Jump to content

Playing Time


Recommended Posts

I know I am old school but I just don't see how players today can't play 32-35 minutes a game.  I finally was able to find our game against Maryland from the 81 tournament and got to finally re watch that game.  By the way that was one of the best played games by an IU team of all time.  watching these older games I realized that coaches did not sub as much as they do today.  In that game IU played 6 players in the first half with 4 players playing the hole first half.  In the second half we played 7 guys with the starters playing majority of those minutes.  RMK did not empty his bench until we were up 35 with a couple of minutes to go.  If today's players are bigger and stronger and way more athletic why can they not play bigger minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muckraker said:

I don't think that was a conscious strategy on RMK's part. Some years there was a significant drop-off after about the 6th player. 

I am not sure that was the case but back then players did not expect to come in and be big contributors right away.  I think coaches today are afraid that if he does not play players more minutes they will leave because they are not willing to wait their turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Muckraker said:

I don't think that was a conscious strategy on RMK's part. Some years there was a significant drop-off after about the 6th player. 

That team had talent.  Scott is right.  The substitution patterns were different.  If the starting line-up was winning and there was no foul trouble, most coaches stuck to what was working best.  But the game mentioned was just one game, that IU team was deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quality and depth of talent, back in the day was limited compared to today.  Think about it. Back then there were limited number of teams that stood out from the crowd. Year in and year out.  Call them the "Blue Bloods", if you will.  Even then, the best D-1 programs could not go as deep as many teams today. 

Just watching so many games, as I do,  there is talent everywhere.  It's amazing. And is what makes College Basketball Great Today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, milehiiu said:

The quality and depth of talent, back in the day was limited compared to today.  Think about it. Back then there were limited number of teams that stood out from the crowd. Year in and year out.  Call them the "Blue Bloods", if you will.  Even then, the best D-1 programs could not go as deep as many teams today. 

Just watching so many games, as I do,  there is talent everywhere.  It's amazing. And is what makes College Basketball Great Today. 

Nah, not at all.  There were good teams all over the place.  College basketball was just as good back then.  

In 1976 we weren't the only undefeated team in the FF.  Rutgers was undefeated.  Yes mighty Rutgers.

1977....UNC- Charlotte lost a a heart breaker to eventual champ Marquette in the FF.

1978...Penn, not Penn St., but the Quakers made it to the FF.

1979...Indiana St. made it to the championship game.

I will add that I have left out the New Mexico St.'s and such.  

There was talent back then as to how the game was played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rico said:

Nah, not at all.  There were good teams all over the place.  College basketball was just as good back then.  

In 1976 we weren't the only undefeated team in the FF.  Rutgers was undefeated.  Yes mighty Rutgers.

1977....UNC- Charlotte lost a a heart breaker to eventual champ Marquette in the FF.

1978...Penn, not Penn St., but the Quakers made it to the FF.

1979...Indiana St. made it to the championship game.

I will add that I have left out the New Mexico St.'s and such.  

There was talent back then as to how the game was played.

Oh I agree.  There were good teams back then.  However, I will take issue with you, in that the number of teams with talent today over back then has increased exponentially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rico said:

That team had talent.  Scott is right.  The substitution patterns were different.  If the starting line-up was winning and there was no foul trouble, most coaches stuck to what was working best.  But the game mentioned was just one game, that IU team was deep.

Even in 87 and during the tournament RMK played 7 guys and he even kept Thomas in the game with 2 fouls in the first 3 minutes of the UNLV game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BGleas said:

IU’s current coach seems to agree. Morgan and Langford hardly ever come out. 

I just see a lot of people thinking these big minutes hurt the players and they should rest more.  My point of this thread is that I think that players playing 35+ minutes a game should not be a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just see a lot of people thinking these big minutes hurt the players and they should rest more.  My point of this thread is that I think that players playing 35+ minutes a game should not be a big deal.

Agree, as long as they get the proper rest between games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, milehiiu said:

The quality and depth of talent, back in the day was limited compared to today.  Think about it. Back then there were limited number of teams that stood out from the crowd. Year in and year out.  Call them the "Blue Bloods", if you will.  Even then, the best D-1 programs could not go as deep as many teams today. 

Just watching so many games, as I do,  there is talent everywhere.  It's amazing. And is what makes College Basketball Great Today. 

I don't think the depth is any better today but I feel the coaches philosophy on substitution patterns have changed over the years.  Back then when players mainly stayed 4 years there were a clear pecking order on your roster.  The coaches would play the junior and seniors unless you had a great freshman.  The players knew this coming in and did not transfer at the rate they do today.  Back then no one would be complaining about Forrester, Moore and Anderson not getting playing time because that would be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I don't think the depth is any better today but I feel the coaches philosophy on substitution patterns have changed over the years.  Back then when players mainly stayed 4 years there were a clear pecking order on your roster.  The coaches would play the junior and seniors unless you had a great freshman.  The players knew this coming in and did not transfer at the rate they do today.  Back then no one would be complaining about Forrester, Moore and Anderson not getting playing time because that would be expected.

Yeah.  Depth was probably not the term I was searching for.  What I am trying to get across, is that I see more talent across a wider swath of college teams today, than I did back in the '60's and '70's.   Take two teams from the BIG as an example.  Back then Wisconsin and Northwestern were pretty much an automatic win for IU.  That's no longer the case today.  And that holds true for so many other teams in other conferences as well. 

And I totally agree, that back in the day, unless a coach has a standout talent as a freshman on his team.... coaches looked to developing players over four years. Something I miss, now, what with the OAD rule, and players like Victor and Cody, leaving early. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Yeah.  Depth was probably not the term I was searching for.  What I am trying to get across, is that I see more talent across a wider swath of college teams today, than I did back in the '60's and '70's.   Take two teams from the BIG as an example.  Back then Wisconsin and Northwestern were pretty much an automatic win for IU.  That's no longer the case today.  And that holds true for so many other teams in other conferences as well. 

And I totally agree, that back in the day, unless a coach has a standout talent as a freshman on his team.... coaches looked to developing players over four years. Something I miss, now, what with the OAD rule, and players like Victor and Cody, leaving early. 

I said something similar in another thread where I feel the bottom of the conferences are better today but I feel the top of the conferences are not as good as they use to be.  The talent level is disbursed more evenly than it use to but to me the top level is not as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I don't think the depth is any better today but I feel the coaches philosophy on substitution patterns have changed over the years.  Back then when players mainly stayed 4 years there were a clear pecking order on your roster.  The coaches would play the junior and seniors unless you had a great freshman.  The players knew this coming in and did not transfer at the rate they do today.  Back then no one would be complaining about Forrester, Moore and Anderson not getting playing time because that would be expected.

Looking at this from a different perspective--

-Due to the fact that kids are leaving earlier, it is almost imperative to give some of these kids minutes. A coach would not want to be put into the position where he has a player or players leave early, transfer, or whatever and he has not had a chance to see the young kids play against competition outside of practice

-The basketball world has changed. Kids come in with expectations. To keep kids happy, as long as they are working at it, they are going to see some time on the floor. Coach's reputations can be negatively impacted if word out is that kids are going to come in and sit for a year or two. AAU has fed into this issue. Kids' handlers or whatever you want to call them, have fed into the issue. Social media hasn't helped.

As much as you complain about the modern state of affairs, and as much as you pine for the good old days, things aren't going to revert back, Scott. At some point in time you are either going to have to accept change, or find another passion to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Looking at this from a different perspective--

-Due to the fact that kids are leaving earlier, it is almost imperative to give some of these kids minutes. A coach would not want to be put into the position where he has a player or players leave early, transfer, or whatever and he has not had a chance to see the young kids play against competition outside of practice

-The basketball world has changed. Kids come in with expectations. To keep kids happy, as long as they are working at it, they are going to see some time on the floor. Coach's reputations can be negatively impacted if word out is that kids are going to come in and sit for a year or two. AAU has fed into this issue. Kids' handlers or whatever you want to call them, have fed into the issue. Social media hasn't helped.

As much as you complain about the modern state of affairs, and as much as you pine for the good old days, things aren't going to revert back, Scott. At some point in time you are either going to have to accept change, or find another passion to follow.

did not say I thought it would change but I just don't know why people freak out when they see players playing 35+ minutes and act like it is a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Agreed and with TV timeouts every 4 minutes rest should not be a problem.

I meant rest between games, not really during them. If you have guys playing 30+ minutes per game, you can't be practicing hard between games, game-day walk through's need to be light not quasi practices, and you really need to taper all those things once you get into conference play and the Jan/Feb months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I meant rest between games, not really during them. If you have guys playing 30+ minutes per game, you can't be practicing hard between games, game-day walk through's need to be light not quasi practices, and you really need to taper all those things once you get into conference play and the Jan/Feb months. 

I knew what you were talking about but just stating that even during games they have plenty of time to rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

did not say I thought it would change but I just don't know why people freak out when they see players playing 35+ minutes and act like it is a bad thing.

I don't know if "Joe Fan" is freaking out or concerned about minutes played whatsoever.  It is the way the game is coached today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I don't think the depth is any better today but I feel the coaches philosophy on substitution patterns have changed over the years.  Back then when players mainly stayed 4 years there were a clear pecking order on your roster.  The coaches would play the junior and seniors unless you had a great freshman.  The players knew this coming in and did not transfer at the rate they do today.  Back then no one would be complaining about Forrester, Moore and Anderson not getting playing time because that would be expected.

The philosophy then:

"The best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores". Quote attributed to Al McQuire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...