|
Post by BBFran on Jun 9, 2015 17:11:19 GMT -6
mupanther, are you ready for isolation plays with mediocre point guards dribbling around the perimeter for 18 seconds before throwing up a crappy shot now that there's no 5 second clock? That's sure not my idea of great offensive basketball.
I'm fine with tightening up the timeouts. But most of the other changes are a misbegotten attempt to "NBA-ize" a sport that is so much better than the professional version.
No one has yet to explain to me how a sport whose most prolific scoring era was when there was NO shot clock will somehow generate more efficient offense by reducing the amount of time in which non-professional players are allowed to get off a good shot. Even more so than now, good defensive coaches will be able to frustrate inefficient offenses. The fantasy that somehow this reduction will lead to high-scoring "run and gun" offenses is sheer lunacy.
Honestly, I don't get it. You have a game that regularly produces thrilling, tense contests, and because some TV talking heads who couldn't coach their way out of a paper bag b**** and moan, the rules get tinkered with in a way highly likely to make the game worse. What the hell?
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Jun 9, 2015 18:37:42 GMT -6
It's only 5 seconds. Don't think you will see a big difference. There was no difference for the most part in the mass NIT games I saw.
I think everyone can agree that there are way too many timeouts. Get the game going after a player fouls out and call the arm bar foul. The 4 foot arc will help prevent the old "Butler flop" charge.
I don't want college to turn into the NBA and was shocked the media ripped on the college game all the time. The main one on TV was Jay Bilas.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Jun 9, 2015 20:13:51 GMT -6
If it makes no difference, what's the point? To increase the turnover to assist ratio? It will surely do that. To increase the number of airballs? Ditto. To increase the number of shot clock violations? You bet. I love good defense but exactly how slanted do you want to make the rules in its favor? As I keep saying, Bo Ryan and Tony Bennett are laughing all the way to the bank.
When this inevitably doesn't work (i.e., the college players don't suddenly and consistently put up scores like Lebron and friends) I predict that the talking heads will call for the shot clock to be reduced to 24 seconds, and for NCAA refs to adopt NBA continuation and the "four steps isn't really a travel" approach.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Jun 9, 2015 20:42:34 GMT -6
The point is to cut these wasted stalling of the game out and speed up the game. Will it increase scoring, hard to say.
Listen, I'm glad it's going to 30, but would be fine it stayed at 35. The bigger problem is a the media and team timeouts. The physical football play needs to stop and be call fouls, when that does that will increase scoring, not changing a shot clock to 45, 35, 30 or 24 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Jun 10, 2015 8:48:43 GMT -6
Exactly. I agree with you that changing either the foul rules or the way the game is officiated would have a much more dramatic impact on scoring. If you watch games from the 60s and 70s you will see a lot of scoring because the defense is just horrible, largely because the refs enforced a namby-pamby approach to the game that essentially allowed no contact. Those "no D" days are gone, and I hope they never return. But unless they do return, shortening the shot-clock simply plays into any good defensive strategy.
But I don't see the offensive "stalling" you are talking about. I'm not a "short attention span theater" fan. I not only am okay with a deliberate approach to finding a better shot, but admire it. It leads to more efficient scoring. One of the great misconceptions about Bo Ryan's teams is that they slow the game down offensively. In fact, they affect tempo largely on the defensive side. When you make it hard for the other team to get a good shot, they take fewer shots.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Jun 10, 2015 9:16:48 GMT -6
One talking head, making the case that all teams will be able to adjust to the amended shot clock: "Wisconsin was able to play quite efficiently within 30-second intervals."
Well, what about those of us who don't have Frank Kaminsky, Sam Dekker and Nigel Hayes?
How "efficient" will we be? Again, I'm looking at the landscape and seeing many teams without NBA players. The vast majority, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Jun 10, 2015 9:34:02 GMT -6
That's hilarious. As you say, a comment like that makes utterly no sense without an undercurrent assumption that Wisconsin has YMCA-level players who couldn't be expected to dunk without a ladder, when in fact they have been one of the most talent-rich programs in the country since the late Dick Bennett era. (That many of the media morons who cover the sport don't recognize that talent because the players haven't often been pimped by AAU programs, shoe company street agents and internet "star" raters before matriculating is a different issue.) Of course Wisconsin can play efficiently with a 30 second clock. Or a 20 second clock, for that matter.
In the real world of the great majority of college programs that don't have players of that skill or athletic level, this will play out differently.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Jun 13, 2015 17:40:46 GMT -6
Wisconsin is now recognized as one of the very best programs in the country. they'll be fine regardless of how long the shot clock is. for those not at the badgers level, it will affect them more I think.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Jun 15, 2015 8:35:16 GMT -6
|
|