I'm sure I only noticed them because they came in a flurry in the second half of a very close game, but are 10-second violations common against teams that are *not* pressing?

Against a man-to-man (-2) defense, my crappy third-string freshman PG got called for 10 seconds following a defensive rebound. It was at the 15:40 mark of the second half, with my squad trailing 33-32. He's a freshman though, and not a good one, so I can see him just screwing up.

That same half, against the same man-to-man (-2) defense, my senior PG gets called for a 10-second violation twice in the space of 3 possessions! The first, at 8:55 with a 43-42 lead, came after a made basket by the other team. The second, at 7:49 with the same 43-42 lead, came after a defensive rebound.

Is this common/normal? Especially against a non-pressing team?

I was running a slowdown offense, but I didn't expect that to result in them walking it so slowly up the court (without pressure) that it would create *more* turnovers. Is that just a risk I take with a slowdown? If my players' IQs improve (I am transitioning offenses), how much of a role will that play?

It's a new violation, it wasn't in the new engine. It's pretty much window dressing, the engine decided the possesion was going to end in a turnover and that's the turnover it decided to use. I've seen a 10 second violation when my team got a steal, kind've odd to steal the ball and then not be able to get past halfcourt in 10 seconds.

Needs to be fixed. Turnovers need to reflect what's going on. A bad pass needs to reflect a PA rating. A double dribble needs to reflect BH, etc. I saw it in the beta. The answer, "Token Pressure."

Don't like it, especially after a miss or when the defense is "getting back on D."

I had a 10 second violation after a steal....playing against a zone defense. I don't really understand how this is possible.

It didn't affect the game, but it's probably a fixable glitch. 10 sec. violations are pretty rare in college basketball anyway.

I've had a bunch against my team too. Seble should probably take a look at it.