By J. Richard Cheeks, PE, JD
HYPOTHESIS: THE DECLINE IN NCAA D1 BASKETBALL SCORING IS DUE TO A LONG TERM TREND OF RISING NUMBER OF TEAMS PLAYING AT THAT LEVEL HAVING THE AFFECT OF WATERING DOWN THE AVAILABLE TALENT POOL.
In recent days, there has been increased chatter among fans and commentators about the decline in scoring that seems to have been discovered during the current basketball season. Yes, scoring is down this year, but this is simply a continuation of a long term trend extending back to the mid 1960s.
The red line near the bottom shows the number of D1 basketball teams between 1965 and 2012. The source of this data is the NCAA records (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/All-time%20Statistical%20Trends%20chart.pdf). The blue line at the top is a graph of the average scoring for each of these years, multiplied by 10 to provide improved visual contrast when viewing the number of teams data and scoring data together as presented here. The source is again the NCAA records cited above.
Note the decline from about 1968 though 1986. Through the 1980s, there was considerable discussion about why the game was losing scoring, and after several years of debate, the NCAA made two changes. It added a shot clock and added a 3 point shot. Each change began in 1987, and it appears that these changes did increase scoring over the 1987, 88 and 89 seasons as the coaches and players adapted to the new rules, but the gradual decline in scoring resumed on about the same long term trajectory that existed prior to the rule change. The increase that occurred from 1986 to 1989 was almost 7 points per game. If this increase is deducted from the scoring averages for all years between 1987 and present, the green line results.
It appears that the 3-point shot and shot clock did operate to increase scoring, as the advocates of those rules had promised. However, these changes did not alter the structural issue forcing average scoring to decline over the long term.
Today, the chatter about declining scoring seems to focus on a declining talent level in the college game, and that discussion seems to focus on the impact of the NBA’s one and done rule. However, I think the data suggests another explanation. If the decline is due to a declining talent level, it may not be the NBA’s rule on when a player may enter their draft that is the culprit or cause. However, long term expansion of D1 basketball spreads the available talent pool over an ever increasing base of schools. As the number of schools has increased, the talent pool waters down, and the average talent level per school declines. As the average talent level per school declines, so does the scoring.
In short, the decline of average scoring is due to the expansion of D1 college basketball. If fans of big time college basketball want to see this trend stopped, and even reversed, return the game to no more than 128 major college teams.
Let the debate begin.
Coach Calipari has discussed his idea of 4 mega-conferences with 16 teams each. I believe this is the proper direction that the game needs. As a starting point for this debate, I propose a return to a much smaller, by highly competitive, new basketball realm. I would be ok with Coach Calipari’s 4 mega conferences and only 64 total teams. However I would not want to see any more than a total of 128 teams.
These teams could be grouped geographically into 4 to 8 sixteen team major conferences. Each conference must play a 30 game, double round robin season, with 15 games at the home venue each year, and 15 games on the road. Rather than post-season conference tournaments, each team can schedule up to 4 additional games against teams from any of the other 3 to 7 mega-conferences at any time of the season and at any venue agreeable to the competing schools.
Based on a 128 team model, any team in one of these mega-conferences that traverse its 30 game, double round robin conference season with 15 or more conference wins qualifies for the post season tournament. The post season would includes at least 64 teams from those conferences and if more than 64 teams qualify, there will be single elimination play-in games between tying teams not from the same conference. The seeding of the post-season tournament is based only on the 30 game conference records, and must not permit two teams from the same conference to collide until the quarterfinal round, now called Elite 8.
There are now 347 teams claiming to be D1 teams. Let the other 219 teams organize themselves in any manner that they and their mother ship, the NCAA decides is appropriate for them. I do not really care how that happens, because frankly I am tired of seeing UK play Samford, Mississippi Valley State, and Eastern Michigan in ever increasing numbers.
8 Responses to Guest Post: The Professor’s hypothesis on the decline of scoring in NCAA D1 basketball
Leave a Reply
Blue Zoom Radio Show
Polls
Loading ...Choose Your Favorite!
Well, after suffering through 12 credit hours of graduate level statistics classes, I can tell you that using stastical methods, one can infer that Elvis is still alive and well living on Venus and that crime is corrilated with the phases of the moon. Not so fast. Let’s apply some common sense in this discussion.
The college game of today barely resembles the game as played in my youth when average game scoring was much higher. If referees of yester year officiated in today’s typical basketball game, neither team would be able to finish a game due to not having enough players that have not yet fouled out of the game. College basketball used to be an elegant sport where finesse was more prized than “physical” play. In an era where college basketball attempts to emulate the Professional game, that is after all an exibition of sorts, the college game today resembles a combination of basketball and professional wrestling. A typical hard foul today would have meant expulsion from the game 30 years ago.
Secondly, the game has turned into a game of giants. 30 or 40 years ago, it was unusual to have a 6’6″ guard with the speed of a gazelle whereas today, such players are common place. Along with the greater physicality defenses have become more dominate, thus containing the scoring opportunities.
Talent is relative to the game being played. It could be argued that today’s talent is every bit as good as 40 years ago but it’s a different game today, therefore, scoring expectations should be different.
” Thank You Very Much “….Elvis is alive.
Very interesting points of view here Professor. It seems to be sound logic behind the watered down field. I wonder if the NCAA would take a serious look at this issue in terms of cutting Division 1 schools down this drasticaly?? I’m with you though, way to many teams calling themselves Division 1 and too many on our schedule that wouldn’t meet this criteria.
Thanks Professor! I always enjoy your perspective!!
Go Big Blue!!!
One of the things that has evolved, especially since the 3-point shot came into play, is the demise of the 15ft jump shot. Players today want to either hit the 3-pointer, or drive it to the rim for a dunk or layup. In fact, that is what a lot of coaches teach today. It is becoming a lost art to just pull up and hit that shot. It is not as sexy as a dunk, but can be just as effective.
Wow didn’t realize there were that many basketball programs that called themselves D1. Learn something new everyday. BTW, not to high jack this into football thread, you notice more schools are trying to move up from D2 ranks to D1 ranks. Why is that, money.
Different reason those basketball schools can call themselves D1 in basketball and not support a football team…money. It’s all about money no matter how you look at things.
So before anyone gets excluded from a super conference, it will all come down to money.
Interesting theory to say the least, and good data to back up the theory. My gut reaction is to blame the decline in scoring first on the physical play–is it any wonder players don’t shoot very well when they’ve been hacked on the arms and bodied the entire game. My other reaction is to blame the Sportscenter type of shows–you don’t see, nor does the media publicize, the fundamentals of good basketball–players making free throws or short jumpers. Instead, you see the players taking shots 25-30 feet from the basket, or dunking the ball. That little teardrop in the lane is a beautiful thing, IMO, and unfortunately, it is the rare player nowadays who uses that shot frequently.
Probably the smothering defense and physical play have done more to reduce scoring more than anything. I do see some things which have made negative changes in the game……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Point one: The NCAA tournament has expanted to 64 and then more and there is talk among some coaches of expanding even more. Having this number means that regular season games mean less. Any decent team can get a bid.
Point two: A check of schedules of years past would reveal much tougher preconference schedules for major college teams. To illustrate, going back to 1980 UK only scheduled 8 preconference games, but look who the meat of that schedule was: Ohio State (ranked 9th), Indiana (5), Kansas, Notra Dame (2) and Alabama Birmingham which we beat, but later lost to in the second round of the NCAA mideast regional. Not only has UK taken advantage of smaller schools who are willing to prostitute them selves for a pay check, but this is now the standard across the college basketball world.
Point three: The better high school players play AAU ball early on and many of them go to non traditional high schools. Fundamentals are sacrificed to scoring and allowing kids to get by on their moves. This means when these kids get to the college level many of them are down with their “game” but a bit light on fundamentals.
Point four: UK may lead the way in the one and done thing, but there are freshmen lusting for one and done all across the college basketball landscape. These kids do not see their goal as playing for the University of _____, but they see their goal as the NBA. When your goal is to move on as soon as possible and to demonstrate the “moves” necessary to make this happen, teamwork is a challenge. Team this with a lack of fundamentals and this makes a tough job for any coach.
Point five: The top teams such as UK are going to get the best players, but many of them will be one and dones. There will be years when the young talented players are great, but there will be years when they struggle, but these teams will always have the best chance to become a national championship. There are other teams like Notra Dame and Butler which will have four year players, leadership, and less talented, but good players. These teams will be good, but not great. They may threaten, but will seldom win it all.
KokamoJoe,
Why do kids want to be one’s and done? It’s all about money. The quickest route to the NBA and riches. Currently UK offers it. Won’t end anytime soon