|
Post by GoPanthers33 on Feb 8, 2015 18:38:47 GMT -6
I am against 24 seconds as I think that is much to short but I do support the idea of a 30 second shot clock.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Feb 9, 2015 12:51:18 GMT -6
30 seconds is fine imo, but it shouldnt be any shorter.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Feb 9, 2015 15:01:46 GMT -6
30 seconds is fine imo, but it shouldnt be any shorter. 30 seconds makes sense since the women college game is 30 seconds, not saying that's the reason to change it, because god know there is many more. I wouldn't mind seeing it at 28 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by coacheinerson on Feb 12, 2015 12:37:24 GMT -6
"Speed up" college kids and you might not like what you see ... at all. I couldn't disagree more. A lot of college programs practice with a short clock (20-26) to emphasize pace and create a "habit" of tempo. Conversely, I once worked at a place where we had three play calls every possession. The first was bluff motion to waste 12 seconds. The second was bluff motion to waste another 12 seconds. The last was a quick-hitter that took about four seconds. You'd be surprised at how many colleges do this. This is not "team play." People who think the NBA or international game (24 clock) is an "isolation" game really haven't watched it the last 5-8 years. Analytics and European influence has made the game extremely free flowing and team-based. Though the skill level of division I basketball players is much lower than the skill level of pros, team play in a short clock would be ABSOLUTELY crucial to overall success. You cannot win a college game with isolation play and the same guy taking 30 jump shots today with a 35 second clock. Imagine having a 24 second clock and potentially 30-35% more possessions per game. Selfish teams wouldn't just lose, they'd be exposed. I think that's exactly what college basketball needs. 30 is better but you could still walk it up. A 24 clock forces you to push tempo, screen bodies and not air, set up your cuts and broaden your playbook and overall basketball IQ. This country is way behind in most of those areas because of a long clock (or no clock in high school).
|
|
|
Post by coacheinerson on Feb 12, 2015 12:44:06 GMT -6
And to expand a bit to the anti-NBA guys on this thread.
This move by the NCAA should not be made for entertainment purposes. It should be made so our game can get on the level of the international game. Our defense is way better here (in fact, it's way better in the NBA than college), but offensive concepts and fundamentals are so far ahead overseas that it's concerning.
I'm not sure how long we can go without adding a shot clock to all levels. Hopefully we learn quickly that shorter is better. I've had players from Australia/Germany etc... who've played with a 24 clock since youth basketball. They've also been my highest IQ players.
|
|
|
Post by FTA1982 on Feb 12, 2015 15:23:07 GMT -6
"Speed up" college kids and you might not like what you see ... at all. I couldn't disagree more. A lot of college programs practice with a short clock (20-26) to emphasize pace and create a "habit" of tempo. Conversely, I once worked at a place where we had three play calls every possession. The first was bluff motion to waste 12 seconds. The second was bluff motion to waste another 12 seconds. The last was a quick-hitter that took about four seconds. You'd be surprised at how many colleges do this. This is not "team play." People who think the NBA or international game (24 clock) is an "isolation" game really haven't watched it the last 5-8 years. Analytics and European influence has made the game extremely free flowing and team-based. Though the skill level of division I basketball players is much lower than the skill level of pros, team play in a short clock would be ABSOLUTELY crucial to overall success. You cannot win a college game with isolation play and the same guy taking 30 jump shots today with a 35 second clock. Imagine having a 24 second clock and potentially 30-35% more possessions per game. Selfish teams wouldn't just lose, they'd be exposed. I think that's exactly what college basketball needs. 30 is better but you could still walk it up. A 24 clock forces you to push tempo, screen bodies and not air, set up your cuts and broaden your playbook and overall basketball IQ. This country is way behind in most of those areas because of a long clock (or no clock in high school). Great post.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Feb 12, 2015 15:58:54 GMT -6
I don't know. Kentucky shoots every 27 seconds and they've got the most NBA players of anyone in the country.
If this is the formula for success, wouldn't all the top programs in the country be doing it?
The NBA has the best players in the world, many of whom have an unbelievable ability to create shots. UWM, meanwhile, has been around a long time. How many of our guys have played in the NBA?
In other words, be careful what you wish for. This could create a great disparity that won't benefit our program.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Feb 12, 2015 16:06:50 GMT -6
I just lost a lot of the other things I posted, but think of this:
Won't the revolution only widen the gap between halves and have-nots. Why do we seemingly want to continue to punish Butler and the like at the expense of North Carolina. The current clock is great equalizer.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Feb 12, 2015 17:03:38 GMT -6
i agree with ghost. teams like Wisconsin will be fine whether the shot clock is 35 30 or 24. Milwaukee not so much. it will give the high major schools an additional advantage that they dont need.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Feb 12, 2015 17:48:44 GMT -6
i agree with ghost. teams like Wisconsin will be fine whether the shot clock is 35 30 or 24. Milwaukee not so much. it will give the high major schools an additional advantage that they dont need. Didn't hurt Milwaukee in 2005 as they were about speeding things up.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Feb 12, 2015 17:50:42 GMT -6
Jeff Goodman Blog Coaches support a shorter shot clock February, 12, 2015 FEB 12 11:51 AM ET By Jeff Goodman | ESPN Insider 00COMMENTS0EMAILPRINT Self Denny Medley/USA TODAY Sports Kansas' Bill Self is among the coaches who would prefer a 30-second shot clock. The NBA has had a 24-second shot clock since the 1950s. Women’s college basketball currently has a 30-second shot clock. Yet the men’s college game still has a 35-second shot clock, as it has since 1993 when it went from 45 seconds to 35.
However, with scoring dropping again (the national average is 67.78 points per game, down nearly four points from a season ago), the shot clock continues to be a hot-button topic. The NCAA has decided to experiment with a 30-second shot clock, along with a four-foot restricted arc, in the postseason NIT this season.
“It will add to the number of possessions per game, but we don’t know exactly how many,” NCAA vice president of men’s basketball championships Dan Gavitt told me. “And we think it may help the pace of play and the flow of the game.”
We polled more than 450 college basketball coaches to get their thoughts on whether they want it to remain the same or be changed. Division I coaches of all varieties weighed in -- high-major, mid-major and low-major head coaches, as well as assistants.
Here are the results:
30-second clock -- 270 votes (59 percent) 35-second clock -- 137 votes (30 percent) 24-second clock -- 48 votes (10 percent) 28-second clock -- 4 votes (1 percent) 45-second clock -- 1 vote Total votes: 460
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Feb 12, 2015 19:49:27 GMT -6
The highest scoring era of college basketball had NO shot clock. The ill-motivated pundits pontificating about this are diagnosing an illness that does not exist and prescribing a medicine that wouldn't cure it anyway. Rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Feb 13, 2015 8:54:09 GMT -6
i agree with ghost. teams like Wisconsin will be fine whether the shot clock is 35 30 or 24. Milwaukee not so much. it will give the high major schools an additional advantage that they dont need. Didn't hurt Milwaukee in 2005 as they were about speeding things up. MU, the Pearl teams sped up the game with defensive pressure and turnovers, a style that I prefer. It wasn't that they were necessarily moving the ball any faster. Turnovers all over the court led to more easy scoring opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Feb 13, 2015 11:24:33 GMT -6
Didn't hurt Milwaukee in 2005 as they were about speeding things up. MU, the Pearl teams sped up the game with defensive pressure and turnovers, a style that I prefer. It wasn't that they were necessarily moving the ball any faster. Turnovers all over the court led to more easy scoring opportunities. Ya, I know all that. I just want to get away from a guy dripping the ball for 15 seconds when the 9 others players stand around on the court untill the shot clock gets down to 10 seconds when some teams start to run their sets. I'm looking forward to see also, how the 4 foot circle will work. We need to get the flopping out of basketball. I always watch the NIT, now I'm really looking forward to it, to see how these rules might work out.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Feb 13, 2015 12:27:47 GMT -6
I agree with you about the flopping. You know who was good at that? Justin Lettenberger.
Between him and Joel Cornette, it looked like a gymnastics meet ... either that or there was a sniper up in the balcony
|
|