| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/02/15 1:04 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| He said flat out that WCBB was even worse than the men's. |
Is that how you read this?
"College men's basketball is so far behind the times it's unbelievable. I mean women's basketball is behind the times. Men's basketball is even further behind the times." |
He said it the other way around on SVP & Russillo |
You mean after he started getting criticized he reversed himself?
As the hosts said this morning on Sportscenter in brushing off his comments, "Geno just likes to stir the pot."
|
|
Nomar33
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/02/15 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| deleted
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66927
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/02/15 4:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/college-basketballs-scoring-problem/
| Quote: |
| The NCAA can change the rules to make the game more entertaining but there�s a certain logical friction that I think works against it doing so. Think about what it would mean for the NCAA to admit that the game needs to be more entertaining. It would mean, first of all, the organization acknowledging that it sees amateur basketball primarily as a spectator sport, rather than as a venue for teaching players life lessons. It would mean the NCAA acknowledging that it sees basketball as a way to make money. And that opens up lines of thinking that the NCAA would rather keep closed. Because after all, if basketball is mostly about entertaining fans and making money, then why on earth is it being administered by an organization devoted to amateurism? And how on earth can that organization justify changing the structure of the game to make it easier to sell while not paying the players whose talents it�s selling? |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
TechDawgMc
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 401
Location: Temple, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/02/15 10:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't?
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 7:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't? |
The numbers speak for themselves.
The highest-percentage shot in the game of basketball doesn't exist for women.
It is my belief that if the dunk were outlawed- I don't want it to be- the %s listed above would be closer.
I've been calling for the use of the bigger ball for longer than I can remember, as I did for the 10-sec rule, as I continue to do re: the men's pussy-boy 35-sec clock to be reduced to 30.
YMMV
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 9:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't? |
The numbers speak for themselves.
The highest-percentage shot in the game of basketball doesn't exist for women.
It is my belief that if the dunk were outlawed- I don't want it to be- the %s listed above would be closer.
I've been calling for the use of the bigger ball for longer than I can remember, as I did for the 10-sec rule, as I continue to do re: the men's pussy-boy 35-sec clock to be reduced to 30.
YMMV |
It was set at 35 to give teams time to run actual organized half court offenses because no one wanted to turn college basketball into an NBA fast break dunk fest. Wouldn't bother me if they leave it alone.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11154
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 9:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
I was in 9th grade during a scrimmage in practice when I slammed the ball off the backboard on an open layup. Coach stopped practice and said "what are you trying to do, break the backboard? Do that again and it will be the last time you ever step on the court for this team"
I certainly missed some layups, but I never bricked one like that again. Ever. I practiced layups.
Yet I see it happen all the time especially in women's games. Layups that don't just rim out, but completely miss the rim. Total bricks worthy of "are you trying to break the glass" comments. Yet strangely there are some players you can count on to consistently make their layups. Hmmm.
Don't try to excuse it. There is no defense. It's like 50% free throw shooters. if they don't practice fundamentals, their fundamentals will suck. If they don't practice basic layups, then they won't make layups.
I can't believe you're trying to explain this away with "well the women are only 5'8 and the men are 6'1 so they're closer to the basket."
BTW, when did the idea of having basic layups lines during game warmups go out of fashion? |
So you never missed a layup in a game? So you were an 80% freethrow shooter because you practiced?
It doesn't work that way. Some people are better athletes than others, and some are better at some things than others. Two players can practice just as much, and be just as fundamentally sound, and one will be a significantly better free-throw shooter/layup maker.
I'm 5-8 and can't jump. My layup form is pretty good, but I will miss more layups than a 6-2 player who can jump and has the same form, all else being equal.
I don't know how many kids you've worked with, or how many practices you've run, but we work on layups every day, and we miss a ton -- even though the players have good to pretty good form. Give me a group of better pure athletes with the same size and work ethic, and they will make more layups.
This belief that the magic wand of "fundamentals" will cure everything is simply wrong. Talent plays a huge part in the equation, and part of talent is size and leaping ability.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 11:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't? |
The numbers speak for themselves.
The highest-percentage shot in the game of basketball doesn't exist for women.
It is my belief that if the dunk were outlawed- I don't want it to be- the %s listed above would be closer.
I've been calling for the use of the bigger ball for longer than I can remember, as I did for the 10-sec rule, as I continue to do re: the men's pussy-boy 35-sec clock to be reduced to 30.
YMMV |
It was set at 35 to give teams time to run actual organized half court offenses because no one wanted to turn college basketball into an NBA fast break dunk fest. Wouldn't bother me if they leave it alone. |
As I said, the highest-percentage shot in basketball does not exist in the womens game.
Re: the NCAA shot clock, it was adopted for the 85-86 season and was 45 seconds, reduced to 35 in 93-94.
The 30-second clock is on its way...
Nearly 60 percent of the nearly 500 college coaches polled by ESPN are in favor of the men's basketball shot clock changing from 35 seconds to 30 seconds.
Of 460 Division I coaches polled by ESPN on the topic, 270 (59 percent) said they would prefer the shot clock to shorten to 30 seconds. Thirty percent said they would rather it remain at 35 seconds, and 10 percent were in favor of it being changed to 24 seconds -- which is also what is used in NBA and international play.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 11:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Oh I know it's coming. Only a matter of time.
Because those marketing college sports think just like those marketing pro sports and believe that everyone likes lots of points scored.
And they're probably right because the majority of casual fans neither understand nor appreciate defense, whether it's basketball, football, lacrosse or anything else. If you're not scoring, they're bored.
|
|
TechDawgMc
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 401
Location: Temple, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 11:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't? |
The numbers speak for themselves.
The highest-percentage shot in the game of basketball doesn't exist for women.
It is my belief that if the dunk were outlawed- I don't want it to be- the %s listed above would be closer.
I've been calling for the use of the bigger ball for longer than I can remember, as I did for the 10-sec rule, as I continue to do re: the men's pussy-boy 35-sec clock to be reduced to 30.
YMMV |
Actually, it exists, most just can't do it. And the guys who are athletic enough to dunk would have pretty much the same pct. shot if they just laid it in. The difference is ability, not some odd rule difference. If the dunk were outlawed, you'd just see easy lay-ins from the guys.
The 30 sec clock will be in the men's game in the next two years, but I doubt the women will go back to the bigger ball. If anything, I think the smaller ball does help the women's game--but in the context of this conversation, it has to contribute to the shooting pct. numbers.
Still, the really big difference maker is the athleticism of the defense. Men don't get to take set shots from three point land.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66927
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| The 30 sec clock will be in the men's game in the next two years, but I doubt the women will go back to the bigger ball. If anything, I think the smaller ball does help the women's game--but in the context of this conversation, it has to contribute to the shooting pct. numbers. |
The available evidence does not support the notion that the smaller ball helps FG%. It has not proven true in studies nor in practice. FG% for women did not improve when the small ball was implemented nor has it improved in the years since.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5362
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 12:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Well ol' Geno set off a firestorm of a conversation, didn't he? Hmmm...not really but it did spark debate in certain circles. |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 1:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| TechDawgMc wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
I'd be careful about small sample sizes in late-round tournament games.
That said, if you compare the men and the women on shooting percentage, here's what you see:
Women
Range: 54.3% (UConn) to 32.0% (Morgan State)
Bottom of top 50: 43.2% (DePaul)
Median: 39.8% (8 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 36.5% (Arizona)
Men
Range: 52.0% (Gonzaga) to 35.5% (San Jose State)
Bottom of top 50: 46.3% (Oregon)
Median: 43.4% (7 schools)
Top of bottom 50: 40.4% (Hartford)
So the men shoot somewhat better on the whole. That said, they score less, because the pace of the men's game definitely is slower. |
Unless dunks are removed (even though dunk attempts occasionally are missed) the men's FG% is unfair for comparison purposes, imo. |
I agree it's an unfair comparison, but you have it backwards. The women have a smaller ball and they don't face anything close to the same level of defense. I doubt the "ease" of a dunk even comes close to matching that effect-- and why should you discount how a player scores just because he is capable of something that another one isn't? |
The numbers speak for themselves.
The highest-percentage shot in the game of basketball doesn't exist for women.
It is my belief that if the dunk were outlawed- I don't want it to be- the %s listed above would be closer.
I've been calling for the use of the bigger ball for longer than I can remember, as I did for the 10-sec rule, as I continue to do re: the men's pussy-boy 35-sec clock to be reduced to 30.
YMMV |
Actually, it exists, most just can't do it. And the guys who are athletic enough to dunk would have pretty much the same pct. shot if they just laid it in. The difference is ability, not some odd rule difference. If the dunk were outlawed, you'd just see easy lay-ins from the guys.
The 30 sec clock will be in the men's game in the next two years, but I doubt the women will go back to the bigger ball. If anything, I think the smaller ball does help the women's game--but in the context of this conversation, it has to contribute to the shooting pct. numbers.
Still, the really big difference maker is the athleticism of the defense. Men don't get to take set shots from three point land. |
For all intents and purposes the dunk does not exist in WCB.
I do not agree that the % of layups made would equal the % of dunks made were dunks illegal.
The smaller ball is an unproven advantage re: FG% as noted elswhere.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 2:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
When 30 for 30 did two pieces, one on the miracle finish of Jim Valvano's 83 North Carolina State team and the one on the demise of the Big East, all the pundits including Dicky V, Mike K, John Thompson, etc lamented the significant decay of the quality of the today's men's game. They pointed to the decline of performance to today's mercenary players as opposed to the elite players back then who stayed four years and developed their game.
Geno merely echos their sentiments in so many words that with today's one and done player in the men's game, the quality of play for the most part is crap.
_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9634
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 8:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| One thing the men fans don't face right now is the prospect of a final game in which one team has already beaten it's two potential opponents by 18 (Notre Dame in South Bend) and 25 points( South Carolina in CT) .
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8231
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 9:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I probably watched my most MCBB during the 10 years the dunk was banned. It's easier to block or intimidate an above-rim lay-in than a forceful slam dunk; dunks have a higher make percentage.
Layup percentages clearly go down as distance from hand to rim increases.
I don't believe the smaller ball increases shooting percentages with the average hand size and height of today's WCBB players, if it ever did. Geno Auriemma has said he thinks the smaller ball is more likely to rattle around and pop out of the rim than the heavier full size ball. |
|
JACKOWACKO
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Right now? Cambridge
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9634
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/03/15 10:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Geno Auriemma has said he thinks the smaller ball is more likely to rattle around and pop out of the rim than the heavier full size ball. |
But, on the other hand, it's less likely to make contact with the rim.
The two balls weigh differently, and I seem to recall someone claiming once that being heavier actually is an advantage in terms of directing it to its target.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11154
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/15 9:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
For what it's worth, I've played a lot with both the men's and women's balls, and my un-statistical feeling is that what I gain from the smaller diameter I lose from the lighter ball bouncing out of the basket more easily.
I can miss just as easily with both balls, and have never noticed any significant difference in my efficiency with either one when it comes to shooting.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
dtrain34
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 409
Location: Lacey, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/04/15 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
One of the biggest wooshes of hot air of the millennium to date is this BS about the 35 second clock or the 30 second clock. I'm sure in today's analytically-infused world some one as already done this study, but c'mon, how many shots in the men's game occur in those final five seconds -- especially shots that are not born of desperation but were truly fundamentally worked-for in a Woodenian manner. A handful per season, maybe?
I coached men for two decades -- from the no shot clock era through the 45 and on to the 35 and I can assure you there was no play my teams every ran that required 34 seconds to unfold. In fact, the longest, most convoluted and multi-optioned play I ever used was lifted from Jody Conradt, the former Texas women's coach.
As for the scoring, we always hear this crap about "offense wins games, but defense wins championships" ("crap" because how do you win championships.... duh, by winning GAMES!) but when teams start playing great defense we feel the need to screw around with the rules to gain back a few points per game in scoring?
I watched one of my favorite games of all time on ESPN Classic not long ago -- the Warriors finishing their sweep of the Bullets in the '75 NBA Finals -- and listened in amazement as Brent Musburger praised a "tight" Golden State defense that basically consisted of them staying within three feet of their men most of the time.
I have yet to attend a game where, except perhaps in frustration at the team I am rooting for's lack of success, I said "wow, the pace of the this game, the convoluted sets and overly intricate defenses are certainly destroying my ability to enjoy the sport of basketball." A game is a game. If it's close and exciting and fans are making noise, the fan is liable to have fun.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8231
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Since there was no curling or fencing on TV last night, I broke down and watched MCBB, evil Kentucky vs. sainted Wisconsin.
According to some thoughts here, the 71-64 score would be low. I thought the game was tremendously competitive and exciting throughout. More scoring wouldn't have made it a better game to me.
The game confirmed a few of my increasing impressions over 60 years of watching MCBB. The player skills are much better. The team offenses aren't. The team defenses are much better.
And here's the biggie I forgot in my prior post: the players are so much bigger, longer and faster. I think the court, defined for the dwarfs of 1890, is much too small for today's basketball players. I've thought that for at least 30 years.
To score more, the offense needs more freedom of movement. That should be accomplished not by clock or foul call gimmicks, but simply by making the court longer and wider. The fast giants of today can clog the arc area without hardly even moving on defense. Add about 15 feet of length and 10 feet of width to the men's court. Then, optionally, add 9" to the height of the rim.
On Wisconsin! Duke is even more evil than Kentucky. |
|
ball4life
Joined: 26 Jun 2012
Posts: 199
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 3:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Durantula wrote: |
| What do you think would happen if you took the same comments and had a men's basketball coach saying this about the women's game? I think the reaction would be much worse. |
There would be outrage.
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 9:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ball4life wrote: |
| Durantula wrote: |
| What do you think would happen if you took the same comments and had a men's basketball coach saying this about the women's game? I think the reaction would be much worse. |
There would be outrage. |
Exactly, that's why its a joke Geno said this because he knows his peers on the mens side have to be quiet and can't make a comeback when Geno bashes their game.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16361
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 9:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Since there was no curling or fencing on TV last night, I broke down and watched MCBB, evil Kentucky vs. sainted Wisconsin.
According to some thoughts here, the 71-64 score would be low. I thought the game was tremendously competitive and exciting throughout. More scoring wouldn't have made it a better game to me.
The game confirmed a few of my increasing impressions over 60 years of watching MCBB. The player skills are much better. The team offenses aren't. The team defenses are much better.
And here's the biggie I forgot in my prior post: the players are so much bigger, longer and faster. I think the court, defined for the dwarfs of 1890, is much too small for today's basketball players. I've thought that for at least 30 years.
To score more, the offense needs more freedom of movement. That should be accomplished not by clock or foul call gimmicks, but simply by making the court longer and wider. The fast giants of today can clog the arc area without hardly even moving on defense. Add about 15 feet of length and 10 feet of width to the men's court. Then, optionally, add 9" to the height of the rim.
On Wisconsin! Duke is even more evil than Kentucky. |
You picked a good one to watch. I read that Wisconsin's offense is the most efficient of any men's team in a decade.
|
|
|
|
