Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL

    NCAA Shot Clock discussion

    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.

  2. #2

    Maybe

    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/497369...ge_basketball/

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

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    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.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by miramar View Post
    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/497369...ge_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.

  6. #6
    I'd rather they move the three-point line back in.

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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia area, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    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).

  8. #8

    Agree with you

    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by matt1 View Post
    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...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoCrazy84 View Post
    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?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Phil Jackson just suggested that the NBA needs to go to a longer (30 second) clock

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Quote Originally Posted by toooskies View Post
    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 ) 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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    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.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by sporthenry View Post
    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

  17. #17
    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)?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Oregon

    Yikes!

    This:

    Quote Originally Posted by toooskies View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by JNort View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ynotme32 View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. NCAA D1 Mens Tournament Bracket Discussion
    By uh_no in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-13-2012, 01:38 PM
  2. Dork NCAA Discussion
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 03-25-2011, 11:18 AM
  3. Shot Clock Counting
    By Gewebe14 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 01:15 PM
  4. End of 1st half clock -vs- end of 2cnd half clock
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 10:09 PM
  5. Dopey question about the Shot Clock
    By fuquaforlife in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 02:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •