MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
-
I don't like it, but many do. Will increase the number of possessions, but I have to think that shooting percentages will be uglier as a result.
I like seeing different styles of basketball, including those that work the clock for the better shot. Shortening the clock will hurt that a bit, but I'm glad they aren't going to 24 seconds.
-
Hate it.
-
A ripple of fear in Madison...
-
Love it
-
A welcome change. They should shorten the shot clock after fouls to :20 since you don't have to get across the time line. Teams will adjust and less clock will be milked early. I'm glad it didn't go to 24, as these aren't NBA players, but like the change.
Much better that the :45 Bo voted for :D
-
If it stinks they can always go back to a 35 sec clock. Remember the rolling clock fiasco in football a few years ago? That lasted all of one season.
-
Much needed, about time.
-
Good. 35 seconds is lame. Even if it doesn't lead to more offense/scoring, there's no need for stall dribbling, or resets when things aren't developing in the possession.
-
Serious question - why would anyone dislike this change? It's long overdue.
-
If women can figure out how to shoot the ball in 30 seconds I think the men can handle it. Not sure how you can hate this, there is plenty of time wasted walking the ball up the court or watching Derrick Wilson dribble in place for 7 seconds.
-
Next up...widen the lane to the NBA size.
-
I don't get how this change could be anything but positive? Players need somewhere between 31 and 35 seconds to get a good shot at the basket....anything sooner and its a statistically worse shot??
I like it, and a good compromise to not going all the way to 24...these guys ain't the NBA yet.
Now if we can just get the officials uniformly trained and convinced that their picture doesn't appear on the game tickets we'll be getting somewhere ;) #refshow
-
For as much crap as people give NBA officials, it has taken me a week and a half of NBA playoffs to realize that they are infinitely better than the NCAAs.
-
For as much crap as people give NBA officials, it has taken me a week and a half of NBA playoffs to realize that they are infinitely better than the NCAAs.
This is unfortunately correct.
Have to say though, I feel like basketball has to be the toughest sport to officiate.
One change I think they could make to help officiating in the NCAA is have a fitness test. Especially if the game speed picks up with the shot clock change I think a ton of officiating mistakes happen because officials are out of position.
-
A ripple of fear in Madison...
And among Badger opponents who will have less time to beat the Badger's defense. 30 to 27 final scores, anyone?
-
Hate it.
Have a seat son, and let this old timer tell you all about something called the "four corners" offense...
-
Serious question - why would anyone dislike this change? It's long overdue.
Serious answer....because it encourages different styles of play, gives some teams with less talent the chance to win, encourages teams to actually pass the ball and look for the best shot possible, etc.
Cutting it 5 seconds won't be a killer, but whenever you reduce the shot clock you also reduce style of play options. It will lead to more forced shots (bad shots), etc. It obviously favors the run and gun type teams.
You may disagree with this answer, but these are some of the reasons why it has been kept as long as it has. Whether reducing it leads to more points we will see. It certainly will lead to more possessions over a course of a game which should lead to more points. It may also lead to a lot more missed shots and forced bball to get that extra 5 to 10 points a game.
-
Serious question - why would anyone dislike this change? It's long overdue.
Many of the complaints I hear about the college game is that it's too sloppy, shooting percentages are too low, etc. Rushing things further will only exacerbate these issues.
-
For as much crap as people give NBA officials, it has taken me a week and a half of NBA playoffs to realize that they are infinitely better than the NCAAs.
Of course they are. They also only have to ref for 30 teams, not 352.....so many more games means you have to go that much deeper into the ref talent pool. This shouldn't be surprising at all.
Widening the lane will not happen this year. It might get approved, but will not be implemented this year. Too difficult to redraw the lines for most programs this quickly. They need a good year to plan that out, send the courts out for alterations, etc.
-
Many of the complaints I hear about the college game is that it's too sloppy, shooting percentages are too low, etc. Rushing things further will only exacerbate these issues.
I disagree. My main complaint is that too many teams just stand around wasting time trying to run down the shot clock. This will keep things moving and make the game more fluid. I think the lower reset after an offensive rebound would be bigger, especially toward the end of games. Too many teams just waste 35 seconds, jack up a shot and luck out with the offensive rebound to waste another 35 seconds.
-
The reason I like the longer shot clock is because teams actually run sets. I hate all of the isolation plays that end up happening in the NBA. These kids arent as skilled as NBA players, the shooting percentages will be at an all time low next year guaranteed. So if you though the game was sloppy before, just wait.
-
I disagree. My main complaint is that too many teams just stand around wasting time trying to run down the shot clock. This will keep things moving and make the game more fluid. I think the lower reset after an offensive rebound would be bigger, especially toward the end of games. Too many teams just waste 35 seconds, jack up a shot and luck out with the offensive rebound to waste another 35 seconds.
In the "old days," there was no shot clock and people had this same complaint. A 35-second clock was implemented, and it's still too slow so now people want 30. The logical extension is that eventually people will calculate how long it takes to get a rebound, run it upcourt, and take a shot...and use that to establish the shot clock. After all, why would we want teams doing anything but bringing it up and shooting, right?
Emblematic of today's society that requires instant responses for everything. Don't return a call within 5 minutes, and you get "what took you so long?" ?-(
-
The reason I like the longer shot clock is because teams actually run sets. I hate all of the isolation plays that end up happening in the NBA. These kids arent as skilled as NBA players, the shooting percentages will be at an all time low next year guaranteed. So if you though the game was sloppy before, just wait.
+1
-
The reason I like the longer shot clock is because teams actually run sets. I hate all of the isolation plays that end up happening in the NBA. These kids arent as skilled as NBA players, the shooting percentages will be at an all time low next year guaranteed. So if you though the game was sloppy before, just wait.
The NBA runs more sets, and the college game runs more isolations, than you are giving each credit for.
-
The NBA runs more sets, and the college game runs more isolations, than you are giving each credit for.
Ive watched more Bulls games this past week then I have in a while and the lack of ball movement is astounding.
-
In the "old days," there was no shot clock and people had this same complaint. A 35-second clock was implemented, and it's still too slow so now people want 30. The logical extension is that eventually people will calculate how long it takes to get a rebound, run it upcourt, and take a shot...and use that to establish the shot clock. After all, why would we want teams doing anything but bringing it up and shooting, right?
Emblematic of today's society that requires instant responses for everything. Don't return a call within 5 minutes, and you get "what took you so long?" ?-(
Wow. Yeah. Let's extrapolate the college shot clock into a wider message about how society wants instant gratification. ::)
I actually don't think it is going to be much of a difference. The shot clock went from 45 seconds to 35 about 15 years ago and I don't think it mattered all that much. Five seconds isn't going to matter either. Good coaches and good players are going to adjust.
-
I agree that time has come to move the college game along a bit, but I also see that it will likely impact shooting percentages as well as lessen the variations in playing styles. The reality is that college players are not as skilled as NBA players, and so to force them to play the same game will not be all good.
-
Ive watched more Bulls games this past week then I have in a while and the lack of ball movement is astounding.
Well the Bulls are just one team out of the NBA. The NBA ball movement is on the whole much better than it was a decade ago.
By and large, NCAA ball movement is hardly better.
-
I am happy about this change. 35 is way too long.
-
A 30 second clock brings more urgency to the offense and encourages (somewhat) more aggressive offense. The biggest danger to the offense from this change won't be lower shooting percentages, it will be turnovers.
-
A 30 second clock brings more urgency to the offense and encourages (somewhat) more aggressive offense. The biggest danger to the offense from this change won't be lower shooting percentages, it will be turnovers.
Yea and turnovers are already bad enough as is. This will not work out well, Even those who support the change said it themselves, the difference between college and the NBA is incredible. At the end of the season, we MAY see higher scoring, but shooting percentage will decrease and turnovers will increase.
-
Yea and turnovers are already bad enough as is. This will not work out well, Even those who support the change said it themselves, the difference between college and the NBA is incredible. At the end of the season, we MAY see higher scoring, but shooting percentage will decrease and turnovers will increase.
Of course it will at first. I think this also might begin to emphasize shooting by the coaches instead of slashing and three pointers. And if that happens percentages will be fine over time.
-
Of course it will at first. I think this also might begin to emphasize shooting by the coaches instead of slashing and three pointers. And if that happens percentages will be fine over time.
You bring up a good point here.
When the NBA got rid of their illegal defense (zones were not allowed), scoring decreased at first. But then NBA coaches figured out how to run better offenses and the game simply got better as the ball moved more. (I know this meant we had to sacrifice the isolation plays on one side where everyone else stood on the other side. THAT was boring basketball.)
So you very well might not see an appreciable difference in scoring. But good coaches will figure it out.
-
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.
-
The reason I like the longer shot clock is because teams actually run sets. I hate all of the isolation plays that end up happening in the NBA. These kids arent as skilled as NBA players, the shooting percentages will be at an all time low next year guaranteed. So if you though the game was sloppy before, just wait.
Some of you are acting like 15 seconds are being sliced off the clock. It is 5 seconds. Those extra five seconds should not stop a team from running sets or getting off a good shot. If a team can't get off a good shot in 30 seconds those extra five probably aren't going to make much of a difference. The more possessions the better.
And you also can't judge the results after one year of the rule - too small of a sample.
-
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.
The talent disparity particularly with early entry will keep the college game from approaching the NBA game.
-
The reason I like the longer shot clock is because teams actually run sets. I hate all of the isolation plays that end up happening in the NBA. These kids arent as skilled as NBA players, the shooting percentages will be at an all time low next year guaranteed. So if you though the game was sloppy before, just wait.
With 35 seconds they either stall for almost ten seconds before running the set, or they'll start to run a set, fail to get on the same page, re-start, have it sniffed out, re-start again. Wouldn't be surprised if it helps offenses by forcing them to execute a play without the luxury of being tentative because there's always time to try again. If not, try on the next possession, rather than multiple tries during one (without the benefit of an offensive rebound).
-
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.
Agree completely.
It's a different game.
-
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.
-
I was at the Colorado state high school Final Four in March and there was no shot clock at all. Interesting to watch. Nothing slow about it at all. Entertaining games.
-
Some of you are acting like 15 seconds are being sliced off the clock. It is 5 seconds. Those extra five seconds should not stop a team from running sets or getting off a good shot. If a team can't get off a good shot in 30 seconds those extra five probably aren't going to make much of a difference.
Isn't that Crean's entire offense??
-
college water polo has been using a 30 second shot clock, like in the water, with swimming, and people trying to drown you, and they have time to run plays.
-
Wow. Yeah. Let's extrapolate the college shot clock into a wider message about how society wants instant gratification. ::)
You're right - I shouldn't...because changes in society never have any impact on sports/entertainment. ::)
-
You're right - I shouldn't...because changes in society never have any impact on sports/entertainment. ::)
You shouldn't because it is a ridiculous reach.
-
I was at the Colorado state high school Final Four in March and there was no shot clock at all. Interesting to watch. Nothing slow about it at all. Entertaining games.
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.
-
You shouldn't because it is a ridiculous reach.
It's ridiculous and naïve to think that popular culture has nothing to do with the public's tastes or expectations in sports/entertainment.
Keep your eyes closed....
-
It's ridiculous and naïve to think that popular culture has nothing to do with the public's tastes or expectations in sports/entertainment.
Keep your eyes closed....
Of course pop culture has an impact on sports. "Instant gratification" isn't really pop culture.
College basketball scoring has been decreasing since the 1970s, largely due to better defense. It is hardly some sort of indictment on society that people want to tweak the rules to get more scoring. Sports have always changed to give offenses and defenses more balance.
You are making it way more than it actually is.
-
Of course pop culture has an impact on sports. "Instant gratification" isn't really pop culture.
There's your disconnect.....
-
There's your disconnect.....
And ignores the rest of the post. Classic.
-
And ignores the rest of the post. Classic.
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.
-
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
-
You shouldn't because it is a ridiculous reach.
It must be wonderful being the only person whose opinion is correct.
-
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-.
-
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. ;)
-
Glad I got a higher grade than you did. ;)
Admittedly a low bar to jump over. ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
What strategy and/or style doesn't work because of 5 less seconds per possession?
Hopefully, the swing.
-
Seems like more opportunities for that 3rd foul on Luke or the other bigs in the first half.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
-
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. :P
The previous version wasn't basketball?
I keep reading this "standing around" quote used and I don't recall seeing teams standing around.
-
The previous version wasn't basketball?
I keep reading this "standing around" quote used and I don't recall seeing teams standing around.
It's just a general catch-all for walking the ball up the court slowly, then everyone more or less "standing around". Maybe pass the ball a few times but nothing really happens. Otherwise known as a lack of urgency.
-
It's just a general catch-all for walking the ball up the court slowly, then everyone more or less "standing around". Maybe pass the ball a few times but nothing really happens. Otherwise known as a lack of urgency.
I call it analyzing the defense, getting into position to run your plays, spread the floor, etc. Strategy.
-
:30 seconds is perfect for college ball. Love it.
-
In college basketball, like other sports, the ideal is that the "best" team wins, right? Not the best strategy.
Disagree with this vehemently. If this is what you want, why even play the games? Lesser talented teams must be given a chance to implement some sort of strategy to overcome superior talent. The less upsets there are, the less interesting any sport is. Not saying that taking 5 seconds off the clock will have a major effect on upsets, but increased possessions lead to better chance for superior talent. Two of the greatest games in the last 30 years, (Nova over Georgetown and NC State over Houston) almost definitely don't happen with a 30 second shot clock.
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?
If you want to entertain your audience it is. The less the chance of an upset in any sport, the less interesting any individual contest is.
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.
99% of D-1 college players don't play in the NBA. NCAA basketball doesn't exist to be an NBA minor league. The fact that it serves that function is nice for the NBA, but should never be a concern for college basketball. The ability of NBA GMs to discern which player they want to draft should not be in the top 1000 things colleges should be worried about.
Why would you want college basketball to just become a vastly inferior version of the NBA? How is that going to help its popularity? If that were the case, why would I watch it? I should just watch the NBA. It needs to be its own game.
-
I call it analyzing the defense, getting into position to run your plays, spread the floor, etc. Strategy.
And that can all be done effectively with a 30 second clock.
The change is not going to lead to such a dramatic impact in possessions to have a huge impact, IMO.
-
And that can all be done effectively with a 30 second clock.
The change is not going to lead to such a dramatic impact in possessions to have a huge impact, IMO.
Agree. Football can make substitutions, huddle up, call a play, get 11 guys into a formation at the line (spread out over 50 yards and including obese linemen), analyze the defense and possibly change the play, all in 40 seconds. I think basketball teams can get five guys from one end of the court to the other and execute a play that results in a shot attempt within 30 seconds.
-
I call it analyzing the defense, getting into position to run your plays, spread the floor, etc. Strategy.
Analyze the defense? I can usually tell you what defense a team is in before the offense crosses half court. Getting into position? Don't these guys learn that in practice? Spreading the floor? Rudimentary. You're turning the addition of 1+1 into calculus. The only "strategy" involved is how long do we hold the ball before we run our offense.
-
I don't think taking 5 seconds off the clock will make that much difference. It will be interesting to see if it really does help the offense or will we see an increase in shot clock violations. No way should they go back to no shot clock. The 4 corners offense was horrible to watch and actually back fired on Dean Smith when we beat them in the '77 title game.
-
Ive watched more Bulls games this past week then I have in a while and the lack of ball movement is astounding.
Watch a Spurs game. Quite often, all 5 players touch the ball on many, many possessions and the end result is a very high-percentage shot.
The Warriors, Clippers and other teams also get quite good ball movement and player movement within 24-second spans.
-
And that can all be done effectively with a 30 second clock.
The change is not going to lead to such a dramatic impact in possessions to have a huge impact, IMO.
Maybe. We will find out.
It ultimately takes some strategy out of the game which is unfortunate in my opinion. To what degree who knows. On the flip side, at the end of games you may see slightly fouling because of the shot clock change.
-
It ultimately takes some strategy out of the game
This is opinion not fact. I see no strategy this removes from the game at all. 35 to 24 you'd have an argument....maybe
-
This is opinion not fact. I see no strategy this removes from the game at all. 35 to 24 you'd have an argument....maybe
Even 24 wouldn't preclude strategy. The NBA certainly has strategy. Oftentimes a lot more than the college game does.
-
Maybe. We will find out.
It ultimately takes some strategy out of the game which is unfortunate in my opinion. To what degree who knows. On the flip side, at the end of games you may see slightly fouling because of the shot clock change.
Forcing coaches to use a different strategy is not removing strategy.
-
Didn't the NIT do this? Don't recall hearing anything about it though.
-
Didn't the NIT do this? Don't recall hearing anything about it though.
Yes, the CBI and CIT as well. Here's a great write-up by Pomeroy on what he observed:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-has-the-ncaas-new-30-sec-shot-clock-worked-this-pos-1695275647
-
Yes, the CBI and CIT as well. Here's a great write-up by Pomeroy on what he observed:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-has-the-ncaas-new-30-sec-shot-clock-worked-this-pos-1695275647
Two more possessions per game?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/t8vI9EexNVS24/giphy.gif)
-
Forcing coaches to use a different strategy is not removing strategy.
It's removing a strategic option.
-
Yes, the CBI and CIT as well. Here's a great write-up by Pomeroy on what he observed:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-has-the-ncaas-new-30-sec-shot-clock-worked-this-pos-1695275647
Very small sample size, but interesting nonetheless. Interesting to see how it plays out in the next few years.
-
You guys might find this interesting.
The last year with the 45 second shot clock in the NCAA, teams averaged 73.6 points per game.
Now with the 35 second shot clock, teams average 69 points per game. So we dropped the clock by 10 seconds, and teams score less by almost 5 points per game.
Other rules are in place now as well, including the 3 point line being further back, but I found the stats interesting.
-
You guys might find this interesting.
The last year with the 45 second shot clock in the NCAA, teams averaged 73.6 points per game.
Now with the 35 second shot clock, teams average 69 points per game. So we dropped the clock by 10 seconds, and teams score less by almost 5 points per game.
Other rules are in place now as well, including the 3 point line being further back, but I found the stats interesting.
More free throws with the Four Corners stall?
-
A ripple of fear in Madison...
As efficient as Bo's teams are, I'm not sure this will hurt them that much.