eyekwah
Well-Known Member
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebask...6/proposed-rules-changes-already-a-good-start
Will a shorter shot clock work?
Will a shorter shot clock work?
Proposed Rule Changes - Shorter Shot Clock
- Thread starter eyekwah
- Start date
ajkhawkeye
Well-Known Member
I think that calling fouls would work better.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
I agree that the shot clock is not the problem. I would also point out a lack of a mid-range shot in today's game. Players just jack up 3's left and right, or try to take it all the way to the rim every time they put the ball on the floor rather than pulling up for a 10 foot jumper.
And as someone else pointed out - calls fouls and make teams actually play some real defense, instead of games turning into a mugging.
DesMoinesHawki
Well-Known Member
Agree 100 percent
Knight78
Well-Known Member
My wife and I played basketball for DIII Wartburg back in the day (late '70s). The women had a 30 second shot clock then (and still do). Mens basketball in the Iowa Conference experimented with a 30 second shot clock as well. Rarely did the shot clock come into play in either game.
And I don't agree about the lack of talent. I think the athletic talent is MUCH better today. However, I think today's players rely more on their athletic ability and don't really learn fundamentals. And that lack of fundamentals helps lead to lower scoring. A pick and roll where the picker pivots properly on the correct foot will make him open EVERY time; sadly, it isn't done today. And off-ball screens, the players today simply don't set up their man in order to use the pick properly. Sealing your man on the post is rarely done and when it is done, the passer doesn't understand the angle or the placement of the pass to feed the post. Finishing around the basket with either hand is a lost art. Boxing out? VERY rarely. All these things add up to poorer field goal percentages due to bad shots or contested shots.
I do agree about the scouting. You can get video of any opponent easily today and the coaching/manager staff is larger today so you have more people going over that video to create a defensive plan.
And I don't agree about the lack of talent. I think the athletic talent is MUCH better today. However, I think today's players rely more on their athletic ability and don't really learn fundamentals. And that lack of fundamentals helps lead to lower scoring. A pick and roll where the picker pivots properly on the correct foot will make him open EVERY time; sadly, it isn't done today. And off-ball screens, the players today simply don't set up their man in order to use the pick properly. Sealing your man on the post is rarely done and when it is done, the passer doesn't understand the angle or the placement of the pass to feed the post. Finishing around the basket with either hand is a lost art. Boxing out? VERY rarely. All these things add up to poorer field goal percentages due to bad shots or contested shots.
I do agree about the scouting. You can get video of any opponent easily today and the coaching/manager staff is larger today so you have more people going over that video to create a defensive plan.
MeatMan
Well-Known Member
This, but I'm still in favor of a shorter shot clock.
BrueCrew3
Well-Known Member
If you're going to shorten the shot clock, then do away with the 10 second call. I believe they've done that with the women's game and it would be a good idea on the men's side as well.
But I agree that calling fouls the way they were called back in the day would do just as much to up the tempo and scoring. Guys are 'blocking' too many shots that should be called fouls. We've had a lot of complaints about refs on this board, I have to believe it's the same all over.
Just my $.02 .. ..
GO HAWKS!!!
But I agree that calling fouls the way they were called back in the day would do just as much to up the tempo and scoring. Guys are 'blocking' too many shots that should be called fouls. We've had a lot of complaints about refs on this board, I have to believe it's the same all over.
Just my $.02 .. ..
GO HAWKS!!!
PalmettoHawkFan
Well-Known Member
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
It's a start, but the officiating seems to be a bigger problem to me
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
I agree with what others have said. I have long advocated shortening the shot clock and think it will improve scoring and speed up the game; however, I think minimizing hand checking will make a much bigger difference. It will hurt the game for about a month and a half while players and coaches get used to it, but it will improve the game in the long run. I know people's biggest complaint about the NBA is that "they don't play defense," but over the course of the last couple of years, we've seen what "playing defense" is in college basketball, and I for one am not a fan at all. Making the college game a little more like the NBA game is not a bad thing at all.
sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Lowering the shot clock and not doing anything to improve officiating defeats the purpose of any rule change of that nature at this point.
Why do you think this when the change from a 45 second to 35 second shot clock did nothing to increase scoring and has actually seen an almost continious decline since it was implemented?
Benddontbreak
Well-Known Member
Wisconsin could only hold ball for 29 seconds before jacking up shot.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
I think the move from 45 to 35 seconds coincided with an increased importance being placed on video analysis/scouting and an increased awareness of shot efficiencies and the like. I think the decreased scoring since the move from 45 to 35 has been more correlative than causative. I think that a move down from 35 won't drop the efficiency much but will cause an increase in the total number of possessions.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
Also on the correlative but not causative argument: the decrease in the shot clock happened at almost the exact same time that there started to be a surge in underclassmen entering the NBA Draft.
Not really, efficiency based stats didn't become popular with coaches until the early 2000's at the earliest and certainly not in the early 90's. Scouting techniques did not improve tremendously over one summer and with your logic an increase of scoring would have at least been observed the first season after the shot clock was reduced, but that didn't happen. The fact is most college teams are just bad at running an offense and filled with poor shooters. If they can't get a good shot in 35 seconds, they aren't going to get a good one in 30 seconds.
Slightly true, although the shot clock was changed prior to the '93 season, the surge in underclassmen really picked up in the '95-'96 time frame with KG and Kobe beginning the high school to pro trend as well.
