30 Second Shot Clock

[Goose85]

The NCAA is moving to a 30 second shot clock.

Two questions.

Will this lead to more full court pressure.
Make teams take 8 seconds to get the ball up. Less time to get going offensively, which is needed in college as you don't have the NBA level one on one players.
I would really consider doing this if I were a coach (and of course had a full roster).

Could it lest to more Zone D?
With less time on the clock, and possibly more pressure on teams bringing the ball up court, is it likely to see more zone D?
Do coaches generally think it takes more time to break down a zone for a good shot or break down a man to man D?

[DCwarrior]

Unfortunately I think it will lead to more rushed (and bad) shots to beat the shot clock unless the refs further eliminate some of the physical defense and hand-checking.

[CaribouJim]

For college b-ball in general, I see no negatives in going to 30 - I don't see 5 seconds making a hugely discernible difference and if it makes for even a slightly more fast paced game, I'm in favor of it.

For MU specifically, even with 5 seconds less I can see significantly more MU players involved per possession with the new roster this year. Last year's pace was painful to watch and all too often resulting in getting off a forced or panic shot with the possession clock ticking to 0.

[Phantom Warrior]

It may also eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of meaningless time spent standing and holding the ball or purposeless dribbling in place.

I really hated watching last year how many seconds we spent doing nothing but running the clock down while Derrick stood in place and dribbled. I understand the rationale behind this strategy, but I still disliked watching it.

I am not a fan of that style of basketball regardless of what team is playing it.

[Goose85]

Bob Huggins take on the change to the 30 second shot clock.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25222625/bob-huggins-doesnt-like-the-new-rule-changes-in-college-hoops

[The Reptile]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Some coaches will adapt quickly and place multiple PG's on the floor. Then recruiting will favor ball handling and players who can create their own shots above other skills for a while. It was the same way when they added the 3 point line. Coaches like Digger Phelps refused to change while others like a young Rick Pitino fielded teams who lived and died by it. Recruiting changed and player development at the lower levels changed because coaches viewed the value of players differently.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I love the college game, but that's because I have a definite stake in it. If Huggins thinks the college game is more appealing to the eyes than the NBA, I don't know what to say. Yes, I enjoy college basketball more, but to say that it's a more aesthetically pleasing product is just delusional.

[IWB]

I have to agree with Huggins here....

I'm puzzled with the infatuation with the NBA. We keep going in that direction (but) I think we have a game that's a lot more pleasing to the eyes. So I don't understand why we continue to go that direction.

[IWB]

I understand what you are saying Alan, but I agree with Huggy here. NCAA ball is different from NBA and many, like myself, prefer college hoops. Question is, why is the NCAA constantly trying to move closer to the NBA game? Why keep fixing what is not broken?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I agree that it's different, but for me they are two different animals. What I love about college sports in general is the pageantry, the passion, the bands, the local feel, the constantly changing rosters, and the fans with a more invested interest. I love student sections and waiting for seats and the far more close-knit relationships between the players and the fans.

But when it comes to sheer on-the-court eye appeal, it's not even close. The NBA has players that are more talented, more varied in their abilities, and better at their specialties. There is no one at the college level that will drop jaws the way a Lebron, Steph Curry, or the other elite players will.

I'm not sure that shortening the shot clock is the answer. I can see the argument that it will lead to worse offense because the lesser talent level will be all the more evident as teams are rushed into even faster shots. But I don't think it's just about becoming more like the NBA, it's about finding ways to increase scoring. Let's be honest, the American fanbase is all about scoring. That's why baseball has fallen out of favor compared to other sports in recent decades, that's why the NFL and NHL are constantly changing rules to increase scoring, that's why there's a three-point line, and that's why soccer still hasn't caught on with the mainstream.

What would help more than anything is higher shooting percentages, and honestly, worse defenses. It's far easier to to slow down the game and clamp down on defense for wins than it is to play like the old UNLV teams that ran it down your throat. But when ratings aren't where they want them to be, the push will always be for more offense, and the easiest fix seems to be to force teams to play faster and take more shots. Who knows if it will work, but the alternative is to try to complete change the culture and mindset of the average American sports fan. As a huge soccer fan, all I can say is good luck with that.

[Markedman]

I'm not sure they are trying to make it closer to the NBA game. I think they view the continued drop in scoring as troubling and they are trying to find a way to reverse that trend.

Low scoring games with teams standing around and running clock does not lead to an exciting game. The physical play is probably the main culprit that has to be delt with but encouraging teams to get into their offense a little quicker isn't a bad thing. IMO

[MUfan12]

I understand what you are saying Alan, but I agree with Huggy here. NCAA ball is different from NBA and many, like myself, prefer college hoops. Question is, why is the NCAA constantly trying to move closer to the NBA game? Why keep fixing what is not broken?

I'm not sure how you can watch college offenses and think the game isn't broken to some degree.

Mind you, the shot clock isn't a huge contributing factor, but college ball has really declined in quality.

[Mucrisco]

I understand what you are saying Alan, but I agree with Huggy here. NCAA ball is different from NBA and many, like myself, prefer college hoops. Question is, why is the NCAA constantly trying to move closer to the NBA game? Why keep fixing what is not broken?

I agree with you, IWB. The college game is more aesthetically pleasing. There are a few NBA teams that are fun to watch that play team ball. Greg Popovich's motion is fun to watch, even though it's more of a structured motion offense. NBA rules are more geared towards individual play.

Actually, I love watching the NBA guys play in the Olympics and in the World Championships because the rules are more like the college game. The ref actually make calls, regardless of the individual, and there is a lot more team ball.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I think another huge problem is simply the rapidity with which rosters change. In the past, you would have guys playing together for 3-4 years. Occasionally someone would go pro early, but it wasn't common and it was usually after at least 2-3 years of college play. Transfers didn't happen at near the rate we see today. Building a team doesn't take a summer, it takes years. Coaches are now having to learn how best to win in the one-and-done transfer era.

Honestly, what might help scoring more than anything is finding a way to limit transfers and increase the draft age limit. Get these kids to play together longer and more consistently and I'm confident they would also play together better. They can change the rules all they want, but the reality is the very best players are only staying one year, and some of them (Jennings, Mudiay) aren't even showcasing their talents for that long. But to fix that, it would require colluding with the NBA and NBPA. I'm not sure getting closer to the NBA will fix any goals of making the game less like the NBA.

[IrwinFletcher]

The reason that Huggy hates the rule change is that offensively he is challenged. He is a grinder coach and a shorter shot clock doesn't fit his style. He is going to struggle on the offensive side of the ball.

[Mucrisco]

I really don't think the 5 seconds is going to matter much. They women already do it. I've practiced against the women using a 30 second shot clock and it's a long time. I don't think people are even going to notice, much like moving the 3 pt line back.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I think it will benefit good defenses more than anything. Those schools that excel at forcing shot clock violations will really stand out. And when they're on, they will make some offenses look very, very bad.

[mufan2003]

Jay Bilas has been vocal in saying that college basketball has been in need of change. He feels the recent rule changes were a good first step. That says a lot to me. I think the move to a 30-second clock was a good move. Although I would not be for matching the NBA at 24 seconds, 28 is as far as it should go IMO....recognizing the pros are more offensively talented than college players. The days of 4 corners and holding the ball on offense for more than a minute is hard to believe now.

[Goose85]

I prefer the college game to the pro game, mostly because it seems games mean something. In the NBA East, lose 40 games and get yourself a 6 seed.

I would like to see the college game move the three line back. I think one thing that would improve the college game would be less a game less dependent on the 3 point shot where almost everyone in the game feel they can shoot it.

People say bigger, faster, stronger, but I think most just see less skilled basketball players (and that includes the pros). You can either shoot the 3 or dunk, that's about it. Moving the 3 point shot back a foot. Make it more of a challenge so guys who can really shoot are the ones taking the shot.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

I would be interested to see the stats on how many possessions this would have actually affected last year, the possessions where shots were taking in the first 30 seconds will be unaffected other than the mental aspect of maybe rushing. However I think this is an incremental change that won't have a huge affect on scoring, teams will adjust and eventually it will be a non issue. What I think is the best change is the change on timeouts, that will make games more fun to watch because there wont be a million breaks.

[Markedman]

I really wish they would have decided to reset the shot clock to 20 after a non shooting foul in the half court when the shot clock was under 20 at time of the foul.