Shot clock improvement

Mar 24, 2013
1,093
72
0
With the season over, I'd like to tip my hat to the shot clock change being one of the best rules changes I've seen in my time watching college basketball. I'm not sure how much scoring actually change last year, but I don't think the numbers would reflect the increase in entertainment value. Taking those extra 5 seconds away from the teams that really like to grind out every possession made a big difference to the pace of play as I perceived it.

Teams had to take their first or second available shot because if they didn't, they might not have had time to get another good shot off.

And most importantly: THIS WAS ONE RULE CHANGE THE REFS COULDN'T SCREW UP.

I'm sure that the clock was brought up throughout the season, or at least early on, but I wouldn't to put in my two cents with one season completely in the books.
 

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
With the season over, I'd like to tip my hat to the shot clock change being one of the best rules changes I've seen in my time watching college basketball. I'm not sure how much scoring actually change last year, but I don't think the numbers would reflect the increase in entertainment value. Taking those extra 5 seconds away from the teams that really like to grind out every possession made a big difference to the pace of play as I perceived it.

Teams had to take their first or second available shot because if they didn't, they might not have had time to get another good shot off.

And most importantly: THIS WAS ONE RULE CHANGE THE REFS COULDN'T SCREW UP.

I'm sure that the clock was brought up throughout the season, or at least early on, but I wouldn't to put in my two cents with one season completely in the books.
I guess I look at the game a little differently than many. I hated the 4 corner offense. Absolutely God awful to watch. However, a short shot clock does nothing but promote athleticism over basketball skill and removes coaching strategy from the game. It promotes a lot of one on one play, which I think is almost as boring to watch as the 4 corner. With a short shot clock, I'm not sure how a coach with inferior athletes comes up with a game plan to compete. I like the strategy side of the game. There is nothing wrong with a coach playing very patient to try and get high percentage shots and limiting the other teams number of possessions in order to try and win a game. I think the clock needs to be long enough to allow for coaching strategy, but short enough to prevent a complete slow down like the 4 corner offense. I think the current clock is getting to be a little short.
 

Elliott Tim

All-American
Dec 10, 2005
10,122
6,290
0
^
|

I think the NBA clock is too short, but 30 is probably in the goldilocks zone for me.
 

mjj_2K

All-American
Jul 11, 2010
12,473
7,073
113
I guess I look at the game a little differently than many. I hated the 4 corner offense. Absolutely God awful to watch. However, a short shot clock does nothing but promote athleticism over basketball skill and removes coaching strategy from the game. It promotes a lot of one on one play, which I think is almost as boring to watch as the 4 corner. With a short shot clock, I'm not sure how a coach with inferior athletes comes up with a game plan to compete. I like the strategy side of the game. There is nothing wrong with a coach playing very patient to try and get high percentage shots and limiting the other teams number of possessions in order to try and win a game. I think the clock needs to be long enough to allow for coaching strategy, but short enough to prevent a complete slow down like the 4 corner offense. I think the current clock is getting to be a little short.
I know what you mean. I used to think that the college game was far superior to the NBA, because the NBA was very generic, whereas the college game often featured a true contrast in styles. There seemed to be more room for a wider range of strategies, and the game was less predictable.

I don't think that's really true any more, or has been true for at least a decade, but I also don't think there's really any way to fix it. There are a couple of truths that work against it. One is that coaches and players will always push the envelope, whatever the rules are. The 4 corners was a perfect example, and after the shot clock, the push was with physicality. If you really want to eliminate skill and strategy as much as possible, make the game a contest of sheer brute strength- and that's exactly the direction a lot of coaches went.

The other truth is tied into that, and it's that the pure athletic aspect of basketball has proven to be what sells. The whole physicality increase was really in response to a game that was making it ever easier for players to display pure athletic ability. It's push and pull. Michael Jordan comes along, and no one, under the rules of that time, can really guard him at all. So the Pistons (best example) start to bang on him as much as possible. It works, for the most part, so you eventually get a whole generation of NBA basketball built around the idea of playing bruising, physical defense. The game goes too far in that direction, and you have to tweak the rules to correct it.

Unfortunately, it's exceptionally difficult for college basketball to implement changes through officiating. Once a certain standard is set, it tends to stay (see the constant drift away from the emphasis on freedom of movement as the season progresses, for at least 3 year running now). The next best way is through the shot clock, and I do think it made for a much higher quality of game this year, even if it's not the ideal answer.
 

willyclyde

All-American
Feb 25, 2007
5,917
8,898
0
They should get rid of the three point line. And make players wear short shorts and chucks. And also make them dribble on top of the ball so no more damn palming!! Like we did in my day
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrpross_rivals

FtWorthCat

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2001
6,721
4,532
0
Overall, I liked the 30 second shot clock. But I did see a lot more bad shots taken because teams were running out of time to shoot. I think some teams still need to make adjustments and get into their offense quicker. I thought UK adjusted very well to it.
 

Big_Blue79

All-Conference
Apr 2, 2004
52,487
2,147
0
removes coaching strategy from the game.

Still way, way too much micromanaging of possessions in college ball. It sucks to watch a guy dribble while watching the coach for the play call, then watch a set play develop over 20 seconds for a mid-range chuck, followed by an uncalled over the back offensive rebound put-back attempt. Why get out in transition and risk a turnover when you can pull it back and look at the coach for the play call for another slow developing play? Who wants to watch fun basketball? Not most coaches!
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
You can say a shorter shot clock promotes taking bad shots but there's no evidence this is true.

KenPom looked at the numbers on the first season with a 30-second clock. Three point shooting percentage was the highest since the line moved back a foot 8 years ago. Two point shooting percentage was the second highest since 1992. Turnover rate was down substantially. A lot of this probably had to do with other rule changes, but any negative effect on the offense from shortening the clock was greatly outweighed by the other changes.
 
Jan 3, 2003
145,534
15,709
0
I guess I look at the game a little differently than many. I hated the 4 corner offense. Absolutely God awful to watch. However, a short shot clock does nothing but promote athleticism over basketball skill and removes coaching strategy from the game. It promotes a lot of one on one play, which I think is almost as boring to watch as the 4 corner. With a short shot clock, I'm not sure how a coach with inferior athletes comes up with a game plan to compete. I like the strategy side of the game. There is nothing wrong with a coach playing very patient to try and get high percentage shots and limiting the other teams number of possessions in order to try and win a game. I think the clock needs to be long enough to allow for coaching strategy, but short enough to prevent a complete slow down like the 4 corner offense. I think the current clock is getting to be a little short.

I agree with the above.
Having said that, I can live with 30 (as a compromise), but any shorter would not be acceptable. The NBA and their 24 second clock is just unwatchable, unless you have a star player you want to watch. It's for the short-attention-span fan, and not the fan of the game of basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbky53

mjj_2K

All-American
Jul 11, 2010
12,473
7,073
113
Still way, way too much micromanaging of possessions in college ball. It sucks to watch a guy dribble while watching the coach for the play call, then watch a set play develop over 20 seconds for a mid-range chuck, followed by an uncalled over the back offensive rebound put-back attempt. Why get out in transition and risk a turnover when you can pull it back and look at the coach for the play call for another slow developing play? Who wants to watch fun basketball? Not most coaches!

Something really interesting, from a style standpoint, happened in HS basketball this past season. That would be Chino Hills, with the Ball brothers. They played an EXTREME style. Basically, layups and 3 pointers only, at a completely insane pace. We're talking about a HS team that managed to average 98 ppg in a 32 minute game, took an average of over 24 three pointers per game (though they only hit at 35%), and shot 66% on their 2 point attempts. They ran like maniacs, took every remotely open 3 pointer, and they made it work like magic.

It's easy to dismiss most HS results as nothing more than talent differential playing itself out, but Chino Hills played a national schedule, and pretty much kicked *** against everyone they played, including games against schools with multiple high level D1 recruits. And that was with one starter over 6'6" (and he was a freshman).

They might just be Loyola Marymount 25 years later, a team with good talent for its level playing a wild style, capable of doing things that seem amazing because they're so extreme. However, it's been a truth (especially in football) that innovation tends to bubble up from the bottom. All the pass-crazy spread offenses that have become so common in college football started at the HS level.
 
Last edited:

Big_Blue79

All-Conference
Apr 2, 2004
52,487
2,147
0
^ it's certainly exciting that an elite HS team is doing that, but I'm much more excited that D-League teams are doing it, too. But college basketball needs something like that. As much as I hate UNCHeat (and I do), they push the pace and are generally fun to watch. I'm all for more teams that push the pace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjj_2K

Big_Blue79

All-Conference
Apr 2, 2004
52,487
2,147
0
I agree with the above.
Having said that, I can live with 30 (as a compromise), but any shorter would not be acceptable. The NBA and their 24 second clock is just unwatchable, unless you have a star player you want to watch. It's for the short-attention-span fan, and not the fan of the game of basketball.

Yes, fans of basketball can't watch the NBA. Just a bunch of millenials, I tell you what, just Twittering their lives away to boot.
[eyeroll]
What an old man, and terrible, take. Please, grandpa, tell us more about true basketball and its fans. And pass the Werther's Originals.
 

mjj_2K

All-American
Jul 11, 2010
12,473
7,073
113
^ it's certainly exciting that an elite HS team is doing that, but I'm much more excited that D-League teams are doing it, too. But college basketball needs something like that. As much as I hate UNCHeat (and I do), they push the pace and are generally fun to watch. I'm all for more teams that push the pace.
Ditto. Teach a style, then attack full bore. Not sit on the sideline and try to orchestrate every possession. That was Rupp, that was Auerbach, that was Wooden, and I wish it was more guys today.
 
Last edited:

yoshukai

Heisman
Dec 21, 2002
29,890
42,412
102
Heard one prominent coach say that the shortened shot clock has made him change his recruiting philosophy a bit . Said that there are a lot more instances where the shot clock is winding down due to good defense , fumbled possessions , guys not getting to the right spot , etc , so the guy with the ball BETTER be able to make a shot .
 

fvanhoose

Sophomore
Dec 1, 2007
1,048
137
0
With the season over, I'd like to tip my hat to the shot clock change being one of the best rules changes I've seen in my time watching college basketball. I'm not sure how much scoring actually change last year, but I don't think the numbers would reflect the increase in entertainment value. Taking those extra 5 seconds away from the teams that really like to grind out every possession made a big difference to the pace of play as I perceived it.

Teams had to take their first or second available shot because if they didn't, they might not have had time to get another good shot off.

And most importantly: THIS WAS ONE RULE CHANGE THE REFS COULDN'T SCREW UP.

I'm sure that the clock was brought up throughout the season, or at least early on, but I wouldn't to put in my two cents with one season completely in the books.


Shot clock for the ADD generation 10 seconds. Loyola Marymount were pikers. Let us speed up the game.
 

JimmyJimmy

All-Conference
Apr 26, 2005
2,110
1,038
0
I think if the NCAA adopts the four quarter game for the men along with the changes with fouls (no free throws until after the fifth foul per quarter except when fouled on a shot) it will add to speeding up the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79

Estil

Senior
Mar 3, 2011
1,238
674
0
I'm honestly surprised the 30 second clock wasn't done earlier...after all it seems all that usually happened in the extra five seconds of the old 35 one was the player with the ball would just stroll across the half court line waving to the girls. :D
 

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
I'm honestly surprised the 30 second clock wasn't done earlier...after all it seems all that usually happened in the extra five seconds of the old 35 one was the player with the ball would just stroll across the half court line waving to the girls. :D
Why does something have to happen in those 5 seconds? If I coach an out manned team, what is wrong with me playing very deliberate and trying to limit possessions in order to win the game?
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
Why does something have to happen in those 5 seconds? If I coach an out manned team, what is wrong with me playing very deliberate and trying to limit possessions in order to win the game?

Because it's effin boring. Why should we write the rules to help outmanned teams? Anyway, there were upsets left and right all season, so I don't think "outmanned teams" were hurt by the change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK3K_rivals379203

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
Because it's effin boring. Why should we write the rules to help outmanned teams? Anyway, there were upsets left and right all season, so I don't think "outmanned teams" were hurt by the change.
Because that is what makes any game interesting. If there is little to no strategy involved, there is nothing interesting about it. Why would we write the rules to make it easier for teams with better athletes to win? What fun is that? Why shouldn't the rules be written to allow for the most diversity in the game, the most strategy by the coaching staff?
 

mebeblue2

Heisman
Dec 20, 2009
98,152
10,574
0
30 seconds is the perfect shot clock

from what i have read scoring was up this year
i would love to see the stats on how many points were due to the shot clock
and how many points were due to FT shooting
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
Because that is what makes any game interesting. If there is little to no strategy involved, there is nothing interesting about it. Why would we write the rules to make it easier for teams with better athletes to win? What fun is that? Why shouldn't the rules be written to allow for the most diversity in the game, the most strategy by the coaching staff?

There's still a great deal of strategy involved. Just look at the NBA with its 24 second shot clock and how much style varies from team to team. In college there's a huge variety in offenses and defenses. You're not talking actual game strategy, how you attack, how you defend. You're talking about limiting possessions so that the inherent variability of the game has more of a chance to come into play. That's not strategy, that's praying for random bounces to go your way.
 

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
There's still a great deal of strategy involved. Just look at the NBA with its 24 second shot clock and how much style varies from team to team. In college there's a huge variety in offenses and defenses. You're not talking actual game strategy, how you attack, how you defend. You're talking about limiting possessions so that the inherent variability of the game has more of a chance to come into play. That's not strategy, that's praying for random bounces to go your way.
The NBA is God awful. If that is your vision for college basketball, then you can have it. Limiting possessions and slowing play is absolutely a strategy. I am also talking about how you attack and how you defend. If I have very good shooters, for example, but not much speed or quickness, I want to run a very structured offense and set lots of screens to try and get people open. I want to play very patiently. During many possessions, it may take longer than 30 seconds to get the shots I want if we are playing against much more athletic players playing man to man defense. I would also play some type of zone defense to try and prevent dribble penetration and slow their ability to attack on offense. That equates to a slow paced game, but it gives me the best chance to win. Why should the rules limit me from doing that? It shouldn't. It's what makes this game, or any game, interesting.

College basketball is rapidly turning into one on one basketball with very little structured play. Ultimately, as it moves more toward the NBA type of game, the teams with the best athletes will win. It doesn't get anymore boring than that. Athleticism shouldn't take precedence over basketball skill. The NBA is like watching paint dry.
 

WitnessGreatness

All-Conference
Apr 28, 2015
2,282
2,082
0
The NBA is God awful. If that is your vision for college basketball, then you can have it. Limiting possessions and slowing play is absolutely a strategy. I am also talking about how you attack and how you defend. If I have very good shooters, for example, but not much speed or quickness, I want to run a very structured offense and set lots of screens to try and get people open. I want to play very patiently. During many possessions, it may take longer than 30 seconds to get the shots I want if we are playing against much more athletic players playing man to man defense. I would also play some type of zone defense to try and prevent dribble penetration and slow their ability to attack on offense. That equates to a slow paced game, but it gives me the best chance to win. Why should the rules limit me from doing that? It shouldn't. It's what makes this game, or any game, interesting.

College basketball is rapidly turning into one on one basketball with very little structured play. Ultimately, as it moves more toward the NBA type of game, the teams with the best athletes will win. It doesn't get anymore boring than that. Athleticism shouldn't take precedence over basketball skill. The NBA is like watching paint dry.
Ya, because it isn't like the two best teams in the NBA don't rely on athleticism or isolation ball. Funny that you say the NBA is like watching paint dry when college is scoring less and is more boring than the college game. 30 seconds is plenty of enough time to get a play in and slowing down the game is the worst strategy of all time. Nobody wants to see that. It's worse than Hack-a-Shaq
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK3K_rivals379203

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
Ya, because it isn't like the two best teams in the NBA don't rely on athleticism or isolation ball. Funny that you say the NBA is like watching paint dry when college is scoring less and is more boring than the college game. 30 seconds is plenty of enough time to get a play in and slowing down the game is the worst strategy of all time. Nobody wants to see that. It's worse than Hack-a-Shaq
Why is scoring the standard you are setting to measure if the game is high quality or not? High scoring simply means poor defense. There are two sides to a basketball game, offense and defense. It's pretty mindless watching two teams going one on one against each other and neither with the ability to stop the other. I don't judge good basketball by simply looking at scoring.
 

WitnessGreatness

All-Conference
Apr 28, 2015
2,282
2,082
0
Why is scoring the standard you are setting to measure if the game is high quality or not? High scoring simply means poor defense. There are two sides to a basketball game, offense and defense. It's pretty mindless watching two teams going one on one against each other and neither with the ability to stop the other. I don't judge good basketball by simply looking at scoring.
Shorter clock leads to a faster pace which leads to more possessions which leads to more points. Has nothing to do with defense. Good offense beats good defense every time. Btw, The reason the NBA scores more is because of the basketball skills of the basketball players. The defense in the NBA is actually better than it ever has been too.
 

spotter34

All-American
Dec 31, 2002
19,305
8,590
113
I liked the 30 second shot clock. I thought it sped up the game just enough.

Next rule change I want to see is going to 4 quarters instead of 2 halves. Play two 10 minute quarters a half. This is beneficial in that the free throw bonus starts over each quarter so defenses can be more aggressive throughout the game.
 

WitnessGreatness

All-Conference
Apr 28, 2015
2,282
2,082
0
I liked the 30 second shot clock. I thought it sped up the game just enough.

Next rule change I want to see is going to 4 quarters instead of 2 halves. Play two 10 minute quarters a half. This is beneficial in that the free throw bonus starts over each quarter so defenses can be more aggressive throughout the game.
In theory wouldn't there be more free throws as I'm sure it will be shooting free throws after 4 fouls per quarter and there will be no bonus and strictly shooting 2 shots
 

spotter34

All-American
Dec 31, 2002
19,305
8,590
113
In theory wouldn't there be more free throws as I'm sure it will be shooting free throws after 4 fouls per quarter and there will be no bonus and strictly shooting 2 shots

Well if the NCAA adopts the NBA rule as is you would be right, but I could see the NCAA setting a 5 foul limit until you get in the bonus and leaving in the 1 and 1 philosophy, and after the 7th or 8th foul going to two shots. I just think it would benefit all teams to have their foul situation go back to zero starting the last 10 minutes. It would have helped in the Kansas game since they were in the double bonus at the 9 minute mark and Kansas still only had like 4-5 team fouls.
 

cat_in_the_hat

All-Conference
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
Shorter clock leads to a faster pace which leads to more possessions which leads to more points. Has nothing to do with defense. Good offense beats good defense every time. Btw, The reason the NBA scores more is because of the basketball skills of the basketball players. The defense in the NBA is actually better than it ever has been too.
At the beginning of the season you already know pretty much who will win the NBA championship. Their rules are put together to protect their star athletes, not to create a competitive game. There is absolutely no reason to ever watch an NBA game until late in the playoffs. College would be the same way if they played a series instead of one game sudden death in the tournament.

You realize that college basketball is not very popular nation wide don't you? In recent Harris poles it rates behind hockey, NASCAR, etc. I think even mens soccer has surpassed it. Their model to make it more appealing is to move it closer to the NBA game, which is also not very popular. It also ranks below hockey and NASCAR. The problem with both college basketball and the NBA is that even though it's a team game, they value individuals over the game itself. The rules are in place to encourage individual performances instead of team performances. It's just boring and getting worse each and every year.
 

WitnessGreatness

All-Conference
Apr 28, 2015
2,282
2,082
0
^^The poll referencing is really misleading. It asks people what their favorite sport. Most NBA fans like NFL as well so if they like both and NFL is their favorite sport, that's what goes down in poll. So while NBA could be more popular than any other sport, it would be lower than other sports as NFL is their favorite sport
 

26MichaelUK

All-American
Feb 14, 2013
36,546
5,119
93
At the beginning of the season you already know pretty much who will win the NBA championship. Their rules are put together to protect their star athletes, not to create a competitive game. There is absolutely no reason to ever watch an NBA game until late in the playoffs. College would be the same way if they played a series instead of one game sudden death in the tournament.

You realize that college basketball is not very popular nation wide don't you? In recent Harris poles it rates behind hockey, NASCAR, etc. I think even mens soccer has surpassed it. Their model to make it more appealing is to move it closer to the NBA game, which is also not very popular. It also ranks below hockey and NASCAR. The problem with both college basketball and the NBA is that even though it's a team game, they value individuals over the game itself. The rules are in place to encourage individual performances instead of team performances. It's just boring and getting worse each and every year.
The reason college basketball popularity dropped was because people got sick of watching 50-48 rock fights that last 3 hours. Hell it was getting to the point where close games take forever to end with all the free throws, fouling, and timeouts every 5 second s plus tv timeouts. People want to see scoring and skill. It's what makes the game beautiful. The wrestling matches the sport developed into is absolutely terrible for the game and it blows my mind that some people like that. If you can't get a shot in 30 seconds change your damn offense.