:30 shot clock likely to be passed at meetings in a few weeks

[humanlung]

This is one of those things I will never agree with, even if it does miraculously increase shooting percentages. The thing I like about high school and college basketball is that its not the NBA. Any step towards an NBA game is not a welcome change in my book.

+1,000,000

[humanlung]

You shouldn't because it is a ridiculous reach.

It must be wonderful being the only person whose opinion is correct.

[GGGG]

Because you AGREED that pop culture has an impact on sports, and then showed a fundamental misunderstanding of what pop culture means.  The rest of your post simply confirms my argument - that society's current for instant gratification (PART OF OUR POP CULTURE) leads to demands for more scoring, which leads to demands for shorter shot clocks.

Follow the dots on your own.

I said it *can.*  Even I agree with you that "instant gratification" is part of "pop culture" (which I don't agree with), that doesn't mean it *does in this case.*

Got it?

My work is done here.

I'll give you a C-.

[GooooMarquette]

I said it *can.*  Even I agree with you that "instant gratification" is part of "pop culture" (which I don't agree with), that doesn't mean it *does in this case.*

Got it?


I'll give you a C-.

Glad I got a higher grade than you did.

[GGGG]

Glad I got a higher grade than you did.

Admittedly a low bar to jump over.   

[mu03eng]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Changing the worst time in the front court from 25 seconds to 20 seconds is going to prevent teams from running sets???  What kind of sets are they running??  I'm pretty sure you could get at least two offensive sets out of 20 seconds.

Also the talent trumping strategy with a shorter shot clock is probably negligible.  Yes talent wins in a more hectic environment but with the reduced time defenses don't have to defend as long either.  I'm betting this change doesn't have much impact on offensive efficiency.

What I do think it will do is hurt coaches that are essentially the 6th player on the court (looking at you Tanned Tommy).  Teams that are prepared and allowed to run themselves during the game will see almost no impact IMHO.  If that's a style of ball you want to see there is maybe a point but is that really basketball?  What styles does this change eliminate?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Changing the worst time in the front court from 25 seconds to 20 seconds is going to prevent teams from running sets???  What kind of sets are they running??  I'm pretty sure you could get at least two offensive sets out of 20 seconds.

Also the talent trumping strategy with a shorter shot clock is probably negligible.  Yes talent wins in a more hectic environment but with the reduced time defenses don't have to defend as long either.  I'm betting this change doesn't have much impact on offensive efficiency.

What I do think it will do is hurt coaches that are essentially the 6th player on the court (looking at you Tanned Tommy).  Teams that are prepared and allowed to run themselves during the game will see almost no impact IMHO.  If that's a style of ball you want to see there is maybe a point but is that really basketball?  What styles does this change eliminate?

I actually think it will help teams like IU....they push and push quite a bit.  Fewer half court sets help his teams, besides a shorter shot clock and he can't get his hands on "over coaching" which he does too often.

The styles that get changed are those that want to shorten the game.  Much like a running team in football without necessarily a quality passing game.  Fewer possessions helps those teams.  We'll see what happens.  5 Seconds isn't the end of the world.  If they went down to 24 that would have been too much.  I suppose they are doing the drip drip drip scenario where in 5 to 10 years they cut it again.  As someone said, this isn't the NBA nor should it be.  The players aren't as good and with 352 DI teams, there should be a bit of diversity in how the game is played. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think we passed up a lot of solid shots the last couple of years trying to find a better one that often never came.  If this forces teams to take the first good shot it could be good for many teams, increasing scoring while not dropping percentages too much.

The downside, IMO, is that anything that lowers the potential for upsets is bad for college basketball.  One of the things that makes college basketball different from the NBA is the way strategy can overcome talent.  The shorter the shot clock, the more advantage talent has.  Some think thats a good thing, some don't.

Ding Ding Ding

[ChicosBailBonds]

The jump from HS to college is bigger than the jump from college to NBA.  Those darn millionaire college coaches figured out too many ways to take advantage of no shot clock, and watchability suffered.

Agreed.  I would never want to have no shot clock.  It was rather startling to see it.  I didn't notice it until the second quarter as the flow wasn't interrupted at all, but it was interesting.

I like a shot clock, I just don't want to take away the beauty of college basketball with upsets, different styles of play and anything that makes it too similar to the NBA.

[mu03eng]

I like a shot clock, I just don't want to take away the beauty of college basketball with upsets, different styles of play and anything that makes it too similar to the NBA.

What strategy and/or style doesn't work because of 5 less seconds per possession?

[tower912]

What strategy and/or style doesn't work because of 5 less seconds per possession?

Hopefully, the swing. 

[We R Final Four]

Seems like more opportunities for that 3rd foul on Luke or the other bigs in the first half.

[bilsu]

Ive watched more Bulls games this past week then I have in a while and the lack of ball movement is astounding.

I have been watching the Bucks/Bulls series and what I find astounding is Jimmy Butler.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What strategy and/or style doesn't work because of 5 less seconds per possession?

Not that it doesn't work per se, but doesn't work as well or more difficult to control.  If you are an undermanned team and wants to keep the game in the 50's or low 60's, the longer the shot clock, the easier it is to go about that strategy.  Someone would have to do the math....does dropping it by 5 seconds lead to X more possessions per game?  Is it 2...3...5?  Multiply that by the points per possession you give up....you get the idea.

[mu03eng]

Not that it doesn't work per se, but doesn't work as well or more difficult to control.  If you are an undermanned team and wants to keep the game in the 50's or low 60's, the longer the shot clock, the easier it is to go about that strategy.  Someone would have to do the math....does dropping it by 5 seconds lead to X more possessions per game?  Is it 2...3...5?  Multiply that by the points per possession you give up....you get the idea.

Even if true, I'd trade the bottom 100 teams struggling more and some OOC games being worse for improved premier and conference games.

[Lennys Tap]

Even if true, I'd trade the bottom 100 teams struggling more and some OOC games being worse for improved premier and conference games.

It won't result in many more possessions per game but it will make the games a little more watchable. This "beauty" of the college game Chico talks about is anything but - watching teams hold the ball or stand near center court dribbling aimlessly is ugly and boring -if you like basketball, anyway. Maybe not if you like watching 50 year old men playing chess and using the players as the pieces.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Even if true, I'd trade the bottom 100 teams struggling more and some OOC games being worse for improved premier and conference games.

Is that what we will get?   Seems to me, that is yet to be proven.  We shall see.

[brandx]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  Changing the worst time in the front court from 25 seconds to 20 seconds is going to prevent teams from running sets???  What kind of sets are they running??  I'm pretty sure you could get at least two offensive sets out of 20 seconds.

Also the talent trumping strategy with a shorter shot clock is probably negligible.  Yes talent wins in a more hectic environment but with the reduced time defenses don't have to defend as long either.  I'm betting this change doesn't have much impact on offensive efficiency.

What I do think it will do is hurt coaches that are essentially the 6th player on the court (looking at you Tanned Tommy).  Teams that are prepared and allowed to run themselves during the game will see almost no impact IMHO.  If that's a style of ball you want to see there is maybe a point but is that really basketball?  What styles does this change eliminate?

You're right. No team needs 35 seconds to run their sets. No team.

Teams that currently use the entire clock hold the ball for 25 seconds and then run their play. They can just as easily do it 5 seconds earlier.

[JWags85]

People say that women's basketball is more technically and fundamentally sound, due to a variety of reasons, and they do just fine with a 30 second clock.

[bilsu]

People say that women's basketball is more technically and fundamentally sound, due to a variety of reasons, and they do just fine with a 30 second clock.

They do fine with the 30 second clock, because the biggest difference between men's and women's games is the physicality of the defense.
I am for the 30 second clock.

[jesmu84]

In college basketball, like other sports, the ideal is that the "best" team wins, right? Not the best strategy. So, (like the NCAA tourney compared to a best of 7 NBA playoff), the shorter shot clock should result in an increase in possessions, which is an increased sample size in each game, therefore eliminating more statistical anomalies. In this situation, you're giving the "best" team a better chance at winning vs. some fluke or one-off.

That's a bad thing?

Also, if these kids' goal is to play in the NBA (I realize this isn't every college player's goal), isn't this basically the minor league for the NBA and so they should be playing/preparing for their careers?

3rd. This will only help NBA GMs more into not screwing themselves into picking kids they can't evaluate properly. I'm guessing the NBA likes this idea. Much like the NFL would like if they could get rid of the spread in college football.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In college basketball, like other sports, the ideal is that the "best" team wins, right? Not the best strategy. So, (like the NCAA tourney compared to a best of 7 NBA playoff), the shorter shot clock should result in an increase in possessions, which is an increased sample size in each game, therefore eliminating more statistical anomalies. In this situation, you're giving the "best" team a better chance at winning vs. some fluke or one-off.

That's a bad thing?

Also, if these kids' goal is to play in the NBA (I realize this isn't every college player's goal), isn't this basically the minor league for the NBA and so they should be playing/preparing for their careers?

3rd. This will only help NBA GMs more into not screwing themselves into picking kids they can't evaluate properly. I'm guessing the NBA likes this idea. Much like the NFL would like if they could get rid of the spread in college football.

How do separate the two?  Sometimes the best team should lose because they have a poor strategy. 

[D'Lo Brown]

Excited to see how our team handles the change. In theory I think it could help us (as well as other teams that focus on turnovers and transition buckets). We'll see.

With the increase in possessions, will we see an increase in fouls as well? Not as many fouls happen while the PG is holding the ball for 5+ seconds. If we're simply going to take that part out of the game and keep the actual time of the game the same, it seems that fouls would become an even bigger issue. Almost every team employs the strategy of driving the ball towards the basket with the shot clock running out, leading to a nearly inevitable block/charge call.

IMO the foul limit issue is far more critical than the shot clock, anyway... And if we lower the shot clock I think we're opening ourselves up to even more fluke games where stars get 2 or 3 cheepies and ride the bench.

[chapman]

So more emphasis on shooting, fouls, turnovers, rebounding.  Less of standing, holding, resetting.  It's like this change forces more actual basketball to be played.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

So more emphasis on shooting, fouls, turnovers, rebounding.  Less of standing, holding, resetting.  It's like this change forces more actual basketball to be played.   

The previous version wasn't basketball?

I keep reading this "standing around" quote used and I don't recall seeing teams standing around.