30 Second Shot Clock

[Neals384]

Discuss here the possible change to a 30-second shot clock for the coming season.

[luburch]

There are some other changes I would like to see instituted first. Not sure this will provide the desired solution; at least not to the level all the pundits are hoping.

[Neals384]

Maybe we should call it the Rule Change Vigil.

[gumbomoop]

Shorter clock will make stall ball more nerve-racking than ever. Will Krzyzewski stay with stall ball? I assume yes. Will he postpone it to the final 3 minutes, or continue to initiate "protecting the lead" at 5-7 minutes?

Whatever, he'll want 4, maybe 5, excellent FT guys. I can see circumstances in which the stall ball lineup is Derryck, Grayson, Matt, Luke, and Brandon. (I've no idea whether Derryck is excellent; nor enough about Chase. Sean shot 54% FTs at Rice, so he won't be in. Nor Amile, nor Marshall.). A 30-second clock may necessitate ever smarter D/O subs.

[BigWayne]

We had the 30 second clock when I was a student. It was one of the most exciting years of ACC basketball. Of course we also had the 17'9" 3 point line, but I digress.
We didn't have a problem with stall ball that year.

5058

[gus]

Shorter clock will make stall ball more nerve-racking than ever. Will Krzyzewski stay with stall ball? I assume yes. Will he postpone it to the final 3 minutes, or continue to initiate "protecting the lead" at 5-7 minutes?

Of course he will. Coach K is paid to win, and stall ball is a winning strategy. Will he go into it later in the game? It's always been a numbers game: if the team's lead is greater than the expected number of possessions the opposing team has, then the stall will win. A shorter shot clock just means he'll have to wait for a bigger lead or less time in the game.

[captmojo]

One major by-product of benefit that is rarely mentioned, is the simplicity that it will afford coaches in the management of the game. It's just easier to divide by 30 instead of 35, or some other arbitrary number. This will free up the mind of the coaches for what may be more important aspects of playing decisions that can be made.

Now if we could come up with another rule change that can lead to more possibility of deciding the winner of games, based more on floor play rather than their free throw prowess. Not that making your free throws isn't important.

[Indoor66]

One major by-product of benefit that is rarely mentioned, is the simplicity that it will afford coaches in the management of the game. It's just easier to divide by 30 instead of 35, or some other arbitrary number. This will free up the mind of the coaches for what may be more important aspects of playing decisions that can be made.

Now if we could come up with another rule change that can lead to more possibility of deciding the winner of games, based more on floor play rather than their free throw prowess. Not that making your free throws isn't important.

Maybe they should go to 3 time outs so Roy can keep track.

[MChambers]

It may help a little to have a coach who's used to coaching teams that play with a shorter clock, like the 24 second clock used by FIBA.

Plus, Coach K is one of the most flexible coaches when it comes to strategy, so I expect he'll adapt without problem.

[oldnavy]

Maybe they should go to 3 time outs so Roy can keep track.

Not only that, but I think this would help speed up the game more than the 30 second clock.

If the idea is to increase scoring/flow/entertainment value, then how on earth will shorting the shot clock, which is a defensive aide, improve that? A 30 second shot clock will increase the chances for a poor offensive possession if it does anything (Although, I doubt there will be any noticeable change either way).

How about the refs reduce the number of stupid foul calls (I'm talking about the anticipated foul or the "oh, that looks like he might foul so I'll call it without seeing if he actually does foul"), also make the refs full time employees of the NCAA and keep them together on teams. Then, review each game and reward or punish appropriately for obvious mistakes, with an emphasis on punishing foul calls that were not fouls (my personal pet peeve). In other words make the refs actually SEE a foul before they call it, not THINK they see a foul.

Next, drop the TO's down to 2 each half, use or lose. Each team gets 5 TO's now, add in the 4 min TV TO's (4 per half), that is a total of 18 TO's for a 40 minute game.

The game isn't so complicated that you need eighteen 1-3 minutes stoppages in 40 minutes and that's not even counting the halftime.

I could fix this if they would let me! :p

[SoCalDukeFan]

The shorter the shot clock, the more potential possessions. The more possessions the less chance of an upset. We will be the favorite most of the time.

SoCal

[jacone21]

It would give us 5 fewer seconds to dribble away at the end of the first half before we jack up a wild three pointer on the way to the locker room.

[jimsumner]

The women play with a 30-second clock and I really don't notice the difference. I think it could marginally increase scoring but I don't think it's going to be a dramatic shift.

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.

[ChillinDuke]

I really don't think this is going to materially change the game at all. As such, I'm in the camp that strongly prefers changing to 30 seconds. It gives the non-fans less things to be a non-fan of, while impacting the game immaterially.

I could be wrong in some of my assumptions. But it seems like a no-brainer to me if you're in favor of increasing fans of the college game / making it more "watchable" to those who aren't constantly on this board (aka people other than us diehards).

- Chillin

[oldnavy]

The women play with a 30-second clock and I really don't notice the difference. I think it could marginally increase scoring but I don't think it's going to be a dramatic shift.

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.

YES!... and reduce the number of time outs!

Well not sure reducing the number of time outs will increase the scoring... but it will move the game along a bit quicker.

[OldPhiKap]

The women play with a 30-second clock and I really don't notice the difference. I think it could marginally increase scoring but I don't think it's going to be a dramatic shift.

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.

This. The problem isn't five seconds a possession, it's that the cutter gets mugged inside and cannot get through.

I agree that there is not a lot of dramatic difference between 30 and 35 second clocks, but if a team can't get a clean shot all we will get is more bad possessions per game.

As far as timing of games -- give a team the option to take the ball out on a foul instead of shooting foul shots in the last minute.

[neuro]

shorter shot clock --> more possessions --> more fouls ---> more defensive caution to avoid fouling out --> more open play and advantages for the offense?
shorter shot clock --> less opportunity for offense to get set and run plays ---> advantage for the defense?

It will be interesting to see what big effects a 30 second shot clock may have on game flow, offense vs defense, foul management, etc.

[oldnavy]

shorter shot clock --> more possessions --> more fouls ---> more defensive caution to avoid fouling out --> more open play and advantages for the offense?
shorter shot clock --> less opportunity for offense to get set and run plays ---> advantage for the defense?

It will be interesting to see what big effects a 30 second shot clock may have on game flow, offense vs defense, foul management, etc.

The shot clock is in effect a defensive aide. When the clock gets below 10 secs it becomes a defender that the offense has to account for. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see how shorting the clock will help the offensive nature of the game. Now granted, having no clock and you go back to stall ball and four corners which is unbearable.

But the 35 second shot clock going down to 30 seconds isn't going to do anything to improve the flow of the game.

BTW, is this decision to move to the shorter clock backed by any data that shows less time to score = more scores?

[hurleyfor3]

As far as timing of games -- give a team the option to take the ball out on a foul instead of shooting foul shots in the last minute.

Pretty sure this has been tried at multiple levels of the game.

I want to tighten up the clock/replay review rules to eliminate the free timeouts, which almost always benefit the trailing team. Let a coach challenge but it must result in a timing difference of at least 0.3 seconds. If you lose it's a technical foul.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

shorter shot clock --> more possessions --> more fouls ---> more defensive caution to avoid fouling out --> more open play and advantages for the offense?
shorter shot clock --> less opportunity for offense to get set and run plays ---> advantage for the defense?

It will be interesting to see what big effects a 30 second shot clock may have on game flow, offense vs defense, foul management, etc.

Good point about more possessions and potentially a more careful defense to not foul out.

I had not considered that angle.

[neuro]

The shot clock is in effect a defensive aide. When the clock gets below 10 secs it becomes a defender that the offense has to account for. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see how shorting the clock will help the offensive nature of the game.

Thought experiment: What if we reduced the number of fouls before fouling out to 2. Would that help the offence or the defense?

More possessions leads to more more opportunities/requirements to shoot and thus potentially more fouls. One might think of this as fewer fouls per amount of "game". One analogy might be overtime games, where there are more possessions than a typical game, and thus fouls and foul trouble can affect a game with an OT much more than non-OT games. Isn't that an advantage for the offense?

[oldnavy]

Good point about more possessions and potentially a more careful defense to not foul out.

I had not considered that angle.

It could also result in less time to play defense, which would translate into more defensive pressure.... but I don't think it will have a noticeable effect either way.

[Lar77]

To talk about rule changes:

1. The NBA media is talking about creating a "designated shooter" rule for fouls in the last few minutes to stop "Hack a Shaq".
2. 30 seconds for the NCAA

Suggestions that I would like to see some work on:

1. 30 second clock in the NCAA men's. Make it consistent with the women's rules at least. With zone defenses, it might be hard to go to 24.
2. NCAA hiring refs on a full time basis. Yes, it increases the costs of the game but it might solve some of the inconsistencies that hurt scoring.
3. Give a team the option of taking the ball out instead of shooting a one-and-one on a foul. The designated shooter suggestion is interesting because it will end the Hack a Shaq strategy pretty quickly and lessen the need for o/d substitutions, but giving the team the option to take out seems like a more workable approach. Of course, trying to Hack the Oak didn't work for Wisconsin.
4. Lessen the time outs. Roy doesn't use them anyway; neither did Bo when he needed to.
5. Cut down on reviews and make them available for any call. Let the aggrieved coach call it, but he has to use a timeout (like football). Might have hurt us against Wisconsin, but after Grayson and Tyus did their thing, we were winning that game no matter what.
6. Either spend some money on better clock technology or don't worry about it. Checking the clock has killed the flow of the game, while giving coaches an unofficial timeout.

Just a few things on the wish list.

[gocanes0506]

Heres mine:

Add a 4th ref, the crew chief, who is the most experienced and can make calls based on replay immediately. That way the crew can have in game adjustments to whats going on from their lead referee. Also, we dont have to wait for replays unless the lead needs a 2nd opinion.

The 30 second rule requires teams to get into their O set sooner. It reall helps deep teams. Teams cant walk up the court anymore, full court D is rewarded more, and one on one skills are amplified. I think it helps teams who can run more and get into O quicker. We'll see less upsets I bet.

[Indoor66]

The women play with a 30-second clock and I really don't notice the difference. I think it could marginally increase scoring but I don't think it's going to be a dramatic shift.

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.

I'm with you on this, Jim. It is, IMO, a band aid on a hemorrhage. The game is OK as is IF the officials call the fouls. Contact = foul. Simple. Palming the ball is palming the ball. Simple. Impeding movement is blocking. Simple. Just call the damming things.

[Richard Berg]

My vote: change the TV timeouts from 16/12/8/4 to 15/10/5. If you have to make them longer to satisfy advertisers, fine -- still worth it.

[Olympic Fan]

The shot clock is in effect a defensive aide. When the clock gets below 10 secs it becomes a defender that the offense has to account for. Therefore I cannot for the life of me see how shorting the clock will help the offensive nature of the game. Now granted, having no clock and you go back to stall ball and four corners which is unbearable.

But the 35 second shot clock going down to 30 seconds isn't going to do anything to improve the flow of the game.

BTW, is this decision to move to the shorter clock backed by any data that shows less time to score = more scores?

I agree with you, old navy. And there is evidence to support your view -- when the shot clock was lowered from 45 to 35 seconds in the early 1990s, scoring went DOWN two points a game the next year.

The explanation I heard was that the shorter shot clock means that teams get to concentrate on defense for shorter periods -- it's easier to play good defense for 35 seconds than for 45 seconds. And against good defenses, it takes more time to get a good shot. Teams are really going to struggle to get a good shot off against Virginia's defense next season.

That does bring me to something interesting. Monday, after Brandon Ingram committed to Duke, there was a thread on IC suggesting that the bad news (to them) was offset by the good news that a shot clock was going to be reduced to 30 seconds. But in a sense, the two pieces of news are related ... the shorter the shot clock the more teams are going to need players who can put the ball on the floor and create their own shots. Face it, that's how the NBA cope with the 24-second shot clock - very little team offense (beyond the one quick effort to pick and roll or drive and kick). There's a lot of one-on-one.

Brandon Ingram gives Duke a strong one-on-one talent. I think he and Grayson Allen will be the two players in the Duke lineup next year with the ability to create their own shots (Luke Kennard, maybe. I think he has the skill but I want to see if he has the athleticism to get off his shot own his own against college defenders).

So, to me, getting Ingram and the news that we're likely to have a 30 second clock, go hand-in-hand.

[Tom B.]

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.




Didn't they try to do this two or three seasons ago? As I recall, the officials largely abandoned the tighter style of calling fouls by mid-season because games were turning into free-throw shooting contests with no flow -- just a LOT of play stoppages strung together with brief moments of action in between. The "old" ways of playing defense were just too ingrained.

How about maintaining the same style of officiating, but changing the rule so that a player fouls out after four fouls, instead of five? That would seem to create more of an incentive for coaches and players to clean up their defense.

[Olympic Fan]

Sorry to double post, but I thought I'd look up one more data point ...

As you know, the NIT used an experimental 30-second clock this season. I don't have time to check every NIT game, but I did check Miami and Stanford, the two finalists.

In five NIT games, Miami averaged 67.2 points a game ... for the season, Miami averaged 68.2 points a game, so their scoring was DOWN a point a game.

Stanford averaged 72.4 in five NIT games. Their season average was 72.3 -- so they were DOWN 0.1 ppg with the 30 second clock.

In both cases, each NIT point average included an overtime game in the finals. That one was 66-62 after 45 minutes ... yeah, the 30-second clock really helped there!

I know that's a small sample size, but it's more evidence that the change from 35 to 30 seconds is not going to have a big impact on scoring -- and if it does have an impact, it will have a negative impact.

[Lar77]

Sorry to double post, but I thought I'd look up one more data point ...

As you know, the NIT used an experimental 30-second clock this season. I don't have time to check every NIT game, but I did check Miami and Stanford, the two finalists.

In five NIT games, Miami averaged 67.2 points a game ... for the season, Miami averaged 68.2 points a game, so their scoring was DOWN a point a game.

Stanford averaged 72.4 in five NIT games. Their season average was 72.3 -- so they were DOWN 0.1 ppg with the 30 second clock.

In both cases, each NIT point average included an overtime game in the finals. That one was 66-62 after 45 minutes ... yeah, the 30-second clock really helped there!

I know that's a small sample size, but it's more evidence that the change from 35 to 30 seconds is not going to have a big impact on scoring -- and if it does have an impact, it will have a negative impact.

I agree. I think it has a minimal impact and maybe negative. The positive effect is that ESPN commentators will stop talking about it.

[oldnavy]

I agree. I think it has a minimal impact and maybe negative. The positive effect is that ESPN commentators will stop talking about it.

I think the poor officiating is the most glaring problem in college BB.

If the NCAA would keep the refs in units, I feel that each team of officials would develop consistency. I think the inconsistency between games and even within games is horrible, and must drive players and coaches nuts.

Professionalize the refs, and drop a time out for each team and see what happens...

I feel some of the announcers who want to fix the problems really haven't properly defined what the problems are. Rushing offenses is not going to make the flow of the game any better.

The game has advanced to a point where it deserves to have dedicated and highly trained officiating.

[Lar77]

I think the poor officiating is the most glaring problem in college BB.

If the NCAA would keep the refs in units, I feel that each team of officials would develop consistency. I think the inconsistency between games and even within games is horrible, and must drive players and coaches nuts.

Professionalize the refs, and drop a time out for each team and see what happens...

I feel some of the announcers who want to fix the problems really haven't properly defined what the problems are. Rushing offenses is not going to make the flow of the game any better.

The game has advanced to a point where it deserves to have dedicated and highly trained officiating.

Agree with this Old Navy. While not an official, I know several at different levels of the game. These guys really are pretty well-trained and the ACC eligible ref is much better than a CYO ref, BUT there is room for improvement at the college level. Consistency is one area that needs to be improved. Another is they don't work as a team. The consequence is deferral to each other, so that if a ref makes the wrong call, or can't make a call and guesses, the others won't help him unless he asks for it. But he won't ask because it may affect his standing with the conference for future assignments.

Another post suggested a fourth ref to manage the game off the floor, which could also have benefits.

Although the refs would be paid more as full time than they are now, the game can afford it.

[CDu]

And here I thought this thread was going to be filled with jokes about Rick Pitino...


The women play with a 30-second clock and I really don't notice the difference. I think it could marginally increase scoring but I don't think it's going to be a dramatic shift.

Want to increase scoring? Change the way the game is officiated. Allow more freedom of movement, less impediment to movement. It's that simple. IMO.

Absolutely, positively, wholeheartedly, 100% agree with this. I don't think that the shot clock is going to dramatically change things. It certainly isn't going to result in wildly more watchable/unwatchable basketball. Basically, unless other rules are changed (or are finally enforced properly), we will just see a few more possessions that look very similar to what we already see.

The NBA took some dramatic steps in the last few years to reduce the physicality of defense and allow more freedom of movement. The result has been a much more aesthetically pleasing game than before. The college ranks should take note.

The intensity and desire and drama of college basketball games are great. The quality of the play? Not so much.

[toooskies]

All numbers taken from KenPom...

The problem in the college game hasn't been per-possession efficiency. That has been a stable number for a while, and has hovered in the 1.00-1.04 points per possession range for over a decade. This year's D1 PPP average was higher than 2002's. There's really no argument for "teams are worse at offense".

The difference is in average length of possession. The game has gone from 69.5 possessions per game in 2002 to 64.8 last year. The straightforward narrative has been that teams like UVA and Wisconsin are grinding down the shot clock to be as slow as possible. Which is a weird explanation, because you'd assume that if all of college basketball was running a more patient offense and looking for shots, you'd think the teams would be getting better shots and thus making a higher percentage of them.

Another statistical trends from 2002? A decrease in turnovers and steals. Turnovers went from 21.5% to 19.1% of possessions, and steals went from 10.3% to 9.4%. This is another clue where the narrative seems to be, well, wrong. If the actual problem had to do with taking longer to get a good shot, you'd think that more passing (even safe passes) would lead to more turnovers, not fewer.

But if offenses aren't more efficient, but they're improving efficiency by turning the ball over less, what is causing them to be less efficient? Well, that leads to the third statistical trend in the past decade: rebounding. Offensive rebounds went from 34.1% of rebounds to 31.1%. This is the real smoking gun. What can lead you to have longer possessions, fewer turnovers, and more defensive rebounds?

Not running the fast break, and preventing the other team from running the fast break.

Explanation: If you're not running the fast break, what do you do? Well, when transitioning from defense to offense, your defenders crash the boards instead of leaking out. If you have more defensive rebounders, you do better at defensive rebounding. You get fewer quick baskets on the break, as most of your fast breaks will be steals. (Steals may be more likely on a fast break attempt, as you are inherently attempting more difficult passes in order to get an easier shot).

If you're guarding the fast break, what do you do? You dedicate fewer offensive players to rebounding. Fewer offensive players rebounding leads to fewer offensive rebounds, because you have more guys playing defense. This might also tie in to the game becoming more 3-pointer oriented: if you have four guys on the perimeter and one in the paint, and you decide everyone on the perimeter gets back on D instead of rebounding around the hoop, you'll have fewer rebounders than if you played two (or three) in the paint.

I think a combination of both offensive and defensive shifts is key here. Teams in 2002 were playing as slowly as the slowest teams in 2015 (although there are fewer of them). And that's a deliberate choice by the coaches, as you can choose to not run the fast break and defend the fast break, slowing down both teams' offenses; whereas if the other team is defending the fast break, you just can't run offense very fast.

I don't see the 30-second clock impacting the stuff going on above that much-- defenses will have more incentive to guard against the break, although they may have more incentive to push the ball themselves when they don't have as much time to get into the offense. It will have more of an effect on slow-it-down strategies and offenses which can't find a good shot. You could even say that as the quality of the first shot gets lower due to the 30-second clock, the likelihood of an offensive rebound will go up, leading to teams going for offensive rebounds more often and defending the fast break less often.

What we can really take away is, a 30-second clock isn't addressing the way the game has changed directly, and at best is doing it indirectly. How could we address the issue of fewer fast breaks?

[CDu]

All numbers taken from KenPom...

The problem in the college game hasn't been per-possession efficiency. That has been a stable number for a while, and has hovered in the 1.00-1.04 points per possession range for over a decade. This year's D1 PPP average was higher than 2002's. There's really no argument for "teams are worse at offense".

The difference is in average length of possession. The game has gone from 69.5 possessions per game in 2002 to 64.8 last year. The straightforward narrative has been that teams like UVA and Wisconsin are grinding down the shot clock to be as slow as possible. Which is a weird explanation, because you'd assume that if all of college basketball was running a more patient offense and looking for shots, you'd think the teams would be getting better shots and thus making a higher percentage of them.

Another statistical trends from 2002? A decrease in turnovers and steals. Turnovers went from 21.5% to 19.1% of possessions, and steals went from 10.3% to 9.4%. This is another clue where the narrative seems to be, well, wrong. If the actual problem had to do with taking longer to get a good shot, you'd think that more passing (even safe passes) would lead to more turnovers, not fewer.

But if offenses aren't more efficient, but they're turning the ball over less, how are they getting less efficient? Well, that leads to the third statistical trend in the past decade: rebounding. Offensive rebounds went from 34.1% of rebounds to 31.1%. This is the real smoking gun. What can lead you to have longer possessions, fewer turnovers, and more defensive rebounds?

Well, there is another way offenses can be less efficient despite turning it over less frequently: by missing a slightly higher percentage of your shots. It's possible that foul rates and FG% aren't different now than before, but that wasn't mentioned here. So I would say that it is possible that, despite slowing the game down and not turning the ball over can lead to a similar efficiency, simply by missing a higher percentage of the more shots taken.

But yes: fewer live-ball turnovers means fewer possessions. Fewer offensive rebounds can also mean fewer possessions if the reduction in offensive rebounds is a function of putting more focus in setting up your transtion defense. Being more deliberate with the ball should lead to a reduction in live-ball turnovers (note that UVa and Wisconsin are not just slow-paced teams; they also don't turn it over). If you play a more deliberate pace, you'd expect lower turnover rates.