Shorter shot clock

[gumbomoop]

I'm interested in reading an informed discussion re shortening the men's college shot clock to fewer than 35 seconds.

Here's a brief beginning from another thread:


.... left me absolutely convinced that NCAA ball needs to switch to a 24 second shot-clock immediately.


.... COYS, you can have your 24 Second Shot Clock. It would ruin the college game. Basketball is a 5 man at a time team sport. It should involve all 5 team members in the offense.

When the men's clock was lowered from 45 to 35 seconds, I didn't think I'd like it, but have long since accommodated myself to its rhythms. I don't prefer a further lowering, yet the issue seems much in the air in the past couple of years, mostly, I think, in connection with discussions of the international game, and how the US men must get with that program. Fran Fraschilla is a strong advocate of 24 second shot clock. I sense a drift toward either 30 or 24 seconds for the US men's college game. You got an opinion?

[FireOgilvie]

I have a feeling that the shorter NBA shot clock would favor the more talented schools like Duke, Kansas, UK, etc. and hurt the smaller conference schools; the gap would be widened. There would be more possessions and the game would be "lengthened," which I think makes upsets less likely. Also, schools with better offenses would have more of an advantage. I've never seen exact numbers, but the game would probably have something like 35% more possessions (it's probably more complicated than just looking at 24:35).

Also, teams with deeper benches would probably have even more of an advantage as well.

[MartyClark]

I really don't understand the push toward a 24 second clock in college ball. As much as I like Jay Bilas, I disagree with him on a couple of issues. I have never viewed the NBA game as a model for college basketball. I understand the women's NCAA shot clock is shorter but I think that is irrelevant to the men's game.

I say keep the current shot clock. How is the game any better if the shot clock goes to 24 seconds?

[sagegrouse]

I say make all the hoops rules the same re the play of the game. The intl. and the NBA gamea re converging -- shot clock, 3-pt.line, the shape of the lane. The NCAA should join the party. The NBA game is more interesting and entertaining than the college game. Let's do something about it.

Kindly, Sage
'No, I wouldn't make the game 48 mins. long'

[Kedsy]

I really don't understand the push toward a 24 second clock in college ball. As much as I like Jay Bilas, I disagree with him on a couple of issues. I have never viewed the NBA game as a model for college basketball. I understand the women's NCAA shot clock is shorter but I think that is irrelevant to the men's game.

I say keep the current shot clock. How is the game any better if the shot clock goes to 24 seconds?

I agree with this. Seems to me shortening the shot clock leads to more one-on-one play. Who wants that?

Right now, the average college game involves 66 or 67 possessions per team, which averages out to around 18 seconds per possession, or around 1.68 possessions per team per minute. The NBA appears to average around 98 possessions for a 48 minute game, or around 2.04 possessions per team per minute. If college teams played at the NBA pace, they'd average almost 82 possessions a game, or more than 20% more possessions.

But I think those possessions would be sloppier, or at least the percentage of sloppy possessions compared to "good" possessions would be higher. Again, I agree with MartyClark that increasing sloppy possessions wouldn't help the college game.


The NBA game is more interesting and entertaining than the college game.

I often agree with the sage's views, but not this time. I think the college game is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than the NBA game. Personally, I can't stand watching the NBA for more than a few minutes at a time until the playoffs come around.

[chadlee989]

I am in the boat that is against the 24 sec shot clock. My argument is that if they do shorten the clock then they would also need to implement another nba rule. The illegal defense. Which i have said for years is the dumbest rule in any sport. But IMHO it would be needed in college if the clock is moved to 24. Zone defense would then be to hard to score against. Teams would struggle to get off a decent shot. Its hard enough on some possessions to score when you have 35 sec. I like to see good defense in games. I like seeing the offense sometimes try something and it not work and the offense pull it out to run something else and get a good shot off. I dont like watching track meets all the time. And that is what i feel like the game would turn into. Like watching a unc game every game.

[Duvall]

The NBA game is more interesting and entertaining than the college game. Let's do something about it.

Well, unless the solution includes paying college athletes millions of dollars to stay in school, I'm not sure that's a gap that can be narrowed. NBA players can excel with a 24-second shot clock because they are much better at basketball than college players.

[OldSchool]

NBA players can excel with a 24-second shot clock because they are much better at basketball than college players.

Yep. It would tilt too much in favor of teams with highly-athletic pre-NBA players for my taste. If I had such a team I would press full-court every possession and by the time the other, less-athletic team finally got the ball upcourt in position to start their half-court offense, there might be only 10 seconds on the clock. Time for one or two passes and chuck it up.

[TexHawk]

I have a feeling that the shorter NBA shot clock would favor the more talented schools like Duke, Kansas, UK, etc. and hurt the smaller conference schools; the gap would be widened. There would be more possessions and the game would be "lengthened," which I think makes upsets less likely. Also, schools with better offenses would have more of an advantage. I've never seen exact numbers, but the game would probably have something like 35% more possessions (it's probably more complicated than just looking at 24:35).

Also, teams with deeper benches would probably have even more of an advantage as well.

Go to 30 and see how it goes. Jumping all the way to 24 would produce some really really ugly basketball. I like the occasional upset too, but both of our teams lost to opponents who held the ball near halfcourt for 10-15 seconds before thinking about initiating offense. That's not good offense or defense. It's just holding the basketball. How is that fun to watch?

[Henderson]

This deserves a poll: 35, 30, 24 or other.

[brevity]

This deserves a poll: 35, 30, 24 or other.

"I would consider adding 15 seconds as an option." -- Rick Pitino

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

The clock has nothing to do with it. Make the floor bigger and raise the baskets. Play has jammed up and gotten messy because players have morphed into bigger, taller, more athletic specimens than when the game was invented. They've outgrown the playing field.
Love, Ima

[vick]

I agree with this. Seems to me shortening the shot clock leads to more one-on-one play. Who wants that?

Right now, the average college game involves 66 or 67 possessions per team, which averages out to around 18 seconds per possession, or around 1.68 possessions per team per minute. The NBA appears to average around 98 possessions for a 48 minute game, or around 2.04 possessions per team per minute. If college teams played at the NBA pace, they'd average almost 82 possessions a game, or more than 20% more possessions.

But I think those possessions would be sloppier, or at least the percentage of sloppy possessions compared to "good" possessions would be higher. Again, I agree with MartyClark that increasing sloppy possessions wouldn't help the college game.



I often agree with the sage's views, but not this time. I think the college game is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than the NBA game. Personally, I can't stand watching the NBA for more than a few minutes at a time until the playoffs come around.

So, I agree with you on this board probably 99% of the time, but I'm curious here: when you watched the UConn-Notre Dame women's basketball game (if you did), was there any point where you said "gosh, this game would really be improved if the shot clock was five seconds longer?" I very rarely hear fans of the women's game advocate that, but for some reason we think the men can't play with a 30 second clock. Seems odd to me. Also, it's one thing if teams actually play an offense for 35 seconds, but in my viewing experience this practically never happens--almost no college teams run such a sophisticated offense. What you have it, teams advance the ball, try to score, if nothing happens, they pull out for ~10 seconds before restarting their offense. Doesn't seem like anything bad would happen if we shortened that useless delay. A secondary benefit of a shorter clock is it reduces the incentive for foul-fests at the end (though of course the change from 35 to 30 is a marginal change).

[mo.st.dukie]

I say make all the hoops rules the same re the play of the game. The intl. and the NBA gamea re converging -- shot clock, 3-pt.line, the shape of the lane. The NCAA should join the party. The NBA game is more interesting and entertaining than the college game. Let's do something about it.

Kindly, Sage
'No, I wouldn't make the game 48 mins. long'

In my opinion that has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the most talented and highest potential players abandoning the college game. We're even seeing players who are not well known leave early. The NBA age limit rule moving to 2 years, or better yet 3 years, would have a significantly greater impact on the entertainment value of college basketball than any other rule. College basketball was very entertaining prior to early entry even when a 45 second and 35 second shot clock were in play, games would often be played near the 100's. Duke used to routinely average in the high 80's and low-90's on the season even with a 35 second shot clock. More talent equals more scoring. The only other rule I would be in favor of is standardizing the distance of the 3 point line to the current NBA range. That would change things a lot on both ends of the floor and change the spacing on the floor.

[kAzE]

I'm all for shortening the clock. Casual basketball fans are naturally more drawn to the NBA because of the quicker pace and increased offense, so having more possessions in the college game could only benefit the popularity of the sport.

Also, I think it's just ridiculous that the women's game has a 30 second clock while the men's game is at 35. I think 30 seconds would be just fine. It's not too short for less talented teams to keep up, and it's still long enough that slow-down style offenses can still do their thing.

[hudlow]

The clock has nothing to do with it. Make the floor bigger and raise the baskets. Play has jammed up and gotten messy because players have morphed into bigger, taller, more athletic specimens than when the game was invented. They've outgrown the playing field.
Love, Ima

I agree and will take it a step further. Do away with the shot clock and play like the game is meant to be played.

"You pays your money (and you takes your chances)"


hud

[Henderson]

I agree and will take it a step further. Do away with the shot clock and play like the game is meant to be played.


Deano kind of ruined that concept in the late '70s.

[Kedsy]

So, I agree with you on this board probably 99% of the time, but I'm curious here: when you watched the UConn-Notre Dame women's basketball game (if you did), was there any point where you said "gosh, this game would really be improved if the shot clock was five seconds longer?" I very rarely hear fans of the women's game advocate that, but for some reason we think the men can't play with a 30 second clock. Seems odd to me. Also, it's one thing if teams actually play an offense for 35 seconds, but in my viewing experience this practically never happens--almost no college teams run such a sophisticated offense. What you have it, teams advance the ball, try to score, if nothing happens, they pull out for ~10 seconds before restarting their offense. Doesn't seem like anything bad would happen if we shortened that useless delay. A secondary benefit of a shorter clock is it reduces the incentive for foul-fests at the end (though of course the change from 35 to 30 is a marginal change).

I'm not sure about that particular game, but there have been many times while watching women's games in general that I have wondered to myself why they have a 30 second clock instead of 35. In almost every women's game I've seen there have been at least a few possessions (usually more) when a team runs out of time and just chucks up a shot at the end of the shot clock. Does it happen in men's games as well? Of course, but it seems to me to happen more in the women's games I've seen.

Now having said all that, I admit that if a women's game doesn't involve Duke and isn't in a post-season tournament I rarely watch, so it's possible my view of the women's game is skewed a little. And I get that the 10-second rule is new to women's hoops, but if they take the full 10 seconds to get over halfcourt on a possession, how often does a women's team seem to run out of time to run a decent halfcourt set? Seems like a lot to me in my limited viewing.

[hudlow]

Deano kind of ruined that concept in the late '70s.

Learn to beat it.

I enjoy watching a Princeton or motion offense and I'm afraid a shorter shot clock would hamper this style - especially for smaller, less "equipped" teams.

Run and gun gets boring.

But I remember those games...

hud

[Wander]

The entire purpose of the shot clock is to prevent 4 corners crap from happening; its purpose isn't, and shouldn't be, to impose a particular style of play. 35 seconds is just fine.

[COYS]

I say make all the hoops rules the same re the play of the game. The intl. and the NBA gamea re converging -- shot clock, 3-pt.line, the shape of the lane. The NCAA should join the party. The NBA game is more interesting and entertaining than the college game. Let's do something about it.

Kindly, Sage
'No, I wouldn't make the game 48 mins. long'

Since my quote from another thread was used to start this one, everyone knows that I agree with Sage. Personally, I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned uniformity of the game on all levels when thinking about the shot clock. International basketball has a chance to grow. I would LOVE it if somewhere down the line basketball were popular enough to have a Champions League of sorts where the top teams from the professional leagues around the world compete in a super tournament. I also want Olympic and other international basketball events to become bigger and more popular. It doesn't have to become as big as soccer, but if it achieves even a fifth of the popularity of soccer in the world's consciousness then that would be extremely exciting and fun.

A big hindrance to this vision is the variation in rules between leagues. The nba and international basketball have started moving closer together on this. If like to see the college game do the same. While I still advocate for a 24 second clock (as well as a wider lane and a deeper three point line), I recognize that there are some things to consider. The nba rule for illegal defense is probably the death of zone defense as it exists in college now. Would a 24 second clock work without the illegal defense rule? I think it would but I can't be sure.

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to at least start with a 30 second clock if for no other reason than the different rules between NCAA men's and women's and the NBA is silly, to me. 30 seconds would start to bring them all together.

[gep]

The clock has nothing to do with it. Make the floor bigger and raise the baskets. Play has jammed up and gotten messy because players have morphed into bigger, taller, more athletic specimens than when the game was invented. They've outgrown the playing field.
Love, Ima


A big hindrance to this vision is the variation in rules between leagues. The nba and international basketball have started moving closer together on this. If like to see the college game do the same. While I still advocate for a 24 second clock (as well as a wider lane and a deeper three point line), I recognize that there are some things to consider. The nba rule for illegal defense is probably the death of zone defense as it exists in college now. Would a 24 second clock work without the illegal defense rule? I think it would but I can't be sure.

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to at least start with a 30 second clock if for no other reason than the different rules between NCAA men's and women's and the NBA is silly, to me. 30 seconds would start to bring them all together.

1. Make the floor bigger? What happens to the Cameron Crazies? As it is, they are essentially on the end line.

2. I can't stand the illegal defense in the NBA. Defense is defense. Only thing that should be illegal is what is done in football, with all of the blind-side blocking, etc.

3. I really like the 30-second clock in college. I get bored with the 35-second clock. Too much time to just throw the ball around the court, with no real "offense". But, 24-second is too short, IMHO.

[ice-9]

Since my quote from another thread was used to start this one, everyone knows that I agree with Sage. Personally, I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned uniformity of the game on all levels when thinking about the shot clock. International basketball has a chance to grow. I would LOVE it if somewhere down the line basketball were popular enough to have a Champions League of sorts where the top teams from the professional leagues around the world compete in a super tournament. I also want Olympic and other international basketball events to become bigger and more popular. It doesn't have to become as big as soccer, but if it achieves even a fifth of the popularity of soccer in the world's consciousness then that would be extremely exciting and fun.

A big hindrance to this vision is the variation in rules between leagues. The nba and international basketball have started moving closer together on this. If like to see the college game do the same. While I still advocate for a 24 second clock (as well as a wider lane and a deeper three point line), I recognize that there are some things to consider. The nba rule for illegal defense is probably the death of zone defense as it exists in college now. Would a 24 second clock work without the illegal defense rule? I think it would but I can't be sure.

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to at least start with a 30 second clock if for no other reason than the different rules between NCAA men's and women's and the NBA is silly, to me. 30 seconds would start to bring them all together.


I am in complete agreement re bringing the college game closer to the NBA. Sometimes I wonder whether college should just adopt NBA rules wholesale -- kids today aren't like kids of yesterday. They're much more polished, mature and with the bodies to match.

The only caveat is the length of the game. Theoretically I don't think there's anything wrong with going to 48 minutes and six fouls, but in practice that lengthens games to a minimum of two hours and I can see that having a negative impact on student life.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I love the college game. Personally, I like the 35 second shot clock as it gives me time to fully understand the set. Tougher to do in a 24 second clock. However, I voted for 30 seconds, because I think college basketball needs to attract more fans (for more publicity for blue chip programs, like Duke), and it's without question that a faster shot clock leads to more points, which leads to more fans.

So, I'd love to see the clock go to 30 seconds (or even 24 seconds).

[Dev11]

I'm not sure about that particular game, but there have been many times while watching women's games in general that I have wondered to myself why they have a 30 second clock instead of 35. In almost every women's game I've seen there have been at least a few possessions (usually more) when a team runs out of time and just chucks up a shot at the end of the shot clock. Does it happen in men's games as well? Of course, but it seems to me to happen more in the women's games I've seen.

I'd venture that what you described happens in the men's game a lot. Maybe the bad shots are better because the men are better at quickly getting to a point where they can release a good shot, but a lot of teams stall on offense. I like the idea of shortening to 30 seconds. 24 seems excessive in one jump, and I doubt that they would want to play that fast, anyway.

[Henderson]

I like the idea of going to a 30 second clock, but I dislike the idea of going to a 24 second clock. Here's my thinking:

The original purpose of the shot clock in college basketball was to keep teams from deliberately not playing basketball. There's still some of that with the 35 second clock. Teams "taking the air out" when ahead in the second half (Duke does it as much as anyone) or deliberately slowing the game down to keep the other (usually better) team from having too many possessions or just generally wasting time before starting an offensive set for whatever reason. And they're able to do it, because there is 5 seconds of fluff in the clock. I'd like to see teams forced to get the ball up the court and begin their offensive set when playing a half-court game.

On the other hand, they shouldn't have to hurry unnaturally. There should be plenty of time to run a good offensive set with multiple passes, screens, and cuts and without a sense of impending doom that comes from that clock winding down. In both the NBA and the international professional leagues, there is an imperative to put butts in the seats. And speeding up the game seems to do that. That's not the imperative in the college game so much, so there's not much reason to make the game look like a ragged pinball machine with little time for lots of passing, cutting, screening. Plus the average professional team is much more skilled than the average college team, and that means they are better able to get things done well quickly than the average college team. Forcing college teams to execute an offense in 24 seconds just because the pros do is like forcing all golfers to play from the deepest tee box just because the PGA players do.

[UrinalCake]

I vote for 30. It's really hard to play good defense for a full 35 seconds. You can make a good stop and prevent an entry pass and cut off a drive and the offense still has time to pull the ball out and set up something else. I'd prefer if the defense was rewarded for making the initial stop by the offense then having to hurry. Also, you'd see more late game comebacks due to shorter possssions and lack of stall ball.

I do agree that you'd see more one-on-one play, and having a guy who can break down his defender and get a shot would be even more valuable, but I think that's a fair trade off for the faster pace and higher scoring.

[JNort]

24 is to fast. 35 is agonizingly slow. I'd rather go to 28

[superdave]

If college goes to 30 seconds, would it be necessary to further clean up the physical nature of college ball? The desire to move to a shorter shot clock would seem to be driven by the desire to have a more fluid game with a faster pace. Was this one of the reasons for the new emphasis on calling fouls this past season?

To achieve a more fluid game and faster pace, referees would have to call more reaching/clutching/grabbing fouls and more body check fouls on the perimeter. This would allow players to better utilize the dribble drive to break down a defense.

Refs could also call more fouls on those swiping at players who bring down defensive rebounds. This would allow teams to initiate their offense more quickly and create more fast breaks and secondary breaks. I would also think the referees could allow more body contact in the post without calling fouls. Post players would learn to catch, make a timely move and shoot, rather than gather themselves, read the defense and react.

I am all for those changes, if it is possible to clean up the game. So I think I'd support the move to a 30 second shot clock if accompanied by less physical perimeter defense.

I always think of Michigan State games where teams run back and forth, missing shots then having all-out scrums for the rebound. They look like rugby matches at worst or loose ball drills at best.

[jimsumner]

I meant to hot 30 but somehow 24 registered. Don't know if it can be changed or not. But 24, IMO, is too extreme. The women have played with a 30-second clock for years and it seems to work.

[richardjackson199]

I meant to hot 30 but somehow 24 registered. Don't know if it can be changed or not. But 24, IMO, is too extreme. The women have played with a 30-second clock for years and it seems to work.

And finally a reason to celebrate today! Welcome back Jim!! I say change his vote to 30. :)

[gus]

The nba rule for illegal defense is probably the death of zone defense as it exists in college now. Would a 24 second clock work without the illegal defense rule? I think it would but I can't be sure.

Didn't the NBA do away with the "illegal defense" rule? like 12 years ago?

[pfrduke]

Didn't the NBA do away with the "illegal defense" rule? like 12 years ago?

Sort of yes, sort of no. There's now a defensive 3 in the key call that (like illegal defense) results in a technical foul - essentially, a defender playing off the ball can't be in the key unless his man is within arm's length.

[hurleyfor3]

I've asked this before without receiving a good answer, but exactly what problem exists in college basketball for which a shorter shot clock is the best solution?

[Lar77]

Hope this is a sign that all is well.

I agree with the 30 second clock. 40 minutes (not 48). 5 fouls (not 6). 2 halves (not 4 quarters), and so forth.

I appreciate the pro game (more so in playoffs), but I prefer the college game and its variety. The college game needs some fixing, but that's for a different thread.

[superdave]

I've asked this before without receiving a good answer, but exactly what problem exists in college basketball for which a shorter shot clock is the best solution?

Some might say this is a problem (although I dont know how it compares historically):

Scoring Defense » (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1)
Through games of April 7, 2014
RANK TEAM OPP PPG
1 Virginia 55.7
2 SDSU 57.0
3 Florida 57.8
4 Cincinnati 58.4
5 Clemson 58.4
6 Arizona 58.6
7 American 59.1
8 Syracuse 59.2
9 Wichita St. 59.5
10 NC Central 59.5

[pfrduke]

I've asked this before without receiving a good answer, but exactly what problem exists in college basketball for which a shorter shot clock is the best solution?

I think fans, generally, are pacist. We* like fast games more than slow games. Yet the games are slowing down - not in terms of the time they take to play but in terms of the frequency with which teams trade ends of the floor. In the past dozen years, we've lost 2 possessions per team per game nationwide. Shorten the time teams have to attempt to score, increase the number of possessions.

*Generally, in the aggregate. Individual preferences may vary.

[-jk]

I've said this before: I think the physicality of the game today has more to do with slowing it down than a shot clock could speed it up.

Even with the (somewhat haphazardly) more tightly called games this year, there was still a lot of pushing and grabbing, illegal screens, etc.

Bring back flowy basketball!

-jk

[sagegrouse]

I've asked this before without receiving a good answer, but exactly what problem exists in college basketball for which a shorter shot clock is the best solution?

There are three great organizations in basketball: the NBA, FIBA, and the NCAA. The first two have worked to standardize the rules -- lane shape, 3-point line, and 24-second shot clock. The colleges are an outlier, and I don't believe they should be. I think there should be one game of basketball played worldwide.

[I don't see a reason, however, for the length of the game to be 48 minutes -- that's more about economics and roster size than about basketball.]

I think the college game, even though it tugs at my heartstrings in a way the NBA does not, is less interesting and exciting than the pro game. I believe a faster tempo with more running will help, not hurt, the college game. And, if more shots get clanked because of the shot clock, that means more running in the other direction.

[COYS]

Sort of yes, sort of no. There's now a defensive 3 in the key call that (like illegal defense) results in a technical foul - essentially, a defender playing off the ball can't be in the key unless his man is within arm's length.

This is the rule to which I was referring. Thanks for clearing that up.

[jv001]

I've said this before: I think the physicality of the game today has more to do with slowing it down than a shot clock could speed it up.

Even with the (somewhat haphazardly) more tightly called games this year, there was still a lot of pushing and grabbing, illegal screens, etc.

Bring back flowy basketball!

-jk

College basketball is not as "good on the eyes" as it used to be and I agree it has to do with the physicality of the game. But as long as palming/carrying the ball is allowed, defenses will be at a great disadvantage. The game will be rough and physical with players getting in foul trouble trying to stop dribble penetration. Let's adopt jk's "Bring back flowy basketball"! GoDuke!

[Bob Green]

I'm in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp so I voted to keep the 35 second shot clock. I actually believe teams should have to be able to play good defense so I am not in favor of shortening possessions to 30 or 24 seconds. I see no issue with college basketball having slightly different rules than the NBA and International competition.

[bluenorth]

I think that you'd find that a 24 second shot clock allows plenty of time for a team to initiate and run an offense. Once you're used to it it's no problem to swing the ball completely at least twice, and sometimes more. One factor is that in FIBA it's an eight second count to get over center court, so the offensive team is already moving a little quicker. It definitely cuts down on having a point guard surveying the defence for 10 seconds and then maybe making a pass to a wing before getting it back and relaxing again. Another thing to consider is that it's much easier for the defence to play hard for 24 seconds than it is for 35. For those of us who like to see good aggressive defence that can be a bonus.

[JNort]

I'm in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp so I voted to keep the 35 second shot clock. I actually believe teams should have to be able to play good defense so I am not in favor of shortening possessions to 30 or 24 seconds. I see no issue with college basketball having slightly different rules than the NBA and International competition.

Depends on what you call broke. I'd say the check engine light is on though

[rasputin]

Depends on what you call broke. I'd say the check engine light is on though

So, just do what Homer did: put a piece of masking tape over the check engine light. "Problem solved!"

[gus]

Sort of yes, sort of no. There's now a defensive 3 in the key call that (like illegal defense) results in a technical foul - essentially, a defender playing off the ball can't be in the key unless his man is within arm's length.

That hardly makes a zone defense impossible. It just prevents a big man from camping out under the basket alone.

[-jk]

That hardly makes a zone defense impossible. It just prevents a big man from camping out under the basket alone.

Define "zone defense"...

-jk

[hurleyfor3]

Geez, car analogies? My car died last week going down I-70. As in two cylinders blew. Had to coast into Golden and get it towed back. Signed the title away yesterday. The automotive equivalent of losing to Mercer.

Anyway, I don't consider those "problems". The basketball things, I mean. I like variety in college basketball and don't mind the occasional 47-45 game, prior wisecracks about the old Big East notwithstanding. I don't want to know how the 2010 championship game would have gone with an extra three or four possessions for both teams.

I'm in favor of some rule harmonization. Some. Nba 3-pointers are HARD; keep the college line where it is. Use the international rules on timeouts and talking to the refs at all levels (coach talks to a floor ref, it's a T). Go to two 20-minute halves at all levels and nba rules on technicals; the college rules on T's remind me of the Internal Revenue Code (hey, it's April 15).

[superdave]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10936422/acc-experiment-30-second-shot-clock-exhibition-games

[BigWayne]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10936422/acc-experiment-30-second-shot-clock-exhibition-games

Doing this in exhibition games against the usual decidedly weaker opponents is like drinking Coors Light in order to get a feel of what a shot of whiskey will do to you.

[COYS]

Doing this in exhibition games against the usual decidedly weaker opponents is like drinking Coors Light in order to get a feel of what a shot of whiskey will do to you.

Let's just hope the Coors next year has nothing in common with the Coors Light we drank when Vermont came to Cameron last year.

[Edouble]

I voted for 40.

For those that speak of expanding the fan base, the more you make college hoops like the NBA, the less able to compete with the NBA college hoops will be.

If you make college the mirror image of the pros, but with lesser talent, there is no reason to watch college ball for the average fan!

I love the chess match of an NCAA Tournament matchup between say, UCLA, who wants to run, and BYU, who wants to grind it out. The NBA is about the star players: LeBron, KD, Harden, CP3... College is about teams, and so many teams' identities are forged within that shot clock. If you eliminate the ability for the little guys , the blue collar guys, and the "smart" guys to grind it out, then the potential for upsets takes quite a hit.

How far do you want to go to make it the most "exciting product" that you can create? Why not just play 5 on 4, with two teams on each half court (like my grandmother used to play in the 1930s)? That would really up the scoring.

[BigWayne]

Let's just hope the Coors next year has nothing in common with the Coors Light we drank when Vermont came to Cameron last year.
Vermont was a D1 game. Exhibition games are usually against D2 teams or non-NCAA teams. Credit to Coach K that he goes for one of the best D2 teams, but it's still a D2 team.

[COYS]

Vermont was a D1 game. Exhibition games are usually against D2 teams or non-NCAA teams. Credit to Coach K that he goes for one of the best D2 teams, but it's still a D2 team.

Ah yes, you make a good point. My bad. I had a brain fart reading the article.

[Henderson]

Bubba Cunningham was voting to change the shot clock to 24" so it would improve the sight lines for some of the end zone spectators. Then someone explained the difference between 24 inches and 24 seconds. Bubba grabbed another breakfast roll and pinched his brow a bit. He's good with the outcome in the end after his staff explained it.

[BlueDster]

I am a fan of moving to the 30 second shot clock. The problem I have with the 35 second shot clock is not the original possession in which the team must bring the ball full court, but when there is a foul or offensive rebound and the clock is reset to 35. There's nothing worse than watching a team dribble around the perimeter until there is 8 seconds left on the clock, drawing a touch foul, then inbounding the ball and dribbling around again for a full 35 second shot clock. In my opinion, the first 10 seconds of the shot clock should be gone once they have elapsed: that is, the clock should reset to a maximum of 25 seconds (unless more time than that was on the clock when the foul or rebound happened). This would speed up the game without actually taking away from the time the team has to run their offense, as 6-8 seconds are taken bringing the ball up in a new possession anyway.

[Kedsy]

In my opinion, the first 10 seconds of the shot clock should be gone once they have elapsed: that is, the clock should reset to a maximum of 25 seconds (unless more time than that was on the clock when the foul or rebound happened).

This is a reasonable idea, and the NCAA rules committee is reportedly considering it (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/men%E2%80%99s-basketball-committee-adjusts-criteria-calling-charges-blocks) (look in the section entitled "experimental rules").

[Olympic Fan]

Whatever your opinion of the shot clock and what time it should be, I would think we can all agree that the "experiment" is a ridiculous waste of time.

At most, we're talking about a two games against greatly inferior teams -- and in a setting where nobody is going to hold the ball, since both coaches want to use the exhibitions to look at their players. For more than half of the NCAA, it's just one exhibition -- they play controlled closed scrimmages against other D1 schools in place of those other.