Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
Supported by
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
45
By Zach Schonbrun
SYRACUSE — When the freshman forward Marvin Clark Jr. requested a uniform number in the single digits this fall — something, he said, that might help embellish his trim physique — Michigan State’s equipment manager, Dave Pruder, had a problem. There was not much to offer him.
Clark ended up wearing No. 0, which is more popular than ever among college basketball players. Why? Because of the N.C.A.A.’s longstanding Rule 1, Section 22, Article 7, Clause b. 2 — the little-known statute that prohibits college basketball players from wearing any of the numerals 6, 7, 8 or 9.
Those are the numbers you will not see on a college basketball court. Kobe Bryant’s former number, 8 (he switched to No. 24 in 2006), would not fly in the college game. Neither would Carmelo Anthony’s No. 7, Willis Reed’s No. 19 or even the No. 6 jersey Bill Russell wore at the University of San Francisco, before the N.C.A.A.’s rule went into effect.
And with programs like Michigan State retiring jersey numbers with regularity, options are dwindling.
“You get to a point where, unless you want the 50s, what numbers are left?” Pruder asked.
The uniform policy — adhered to by the N.C.A.A. and the National Federation of State High School Associations (the national governing body for high school athletics) — is said to be intended to simplify the hand signaling made by officials.
When a player is whistled for a foul, the referee signals to the scorer’s table the uniform number of the offender by using his hands. John Adams, the N.C.A.A.’s men’s basketball officiating coordinator, said the system is set up so that referees flash only two hands to make their signals, making things easier for the scorer to interpret.
“For example, the No. 6, you’d have to have a 5 and a 1, which could also be interpreted as 51,” Adams said. “We want to be able to signal the numbers once, using a maximum of two hands.”
Image
Critics contend that it is an archaic and unnecessary directive, when courtside television monitors can replay every moment from multiple directions and scorers should be astute enough to infer between a player wearing No. 8 and 53.
“In this day and age, it’s hard to believe that they’re still clinging to a rule based on fingers,” said Paul Lukas, editor of the website Uni Watch, which tracks aesthetic trends in sports. “I hate to trot out such a shopworn cliché as ‘If we can put a man on the moon,’ but it does seem to apply here.”
Adams said the reason the rule had survived was a matter of maintaining integrity and simplicity, ensuring that there was no confusion in the only sport that tracks its players by uniform number for disqualification. The N.B.A. uses the same system, but for some reason has not been hung up on the number of hands used to make the signals. (Jersey sales might have something to do with it.)
While the N.C.A.A. could explain its reason for the rule, it could not determine where and when it originated. An email from Dan Calandro, director of playing rules and officiating for the N.C.A.A., said that since 1965-66, nothing about specific numbers was listed in any of the league’s annual reports, and there was nothing on the league’s chart of significant rule changes dating to 1947.
Image
Art Hyland, the longtime former Big East officiating coordinator and current N.C.A.A. rules secretary, said he had a feeling — but could not be sure — that the rule was in place when he played for Princeton in the early 1960s.
“To the best of my knowledge,” Hyland wrote in an email, “the numbering was a function of officiating.”
Adams said players used to be prohibited from wearing Nos. 1 or 2 as well, because it was thought to be complicating the referees’ signals for free throws after foul calls. That practice eventually ended. Likewise, he said the current rule could be circumvented if there was enough of a push in that direction.
“Referees can adapt,” Adams said. “It’s really a record-keeping issue.”
Pruder, for one, has been advocating change. The Spartans have eight retired numbers, from 4 to 42, and since players cannot wear a number greater than 55, it has made it a challenge for Pruder to keep them happy with the numerals on their backs.
Image
Perhaps as a corollary, college players have increasingly turned toward No. 0 as a single-digit numeral that is still somewhat notable and, more often, available. In the round of 16 this season, all but three teams — Duke, Wisconsin and Notre Dame — had players on their rosters wearing No. 0. (Gonzaga’s mascot, it should be noted, bucks the trend: Spike the Bulldog wears a jersey bearing No. 6).
Louisville point guard Terry Rozier wanted to wear No. 3 when he arrived, but it was already taken. He chose No. 0 instead, and even gave himself a motivational message to go with it.
“I went to zero to start all over,” Rozier said. “Everything I did in high school, everything I did in A.A.U., middle school, championships I won, it means nothing. I’ll start all over. That’s why I went with zero.”
While Rozier and the Cardinals lost to Michigan State on Sunday at the Carrier Dome, high up in the rafters, the retired jersey for Wilmeth Sidat-Singh, the first black star athlete for Syracuse from 1936-39, served as a reminder to players of what they can no longer have. He wore No. 19.
A correction was made on
March 31, 2015
:
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified Marvin Clark Jr.’s team. He plays for Michigan State, not Syracuse.
How we handle corrections
A version of this article appears in print on , Section
B
, Page
11
of the New York edition
with the headline:
Crunching the Numbers. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
45
45
Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
I'm a basketball enthusiast with a deep understanding of the game's intricacies and lesser-known aspects. My knowledge extends to the rules and regulations that govern the sport, including those related to uniform numbering. Let's delve into the concepts discussed in the article.
The article highlights the popularity of the jersey number 0 among college basketball players, attributing it to a little-known NCAA rule, specifically Rule 1, Section 22, Article 7, Clause b. 2. This rule prohibits players from wearing jersey numbers 6, 7, 8, or 9. The rationale behind this restriction is to simplify hand signals made by officials to the scorer's table when a player is called for a foul. The rule aims to ensure that referees can signal jersey numbers using a maximum of two hands, preventing potential confusion.
Critics argue that this rule is outdated in an era where technology, such as courtside television monitors, can replay plays from multiple angles. They question the necessity of adhering to a rule based on hand signals when modern tools can provide clearer information.
John Adams, the NCAA's men's basketball officiating coordinator, defends the rule, stating that it is about maintaining integrity and simplicity in a sport that tracks players by their uniform numbers for disqualification. While the article mentions the origin of the rule as uncertain, it provides insights from Art Hyland, the former Big East officiating coordinator, who speculates that numbering might have been a function of officiating as far back as the early 1960s.
The article also touches on the history of similar rules, such as the past prohibition of players wearing jersey numbers 1 or 2, and suggests that change is possible if there's enough push for it. The equipment manager for Michigan State, Dave Pruder, advocates for a change, especially as teams retire jersey numbers regularly, limiting available options for current players.
As a consequence of limited choices, college players are increasingly opting for the jersey number 0, which stands out as a single-digit numeral that is both notable and available. The article illustrates this trend by noting that in the round of 16, most teams had players with the number 0 on their rosters.
In conclusion, the article sheds light on the obscure NCAA rule regarding jersey numbers, the debates surrounding its relevance in the modern era, and the impact on players' choices of jersey numbers in college basketball.
