NCAA men's basketball continues search for scoring decline
By John Harris
Published: Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
This isn't your father's college basketball.
This year's scoring average of 68.1 points per game in Division I continues a slide dating more than 20 years. While field-goal percentage has remained about the same during the past decade — holding between 43 percent and 44 percent — scoring is down more than two points per game. Both categories have experienced significant drops dating back a generation, when teams averaged 75.3 points per game and shot 46.2 percent in 1990.
“I don't think it's like baseball where you have to juice the balls to get fans interested. I don't think we're at that point,” Kansas coach Bill Self said. “I do think there's a little bit of a reason for concern. Fans want to see high-flying, open-court plays. I think it's more of a phase we're going through.”
Myriad reasons exist for the scoring decline. The shot clock and the 3-point shot frequently are cited. But also to be considered are a more physical defensive style permitted by officials and the implementation of the one-and-done rule in 2006 in which players must be at least 19 years old and one year out of high school to be eligible to enter the NBA Draft.
College basketball runs in cycles. When the 45-second shot clock was implemented during the 1985-86 season, scoring increased 3.4 points per game the following season and about 7.0 points per game over a five-year span. That 1986-87 season, however, also saw the introduction of the 3-point arc at 19 feet, 9 inches.
When the shot clock was changed to 35 seconds in 1993-94, scoring dipped 2.5 points per game over the next two seasons.
The 3-point shot was extended to 20 feet, 9 inches for the 2008-09 season. That year produced the lowest field-goal percentage (43.77) in nine years and the lowest scoring average (68.8) since 1984.
“It's no surprise to me given the rule changes,” Pitt coach Jamie Dixon said. “I think the 3-point line is a big part of it. Teams are playing more zone, and more zone means longer offensive possessions, and teams are going to take more time to dissect the zone.”
To West Virginia coach Bob Huggins, the explanation for decreased scoring is simple: Players are bigger with colossal talent, yet the size of the court remains the same.
“Guys are bigger, faster, stronger than they've ever been,” Huggins said. “They guard way better than they've ever guarded. The style of play is so different, particularly defensively. Athletically, we've changed so much, but the size of the court hasn't changed, and the height of the basket hasn't changed. So, obviously, there's less room.”
Some of that colossal talent isn't sticking around long enough for their teams to benefit.
College freshmen dominated the top of the 2012 NBA Draft. Kentucky's Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist went 1-2, followed by Florida's Bradley Beal at No. 3, Connecticut's Andre Drummond (No. 9), Duke's Austin Rivers (10) and St. John's Maurice Harkless (15). Other freshmen selected early in the draft included Washington's Tony Wroten (25) and Kentucky's Marquis Teague (29).
Kentucky, Connecticut, Washington and Baylor were among those hardest hit by early departures. Only Kentucky, last season's national champion, appeared in this week's top 25 poll — at No. 25.
“We have a lot of parity in college basketball,” said Arizona coach Sean Miller, a star point guard at Pitt and Blackhawk. “Sometimes scoring happens when one team is clearly better than the next. It's not as easy winning in November and December maybe as it once was for the super powers or top-25 teams. If scoring's down, I would attribute some of that to parity.”
Texas coach Rick Barnes said players must bear some responsibility. Field-goal percentages are at 43 percent. Twenty-five years ago, teams were shooting 47 percent.
“I talk with my players every day about how they don't do the work and get their feet ready to shoot the ball,” Barnes said. “If you watch the tape, you can see a lot of different things why scores are down.”
When teams enter conference play in January, their offensive numbers are more likely to decrease than increase, Arkansas coach Mike Anderson said.
“Defenses are a lot better, especially as we get to this part of the year,” Anderson said. “The scouting that takes place, teams are very familiar with each other. So what you have are a lot of games that look like chess matches or boxing matches.”
“Good defense usually bumps good offense, but it may come back to officiating,” Self said. “The games are being called in a manner where there's more physical play.”
Kentucky coach and Moon native John Calipari's solution?
“Call the fouls. Call them all,” Calipari said. “This shouldn't be about who wins in the weight room. This is about movement and spacing. But it's where it's going.”
John Harris is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at email@example.com or via Twitter @JHarris_Trib.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.