone. The primary method in these games was spacing and passing. Today, we see all sorts of variety in the types of screens, big men coming out screening out top, screens for the screener, etc. In following up on the previous segment on rim defense, it’s a way to try to create mismatches or catch teams who don’t communicate.
Against zone, North Carolina, for example, worked it around with quick passes until one of the shooters felt he was open enough to pull the trigger on a 16-footer. There was no other design to attack the zone. Screens against a zone, to seal off for a shooter, were non-existent.
OUTLET PASSES AND POST SHOTS
One thing that was far more utilized was the quick downcourt outlet pass. Teams were looking to go right away. This was particularly true in the UCLA-Kentucky, but was also a big part of Michigan’s offense in the first half, and also something North Carolina tried to do to get offense before the zone got set up. Of course, you risk more of a turnover, and I think coaches have squeezed this mentality a bit over time.
The other area where players were more effective was the mid-range post area, with hooks (particularly Kent Benson of Indiana) and shots off glass with the back to the basket.
THE SHOT CLOCK CONUNDRUM
Teams delayed and stalled, most famously Dean Smith with the Four Corners. So a shot clock was needed. It was shortened from 45 to 35. There is experimentation with going to 30. It will have a slight effect, because teams will have to get a shot up quicker, though it may also effect efficiency.
Of course, it also had other impacts, which you may not realize. Most of those games that I watched had no problem with offense, without a shot clock. The natural inclination is to score and go. In fact, watching the 1975 game, it struck me that I have seen (granted, a far less skilled and developed) version of that in 2015: youth basketball. No shot clock. Plenty of aggressiveness and pressing. 1-3-1 traps. Looking to score at the first half-chance. And other than late game situations, no real shot clock violations if one was in fact operating.
So you might not believe me, but a shot clock could reduce scoring, if that’s all we cared about. What struck me about those games is that the “end game” started much sooner. There was no shot clock or quick way back with a barrage of three pointers, so you had to fear the delay. And so the trailing team had to get more aggressive, earlier in the game than the last two minutes. Michigan started extending pressure, and Indiana handled it and pulled away with easy opportunities or fouls. I’m not sure that Indiana scores 57 points in the second half with a shot clock, where Michigan knew they could get back in with great half court defense.
Similarly, a 3 point game with 1:45 left wouldn’t result in 12 free throws today. Dean Smith wasn’t going to let Marquette run out the clock. Today, he probably plays defense and 35 seconds roll off without a foul.
So we need to keep this in mind. Do we just want to increase scoring? Or increase the aesthetics? Those two may not always match up. Free throws are scoring, and sloppy play can be scoring.
Let’s get rid of some of the timeouts and work to reduce the delays, but other than that, this has been a fantastic closing to the tournament. I know the pace and scoring may be down, but I appreciate good offense. Variety is the spice of life, and I like good offense in all of its forms. Don’t let people tell you that 2015 is really worse than 1975. It’s mostly the same, with some differences that have evolved because of the depth of athletes and defenses and strategies necessary to break them down.
[All GIF and video work by the timeless Michael Shamburger]