Kolek planning to go pro
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.
You shouldn't because it is a ridiculous reach.
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.
My work is done here.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Ive watched more Bulls games this past week then I have in a while and the lack of ball movement is astounding.
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.
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.
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.
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.