PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Shot Clock discussion



ChicagoCrazy84
02-24-2013, 12:59 PM
I apologize if this discussion was started sometime this year on another thread, but scanning through I didn't see one. I know there has been a lot of indirect discussion about this and how scoring is down and I wanted to bring up this point of the shot clock. I think it is time for the NCAA to lower the shot clock and I think it should be a priority for them to talk about it this offseason. After watching Georgetown play yesterday, I just couldn't take it anymore. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but on numerous, numerous occasions in the 2nd half, Georgetown waited around 30 seconds to take a shot and of course the final score was 57-46 (would have been less if Otto Porter was not on fire) and I know GU has had many other games this year where they scored <60 points. We are seeing it more and more these days with teams slowing the pace and basically playing stall ball. It is a great equalizer and yes we are seeing less and less blowouts with more bad teams playing the better ones close making things interesting at the end, but at what price?

What do you guys think? Should it be a priority this offseason to lower the shot clock? As I said I think it should be. I would be very happy for them to lower it to the NBA level, 24 seconds. Coaches like John Thompson III may not like it to begin with but the athletes that are out there, it should not be an issue to get a good shot up within 20 seconds.

miramar
02-24-2013, 01:15 PM
I don't think that we have seen the worst of it since Duke has only scored less than 70 points in three victories this season. No need to count the Miami game since they scored 90 and it looked like a track meet out there.

The biggest problem is that the refs aren't calling all the fouls they should, which allows games to deteriorate into low-scoring wrestling matches. While it would be better to keep defenses honest, it would seem that the easiest way to increase scoring would be to change the shot clock to 30 seconds or less. Nevertheless, CJ Moore at CBS Sports doesn't think it would increase scoring much, and Pomeroy agrees:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/49736970/ns/sports-college_basketball/

No matter what, it seems silly for the men to have 35 second clocks and the women 30.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 01:54 PM
No. This makes it one step closer to the NBA. The reason I watch college basketball is because it isn't the NBA. If they had the same rules, why watch college basketball where the players are worse, they only stay for 1 year making the teams worse and without continuity? If you lower the shot clock to 24 seconds, you'll see less team offense, more ISO, fast break, etc. that makes the NBA less exciting than the NCAA. You'll also see a ton more forced shots late in the shot clock.

I don't really like what teams like UVA or Georgetown do but it is a matter of getting a team to play your game. When teams like UNC in the past several years were able to effectively run against anyone, they forced these slow teams to pick up the pace. I just think it is part of the pendulum that swings. You have these coaches like JT3, Ryan, Bennett, etc. who have slowed the pace down and been pretty good, but they haven't really come close to winning the NCAAT.

There was also the recent SI article about coaches winning while playing at blistering speeds. I think you'll see some of these coaches like Smart start to pop up so you'll have guys like Haith and Smart or even Roy who want a 100 possession games and guys like Bennett or Ryan who want 50 possession games.

Slowing the pace down is just certain coaches response to the inherent disadvantage in talent. Wisconsin can't compete with Indiana in an up and down game, I can't really fault Ryan for trying to keep the game close. But we shouldn't punish those coaches for being effective and instead should blame teams like Indiana for playing so poorly when they lose.

And the thing is, when you play this type of style, you struggle to get top recruits. What top 50 recruit with hopes of going to the NBA is going to agree to play in a system where the leading scorer gets 11.9 points like Wisconsin has. Bo Ryan and Wisconsin have been one of the best programs in the last few years but look at their recruiting. In '09 and '11, they had no top 100 RSCI guys. In '10, they had one at 95, and last year they had Dekker at 20.

davekay1971
02-24-2013, 02:08 PM
If we want to see better offense, the focus should be on limited the holding, grabbing, and shoving on defense. The anemic offense is more about physical defense, poor ball movement, and the inability for guys to make mid range jumpers than it is about the shot clock. I have some concern that lowering the shot clock too much will discourage good ball movement even further. I'm not sure 30 seconds constitutes "lowering the shot clock too much", but, at the extreme end, I don't like the NBA 24 second clock because it think it forces the NBA tems into the isolation offenses, rather than ball movement to create open looks (which is a prettier offense than iso plays). All of this is just im(h)o, of course.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 02:15 PM
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/49736970/ns/sports-college_basketball/

No matter what, it seems silly for the men to have 35 second clocks and the women 30.

I guess I should have just read this first, since it pretty much sums up all my thoughts. I don't mind lowering it to 30 b/c I feel the same as Stevens that those 5 seconds won't be a huge difference for most teams but 24 seconds is a huge animal. Teams would do their half court press to slow teams down and you'd have 10-15 seconds to run an offense.

Also agree that a lot of the slow pace is derived from teams getting back. 30 seconds might be a happy medium (always thought it was funny women had less time anyways) and that would make teams like UVA and Wisky pick it up a bit. But those are a few extreme examples of teams who will pass up a great shot 10 seconds into the clock just to eat up time. With 30 seconds, perhaps that will force teams to take those good shots.

Also after reading that, bigger fan of Stevens b/c on paper he looks to be a slow paced coach but nice to hear that isn't his intention. Hopefully with more talent at Butler, he can also pick up the pace a bit b/c if Duke is to get him, would like to see him play both ways.

hurleyfor3
02-24-2013, 02:16 PM
I'd rather they move the three-point line back in.

Or we could just disband the Big East. Oh wait.

matt1
02-24-2013, 04:12 PM
I'd rather they move the three-point line back in.

Or we could just disband the Big East. Oh wait.

For all this talk of scoring being down, it is down less than one point from last year. These things are cyclical- look at the MLB (where scoring is REALLY down).

Saratoga2
02-24-2013, 04:27 PM
I guess I should have just read this first, since it pretty much sums up all my thoughts. I don't mind lowering it to 30 b/c I feel the same as Stevens that those 5 seconds won't be a huge difference for most teams but 24 seconds is a huge animal. Teams would do their half court press to slow teams down and you'd have 10-15 seconds to run an offense.

Also agree that a lot of the slow pace is derived from teams getting back. 30 seconds might be a happy medium (always thought it was funny women had less time anyways) and that would make teams like UVA and Wisky pick it up a bit. But those are a few extreme examples of teams who will pass up a great shot 10 seconds into the clock just to eat up time. With 30 seconds, perhaps that will force teams to take those good shots.

Also after reading that, bigger fan of Stevens b/c on paper he looks to be a slow paced coach but nice to hear that isn't his intention. Hopefully with more talent at Butler, he can also pick up the pace a bit b/c if Duke is to get him, would like to see him play both ways.

Moving the shot clock to 30 seconds wouldn't be a great penalty to teams bringing the ball up against the press but would discourage as much stall ball and probably increase the number of possessions in a game. It would suggest running a trial of any change to see how it would impact the college game. As far as moving the 3 point line out, I am also for that. The game is great now, but it is worth trying to make it even better.

davekay1971
02-24-2013, 04:42 PM
For all this talk of scoring being down, it is down less than one point from last year. These things are cyclical- look at the MLB (where scoring is REALLY down).

I thought the MLB's scoring drop off was more medical than cyclical...

vick
02-24-2013, 05:09 PM
What do you guys think? Should it be a priority this offseason to lower the shot clock? As I said I think it should be. I would be very happy for them to lower it to the NBA level, 24 seconds. Coaches like John Thompson III may not like it to begin with but the athletes that are out there, it should not be an issue to get a good shot up within 20 seconds.

I'm not sure I'd go all the way to 24 myself, but one benefit of 24 vs. 35 is that the end of game scenarios tend to be less drawn out, because you can more plausibly just play defense for 24 seconds rather than foul. There are other solutions to that problem, but most that I've heard seem somewhat gimmicky to me.

I don't follow FIBA ball all that closely, but I know they changed from 30 to 24 a few years ago--anyone who does follow it have any thoughts on how it affected the quality of play?

freshmanjs
02-24-2013, 05:11 PM
Phil Jackson just suggested that the NBA needs to go to a longer (30 second) clock

toooskies
02-24-2013, 05:38 PM
When I watch an NBA game, I feel like the offenses don't have enough time to actually run a complex play. It's all pick, roll, one pass (maybe), shot. I could see going down to 30, but 24 would kill the flavor of the college game.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 05:41 PM
The one benefit to the 24 as someone just mentioned, is that it allows some teams to get back into the game. A 10 point lead with 3 minutes left in college basketball is a mountain. In the NBA, it is a small hill. Perhaps shorten the clock in the last 5 minutes, but that is pretty gimmicky.

But I agree, you can't run an offense in 24 seconds.

ChicagoCrazy84
02-24-2013, 06:36 PM
When I watch an NBA game, I feel like the offenses don't have enough time to actually run a complex play. It's all pick, roll, one pass (maybe), shot. I could see going down to 30, but 24 would kill the flavor of the college game.

That is true, offenses would not have enough time to run a complex play and I don't want to see the college game become an up-and-down ISO fest like the NBA is. I also think that the athletically challenged teams (Duke 2010 :rolleyes:) would essentially become non-factors because they would be forced to play at such a frenetic pace when they don't have the personnel to do so. I think 30 seconds is a good happy medium.

throatybeard
02-24-2013, 06:44 PM
I thought the MLB's scoring drop off was more medical than cyclical...

It's that, but also strikeouts are way, way up, and defense is getting better with sabrmetric study as well.

I'd like to see Dean Smith run his chicken keepaway offense on a 24-second shot clock, just for humor's sake.

JNort
02-24-2013, 06:46 PM
No. This makes it one step closer to the NBA. The reason I watch college basketball is because it isn't the NBA. If they had the same rules, why watch college basketball where the players are worse, they only stay for 1 year making the teams worse and without continuity? If you lower the shot clock to 24 seconds, you'll see less team offense, more ISO, fast break, etc. that makes the NBA less exciting than the NCAA. You'll also see a ton more forced shots late in the shot clock.

I don't really like what teams like UVA or Georgetown do but it is a matter of getting a team to play your game. When teams like UNC in the past several years were able to effectively run against anyone, they forced these slow teams to pick up the pace. I just think it is part of the pendulum that swings. You have these coaches like JT3, Ryan, Bennett, etc. who have slowed the pace down and been pretty good, but they haven't really come close to winning the NCAAT.

There was also the recent SI article about coaches winning while playing at blistering speeds. I think you'll see some of these coaches like Smart start to pop up so you'll have guys like Haith and Smart or even Roy who want a 100 possession games and guys like Bennett or Ryan who want 50 possession games.

Slowing the pace down is just certain coaches response to the inherent disadvantage in talent. Wisconsin can't compete with Indiana in an up and down game, I can't really fault Ryan for trying to keep the game close. But we shouldn't punish those coaches for being effective and instead should blame teams like Indiana for playing so poorly when they lose.

And the thing is, when you play this type of style, you struggle to get top recruits. What top 50 recruit with hopes of going to the NBA is going to agree to play in a system where the leading scorer gets 11.9 points like Wisconsin has. Bo Ryan and Wisconsin have been one of the best programs in the last few years but look at their recruiting. In '09 and '11, they had no top 100 RSCI guys. In '10, they had one at 95, and last year they had Dekker at 20.

But nobody is suggesting it goto 24 seconds like the NBA. Just lower it down to say 30 seconds, no lower than maybe 28

ynotme32
02-24-2013, 06:59 PM
Speaking of NBA rules, does anyone like the option to take it out at half court after a TO late in the game? Would make things much more exciting on those last possessions.

As for the women's 30 second shot clock, they also have the no 10 second rule for crossing half court. If the men go to this 30 clock, would they also consider this 10 second rule (or lack there of)?

Neals384
02-24-2013, 07:10 PM
This:


When I watch an NBA game, I feel like the offenses don't have enough time to actually run a complex play. It's all pick, roll, one pass (maybe), shot. I could see going down to 30, but 24 would kill the flavor of the college game.

Agree. Can't stand the NBA.. too much one-on-one and little time for any teamwork. At least they have the talent to score one-on-one. Try 24 seconds (or even 30) in the NCAA and we'll see lots of really bad play. But it will be faster and therefore more entertaining? Don't think so.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 07:33 PM
But nobody is suggesting it goto 24 seconds like the NBA. Just lower it down to say 30 seconds, no lower than maybe 28

Well the OP said 24 seconds. So I was responding to that, hence why I said 24 is a bad idea.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 07:37 PM
Speaking of NBA rules, does anyone like the option to take it out at half court after a TO late in the game? Would make things much more exciting on those last possessions.

As for the women's 30 second shot clock, they also have the no 10 second rule for crossing half court. If the men go to this 30 clock, would they also consider this 10 second rule (or lack there of)?

They can do the timeout thing, I'm sort of meh on that. No Grant Hill pass with the advancement of the ball and it only comes into play a few times a year. Not to mention, this might reward Roy for hoarding his timeouts and coaches wouldn't use their timeouts nearly as liberally which I think would drag out the endings even more.

And no, I don't think they would ever get rid of the 10 second rule. If anything, they might try to add something that you can't call a timeout if you are running out of time. I.e. ball has to be over the half court line at 20/25 seconds left in the clock.

I do think the one rule they should add is the jump ball should be an actual jump ball. But I often find myself agreeing with Dickie V on most of his potential rule changes which kinda scares me.

ynotme32
02-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Why exactly does the women not have a 10 second rule, I don't really understand that one at all. Please someone tell them the logic behind that.

I also agree that a jump ball should be in place at all times, I hate them not jumping it up.

vick
02-24-2013, 07:58 PM
But I agree, you can't run an offense in 24 seconds.

I don't think I agree with this (although ultimately I feel like I'm a 30 second advocate...I'm not sure though). I went through the Duke-Butler final, which I think pretty much anyone would argue was not exactly a track meet of a game, and looked at how long the teams took per "mini-possession," where a "mini-possession" ends in a new shot clock, for either team . Since I was working off of a written summary (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=300950150) rather than a game tape, this will slightly overstate the number of times the shot clock reset, such as when an airball was rebounded offensively, but I think it's fine for illustrative purposes. Below are the results--and I'm not going to claim I didn't make an error since I did this pretty quickly, so anyone feel free to correct me if they want:



Mini-possession Time Team Result Time Elapsed Running Possessions
1 19:44 Butler Made FT 0:16 1
2 19:21 Duke Made FG 0:23 2
3 19:02 Butler Missed (DR) 0:19 3
4 18:30 Duke Missed (DR) 0:32 4
5 18:22 Butler Missed (DR) 0:08 5
6 18:04 Duke Missed (OR) 0:18 6
7 18:03 Duke Made FG 0:01 6
8 17:46 Butler Missed (DR) 0:17 7
9 17:36 Duke Made FG 0:10 8
10 17:14 Butler Missed (DR) 0:22 9
11 16:57 Duke Missed (DR) 0:17 10
12 16:50 Butler Defensive Foul 0:07 11
13 16:42 Butler Made FG 0:08 11
14 16:22 Duke Missed (DR) 0:20 12
15 16:18 Butler Missed (OR) 0:04 13
16 15:59 Butler Missed (DR) 0:19 13
17 15:47 Duke Defensive Foul 0:12 14
18 15:30 Duke Turnover 0:17 14
19 15:06 Butler Missed (DR) 0:24 15
20 14:52 Duke Made FG 0:14 16
21 14:40 Butler Missed FT (DR) 0:12 17
22 14:30 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:10 18
23 14:20 Butler Made FG 0:10 19
24 14:06 Duke Turnover 0:14 20
25 14:01 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:05 20
26 13:52 Butler Turnover 0:09 21
27 13:41 Duke Made FT 0:11 22
28 13:09 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:32 23
29 13:07 Butler Made FG 0:02 23
30 12:46 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:21 24
31 12:42 Duke Made FT 0:04 24
32 12:27 Butler Made FG 0:15 25
33 12:04 Duke Made FG 0:23 26
34 11:49 Butler Made FG 0:15 27
35 11:32 Duke Made FG 0:17 28
36 11:12 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:20 29
37 11:05 Duke Missed FT (DR) 0:07 30
38 10:47 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:18 31
39 10:31 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:16 32
40 10:21 Butler Made FG 0:10 33
41 10:03 Duke Made FG 0:18 34
42 9:38 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:25 35
43 9:33 Butler Made FG 0:05 35
44 9:14 Duke Turnover 0:19 36
45 9:01 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:13 37
46 8:58 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:03 37
47 8:57 Butler Made FG 0:01 37
48 8:47 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:10 38
49 8:35 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:12 39
50 8:21 Duke Turnover 0:14 40
51 8:04 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:17 41
52 7:57 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:07 42
53 7:24 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:33 43
54 7:19 Butler Turnover 0:05 43
55 6:59 Duke Made FG 0:20 44
56 6:38 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:21 45
57 6:22 Duke Made FT 0:16 46
58 6:11 Butler Defensive Foul 0:11 47
59 6:06 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:05 47
60 5:53 Duke Made FG 0:13 48
61 5:27 Butler Turnover 0:26 49
62 5:12 Duke Made FG 0:15 50
63 4:52 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:20 51
64 4:42 Butler Made FG 0:10 51
65 4:19 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:23 52
66 4:11 Butler Made FG 0:08 53
67 3:53 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:18 54
68 3:42 Butler Made FG 0:11 55
69 3:21 Duke Made FG 0:21 56
70 2:53 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:28 57
71 2:50 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:03 57
72 2:24 Duke Made FG 0:26 58
73 1:56 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:28 59
74 1:52 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:04 59
75 1:37 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:15 59
76 1:36 Butler Made FG 0:01 59
77 1:16 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:20 60
78 0:54 Butler Turnover 0:22 61
79 0:44 Duke Made FG 0:10 62
80 0:20 Butler Made FG 0:24 63
81 0:03 Duke Missed FT (OR) 0:17 64
82 0:01 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:02 64
83 0:00 Butler End of Period 0:01 65
84 19:45 Duke Turnover 0:15 66
85 19:34 Butler Made FT 0:11 67
86 19:24 Duke Made FG 0:10 68
87 19:02 Butler Turnover 0:22 69
88 18:54 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:08 70
89 18:48 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:06 70
90 18:46 Duke Turnover 0:02 70
91 18:37 Butler Defensive Foul 0:09 71
92 18:31 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:06 71
93 17:53 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:38 72
94 17:40 Butler Made FG 0:13 73
95 17:25 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:15 74
96 17:21 Duke Made FG 0:04 74
97 16:54 Butler Made FG 0:27 75
98 16:21 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:33 76
99 16:16 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:05 76
100 16:12 Duke Turnover 0:04 76
101 16:01 Butler Made FG 0:11 77
102 15:31 Duke Made FG 0:30 78
103 15:14 Butler Turnover 0:17 79
104 14:37 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:37 80
105 14:36 Duke Made FG 0:01 80
106 14:13 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:23 81
107 14:10 Duke Defensive Foul 0:03 82
108 13:54 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:16 82
109 13:49 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:05 83
110 13:35 Butler Made FG 0:14 83
111 13:09 Duke Defensive Foul 0:26 84
112 13:04 Duke Made FG 0:05 84
113 12:37 Butler Missed FT (DR) 0:27 85
114 12:28 Duke Defensive Foul 0:09 86
115 12:26 Duke Made FG 0:02 86
116 12:02 Butler Turnover 0:24 87
117 11:35 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:27 88
118 11:21 Butler Made FT 0:14 89
119 11:05 Duke Made FG 0:16 90
120 10:46 Butler Made FT 0:19 91
121 10:29 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:17 92
122 10:24 Duke Made FG 0:05 92
123 10:06 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:18 93
124 9:43 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:23 94
125 9:30 Butler Made FG 0:13 95
126 9:15 Duke Turnover 0:15 96
127 9:08 Duke Defensive Foul 0:07 96
128 8:57 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:11 97
129 8:40 Duke Turnover 0:17 98
130 8:31 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:09 99
131 8:07 Duke Defensive Foul 0:24 100
132 7:58 Duke Made FG 0:09 100
133 7:39 Butler Made FT 0:19 101
134 7:10 Duke Made FT 0:29 102
135 6:56 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:14 103
136 6:22 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:34 104
137 6:11 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:11 105
138 5:49 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:22 106
139 5:42 Duke Turnover 0:07 106
140 5:34 Butler Made FT 0:08 107
141 5:11 Duke Turnover 0:23 108
142 5:07 Butler Made FT 0:04 109
143 4:47 Duke Made FG 0:20 110
144 4:21 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:26 111
145 3:49 Duke Missed FG (OR) 0:32 112
146 3:16 Duke Made FT 0:33 112
147 3:05 Butler Turnover 0:11 113
148 3:05 Duke Turnover 0:00 114
149 2:33 Butler Missed FG (DR) 0:32 115
150 2:04 Duke Turnover 0:29 116
151 1:42 Butler Made FG 0:22 117
152 1:18 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:24 118
153 1:12 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:06 119
154 0:54 Butler Made FG 0:18 119
155 0:38 Duke Missed FG (DR) 0:16 120
156 0:05 Butler Missed FG (OR) 0:33 121
157 0:03 Duke Missed FT 0:02 122
158 0:00 Butler Missed FG 0:03 123 :D


And the summary table:



Total <24 24-29 30+
Duke 80 65 7 8
Butler 78 64 10 4


Percent <24 24-29 30+
Duke 100% 81% 9% 10%
Butler 100% 82% 13% 5%


So, in a slow-paced game, it seems like the teams, one of which was the most efficient offense in the country (per Kenpom) only went past the NBA clock about a fifth of the time, and past the hypothetical 30 second clock less than a tenth of the time. I think claims that it would "kill" the feel of the college game are somewhat overstated.

uh_no
02-24-2013, 08:06 PM
So, in a slow-paced game, it seems like the teams, one of which was the most efficient offense in the country (per Kenpom) only went past the NBA clock about a fifth of the time, and past the hypothetical 30 second clock less than a tenth of the time. I think claims that it would "kill" the feel of the college game are somewhat overstated.

So to counter, if in a slow paced game, the teams hardly ever got past 24 seconds, what's the point of bothering to change the shot clock?

vick
02-24-2013, 08:10 PM
So to counter, if in a slow paced game, the teams hardly ever got past 24 seconds, what's the point of bothering to change the shot clock?

I don't really disagree, I'm kinda with Brad Stevens--I'm not sure it matters a whole lot either way. I think 30 is about right, but I don't think it would change much to drop to 30, and would change surprisingly little dropping to 24 (which as you say, is a decent enough reason not to go that far).

(I also advocate killing the 10 second backcourt violation, along with the closely-guarded five second violation, as basically useless vestiges from pre-shot clock days, but that's a separate issue).

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 08:50 PM
I don't really disagree, I'm kinda with Brad Stevens--I'm not sure it matters a whole lot either way. I think 30 is about right, but I don't think it would change much to drop to 30, and would change surprisingly little dropping to 24 (which as you say, is a decent enough reason not to go that far).

(I also advocate killing the 10 second backcourt violation, along with the closely-guarded five second violation, as basically useless vestiges from pre-shot clock days, but that's a separate issue).

Well Brad Stevens said if you went to 24, it would be a completely different animal. Just looking at the times like that of the championship game isn't fair. I'd love to see it broken down more to shots in the 16-24 range. Because those shots would become rushed. Who knows what offense would be run under the 24 second type. I think everyone agrees it would be more ISO, one or two picks and shoot. Duke's motion offense would be relegated to one or two options.

And I disagree with the other two suggestions. The 5 second closely guarded one the most. I hate that the NBA doesn't have one (although they do have a variation). It rewards great defense. The NBA gets boring when the guys just dribble and show no urgency. And I like the 10 second shot clock, provides more opportunities for the defense but it seems the press has disappeared a lot in the game so the 10 second back court is practically extinct.

vick
02-24-2013, 09:21 PM
Well Brad Stevens said if you went to 24, it would be a completely different animal. Just looking at the times like that of the championship game isn't fair. I'd love to see it broken down more to shots in the 16-24 range. Because those shots would become rushed. Who knows what offense would be run under the 24 second type. I think everyone agrees it would be more ISO, one or two picks and shoot. Duke's motion offense would be relegated to one or two options.

Ask and ye shall receive, at least for the Duke-Butler game (which I do think is a good example of a slowish game involving good players)--keep in mind that in this data you can end a possession by a turnover as well as by shooting:


0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 33+
Duke 10% 15% 11% 11% 19% 15% 6% 4% 9%
Butler 9% 13% 22% 14% 14% 10% 10% 3% 5%

I'll certainly buy that those shots in the 20-23 second range would be rushed in a 24 second clock. So maybe a quarter to a third of possessions wind up being substantially different? I think that's a meaningful change, though I still wouldn't go as far as to say it would kill the game or anything. Like I said, I'm a 30-second advocate, not a 24-second one. With appropriate caveats that I'm extrapolating from a sample of one game, that "slump" in the mid-20s is I'm guessing where the offensive set fails to generate a good shot, and the team pulls out into a more 'pro-like' iso or pick and roll toward the end of the clock. I'm fine forcing a team to move more quickly there.


And I disagree with the other two suggestions. The 5 second closely guarded one the most. I hate that the NBA doesn't have one (although they do have a variation). It rewards great defense. The NBA gets boring when the guys just dribble and show no urgency. And I like the 10 second shot clock, provides more opportunities for the defense but it seems the press has disappeared a lot in the game so the 10 second back court is practically extinct.

I've always thought the five-second closely guarded rewards "great defense" to be somewhat circular, because it implicitly defines "great defense" as very aggressive, close defense. But if that's good defense, why isn't it enough that it lowers effective field goal percentage and/or forces turnovers--why does it need the artificial crutch of a (IMO capriciously enforced) penalty?

As for the 10 second, and this is completely unprovable conjecture on my part, but my guess is if technology had worked out such that the shot clock had been around at the founding of the game, it wouldn't even have occurred to anyone to create it.

ynotme32
02-24-2013, 09:41 PM
Still wondering why the Men's game has the 10 second rule and the Women's game does not......I'd love an answer on this. Just doesn't make sense.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 10:16 PM
Ask and ye shall receive, at least for the Duke-Butler game (which I do think is a good example of a slowish game involving good players)--keep in mind that in this data you can end a possession by a turnover as well as by shooting:


0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 33+
Duke 10% 15% 11% 11% 19% 15% 6% 4% 9%
Butler 9% 13% 22% 14% 14% 10% 10% 3% 5%

I'll certainly buy that those shots in the 20-23 second range would be rushed in a 24 second clock. So maybe a quarter to a third of possessions wind up being substantially different? I think that's a meaningful change, though I still wouldn't go as far as to say it would kill the game or anything. Like I said, I'm a 30-second advocate, not a 24-second one. With appropriate caveats that I'm extrapolating from a sample of one game, that "slump" in the mid-20s is I'm guessing where the offensive set fails to generate a good shot, and the team pulls out into a more 'pro-like' iso or pick and roll toward the end of the clock. I'm fine forcing a team to move more quickly there.


But then the thing is, the shots in the 14-19 range might not be as good either. K can run a motion offense that probably finishes up around 20-25 seconds. Those shots in the 14-19 range are probably the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th option. However, when you make it 24, you would have to cut the offense at around 14 seconds so that you could pull it out and run the ISO b/c you can't rely on the 3rd or 4th option to actually be open especially when it might not be your best player.

Not to mention, this might drive college to more a superstar game. You'll get more role players who aren't relied upon to be complete players but instead you have the Steve Novaks and Ryan Andersons of the world. Not that they aren't very good basketball players but in college, they were required to do everything not just shoot. Usage rates for the top 1 or 2 players on a certain team would probably sky rocket.

And I don't watch the NBA a ton, but do you really think they run much of an offense? And what evidence is there to suggest that it wouldn't be very similar in college?

I agree the 30 seconds would be decent, to at least research. I would agree that a lot of the time the team runs its offense which peaks off around the 20-25 second mark and if that doesn't work, they pull it out and don't attack until the end of the shot clock so the 30 second shot clock might get rid of those 5-10 "dead" seconds.

But I don't think it is that terrible at least the pace part. I appreciate the tactical approach that the college game allows. You can do that or do what Smart does. It probably does allow for over coaching but the 24 second shot clock standardizes the game so much, I bet many upsets would be lost. Everyone says they love upsets in March, well how many upsets are there in April/May in the NBA? I know they play 7 games but there aren't many upsets and some of that is probably the fact they get more possessions.

There will be the coaches who actually play at a faster pace and succeed as well. Since 2009, there have been 12 teams who were top 20 in pace who were single digit seeds in the NCAA tourney. Similarly in that time, there have been 10 teams who were in the bottom 20 of pace and single digit seeds. So I guess people just like offense more but that would be a mistake. And in the NBA, the optimal shot is around the 11 second mark, so I'm sure these teams like UVA who pass up wide open shots get worse shots later and it costs them. That is why teams like Butler and Duke get to the title games because they aren't overly concerned with pace, run the offense to completion and take the shots when they become available. Also probably part of the reason why Wisconsin has been past the S16 once and hasn't been to the F4 since Ryan has gotten there.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2013, 10:35 PM
Still wondering why the Men's game has the 10 second rule and the Women's game does not......I'd love an answer on this. Just doesn't make sense.

Guessing, itis probably a vestige from when women had six players. And some could not advance over mid-court. Arcane rule.

Personally, I like the men's shot clock, the ten-second rule, and the closely-guarded rule. If there is a problem with today's game, it is that they do not call fouls or palming. JMHO.

But I do not see a 72-68 game or 68-64 game as a "problem" so I may be in the minority.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 10:46 PM
Guessing, itis probably a vestige from when women had six players. And some could not advance over mid-court. Arcane rule.

Personally, I like the men's shot clock, the ten-second rule, and the closely-guarded rule. If there is a problem with today's game, it is that they do not call fouls or palming. JMHO.

But I do not see a 72-68 game or 68-64 game as a "problem" so I may be in the minority.

I think many like those games. It is more the 44-40 or even 52-50 games that people are going after. That is why I think the 30 second shot clock might be a decent middle. Most games in the 70 point range probably operate within the first 30 seconds anyways. But these games when Wisconsin and UVA don't even threaten much on offense for the first 30 seconds is relatively boring and it isn't even like they are worried with getting good shots at times. Just taking time off the clock and getting back.

OldPhiKap
02-24-2013, 10:52 PM
I think many like those games. It is more the 44-40 or even 52-50 games that people are going after. That is why I think the 30 second shot clock might be a decent middle. Most games in the 70 point range probably operate within the first 30 seconds anyways. But these games when Wisconsin and UVA don't even threaten much on offense for the first 30 seconds is relatively boring and it isn't even like they are worried with getting good shots at times. Just taking time off the clock and getting back.

True, but I think most of those games have to do with poor play as opposed to the rules. There are few teams that slow it down, but it is a legitimate scheme. Worked for Princeton for years, and it was fun to watch when done well. Of course, we would not have a shot clock at all but for Dean and the Four Corners, which I hated but can see how heel fans liked.

Bad basketball is bad watching. Deliberate basketball, when played well, is good basketball. The current rules seem to allow for both IMO. If G'town plays like crap, no rule changes will help.

sporthenry
02-24-2013, 10:55 PM
True, but I think most of those games have to do with poor play as opposed to the rules. There are few teams that slow it down, but it is a legitimate scheme. Worked for Princeton for years, and it was fun to watch when done well. Of course, we would not have a shot clock at all but for Dean and the Four Corners, which I hated but can see how heel fans liked.

Bad basketball is bad watching. Deliberate basketball, when played well, is good basketball. The current rules seem to allow for both IMO. If G'town plays like crap, no rule changes will help.

I agree. But I guess they figure that the shorter shot clock will at least make the scores higher so even if it is terribly played and its 70-66, at least it got to 70 points. I do like good basketball and when teams can run a good offense, I have no problem with it, I guess the problem is trying to find a solution to make the game better and most people assume scoring makes everything better.

sporthenry
03-02-2013, 12:10 PM
Well figured this should go here. VCU who is fast but not overly so (85th in the country) versus Butler who is slow but not Wisconsin(247th in the country) ends the half with VCU 45-Butler 21. So this is one example of how the faster team can play its pace if they wants. Like I said earlier, it is sort of the pendulum, and as these coaches begin to develop strategies to pick the pace up, it should get better.

VCU can pretty much cheat on the press and since Butler is a more methodical team (i.e. will still try to run their offense after breaking the press), they haven't been able to take advantage of VCU's aggressiveness. This is the double edged sword of the slow pace. If you don't take advantage of the over plays, then you give the defense an advantage. UVA played against Duke perfectly b/c when Duke overplayed, UVA didn't worry about running the clock down.

But my main point is, this is a giant chess match. And when teams start doing more up pace stuff, we won't be complaining. Now this isn't to say the refs don't have to clean the game up, but this is a problem which will take care of itself a bit.

Henderson
03-02-2013, 12:18 PM
Reading all these posts leads me to the conclusion that this is a solution in search of a problem. The various posts suggesting that something needs to be done are not persuasive to me.

When the shot clock was initiated in CBB, it addressed a real problem: Coaches (ahem, Dean) were using stall ball to the extreme and really ruining games, especially for fans (read TV revenue). Remember Duke's 7-0 half at home against UNCCH? Not so here. 35 is fine. 30 has a certain symmetrical attractiveness, but it wouldn't change the game.