Shot Clock - Reducing to 24 Seconds

[jgisland]

There seems to be some growing steam around actually reducing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 24 seconds in college basketball. Tom Izzo talked about it yesterday on the radio and he talked about speaking with Stanford's Johnny Dawkins about it at the Final Four.

“One of the guys I have great respect for, Johnny Dawkins, who is at Stanford, and we were in our meetings the other day, and he said, ‘We have the slowest game in the world,'” Izzo said. “As you say, the international is less, the pro is less, the women's is less. And here we are with 35."


Personally I'm all for it, anything to quicken the game and get more scoring and excitement I'm all for. Plus it would have made CU's half court offense less excruciating to watch this last year, we would have had to watch 11 seconds less standing around on every possession.

What does everybody else think? Should the NCAA shorten the shot clock to 24 seconds?

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Shorten it. Maybe I could get my wife to watch a game with me.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Shorten it. Maybe I could get my wife to watch a game with me.

She's only pretending to like short shot clocks.

 

[torero]

I'm for shortening it... but I don't know if all the way to 24 is the right answer. Middle ground at 30 sounds about right to me.

 

[Goose]

Pollicized.

 

[Buffenuf]

I'm for shortening it... but I don't know if all the way to 24 is the right answer. Middle ground at 30 sounds about right to me.

:yeahthat: And re-starts in the forecourt to the offensive team at 20 secs, not the full 30. Now, FC re-starts get a full 35 seconds of time-wasting! That's what really kills the college men's game.

Dean Smith is gone. Time to do away with his questionable legacy on the clock. 35 secs give a potential total minimum possessions of 68.5 per game. 30/20 would boost the minimum number of possessions into the mid-80s per game.

No more B!G 38-37 "thrillers"!

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Absolutely reduce the shot clock to 24 seconds.

 

[Bone Buff]

I'm a bigger fan of 30 sec.

 

[L Buff]

Absolutely reduce the shot clock to 24 seconds.

Why? So CBB can be more like the NBA? No thanks.

Much of NBA "offense" is dribble downcourt and chuck it up and hope to at least get an offensive rebound. I like seeing teams run actual plays ... and 24 seconds is precious little time to do that effectively. I could accept a 30 second clock, but in actuality I think the dearth of scoring (if that's what people want to see go away) is due more to kids going to the NBA early (or trying to) ... as well as a change in coaching philosophies.

Funny how when there was no shot clock at all (until Smith's infamous "four corners") I don't remember anyone complaining about the lack of scoring in CBB as opposed to the NBA (whose scoring has also decreased even with the 24 second clock due to more emphasis on effective defense than there used to be) ... but then I am old.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

24 seconds is plenty of time to run an offensive play.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm a bigger fan of 30 sec.

+1

 

[Medford M.]

Another rule I would like is time outs shouldn't reset the backcourt count. If you waste 8 seconds trying to get the ball over half court and call a timeout, you should only have 2 seconds to get the ball over after the time out.

Also agree on the 30 second shot clock and an ultra strict enforcement of hand checking rules. Also a much more as straightforward definition of what a charge is.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

Agree with those who said 30 second shot clock

 

[jgisland]

24 seconds is plenty of time to run an offensive play.

Agreed, I don't see the point in only going to 30 seconds. The NBA and FIBA both play at 24. 7 states play high school basketball at 35 seconds and Massachusetts HS bball is played at 30 seconds. If HS kids can play at 30, college kids should be able to play at 24.

Most teams don't run a play until the last 10 second of the shot clock anyway, they aren't using the entire clock running a play, they spend half of it passing around the parameter.

 

[OUBuff]

:yeahthat: And re-starts in the forecourt to the offensive team at 20 secs, not the full 30. Now, FC re-starts get a full 35 seconds of time-wasting! That's what really kills the college men's game.

Dean Smith is gone. Time to do away with his questionable legacy on the clock. 35 secs give a potential total minimum possessions of 68.5 per game. 30/20 would boost the minimum number of possessions into the mid-80s per game.

No more B!G 38-37 "thrillers"!

This...

unless we are ahead and trying to burn time to finish off the game, then I think we should be able to turn the clock off at 3:00. Oh yea, and the opposing team gets intentional fouls when they try to put us at the line. The special Buff rule.

 

[OUBuff]

Agreed, I don't see the point in only going to 30 seconds. The NBA and FIBA both play at 24. 7 states play high school basketball at 35 seconds and Massachusetts HS bball is played at 30 seconds. If HS kids can play at 30, college kids should be able to play at 24.

Most teams don't run a play until the last 10 second of the shot clock anyway, they aren't using the entire clock running a play, they spend half of it passing around the parameter.

I can name that play in 23 seconds

 

[tante]

I hope they do it next year. I wanna see Dre grab 500 boards in a season.

 

[mattrob]

I like the idea of 30 seconds, but agree that there are a lot of other factors in play. If you want to see the scoring increase, get the NBA's draft eligibility rules updated, similar to baseball. If a kid wants to go pro straight out of HS, fine, let him. Bit once he steps foot on campus, he needs to be there 3 years before declaring. Coaches could then truly focus on skill development and you'd see a lot higher quality of basketball in the college ranks. It would probably improve parity too, as you wouldn't see Kentucky pull in 3-4 top 10 talents in 3 straight classes.

 

[azbuff]

Eventually I'd like to see it in the 24-28 second range, but I'd certainly settle for 30 seconds as a start.

 

[Buffnik]

Agreed, I don't see the point in only going to 30 seconds. The NBA and FIBA both play at 24. 7 states play high school basketball at 35 seconds and Massachusetts HS bball is played at 30 seconds. If HS kids can play at 30, college kids should be able to play at 24.

Most teams don't run a play until the last 10 second of the shot clock anyway, they aren't using the entire clock running a play, they spend half of it passing around the parameter.

I'm in favor of 30 simply because I think 24 would be such a radical year-to-year change. I don't mind going to 24 eventually, but I'd like to see 30 first. Possibly couple that with moving the 3pt line back to international distance (about a foot).

 

[Medford M.]

I like the idea of 30 seconds, but agree that there are a lot of other factors in play. If you want to see the scoring increase, get the NBA's draft eligibility rules updated, similar to baseball. If a kid wants to go pro straight out of HS, fine, let him. Bit once he steps foot on campus, he needs to be there 3 years before declaring. Coaches could then truly focus on skill development and you'd see a lot higher quality of basketball in the college ranks. It would probably improve parity too, as you wouldn't see Kentucky pull in 3-4 top 10 talents in 3 straight classes.

Scoring was never this big of an issue until very recently. It's down because officiating heavily favors the defense now. Coaches know this and are tailoring their styles accordingly. Play physical defense, run the clock. Shot clock needs to be reduced, and officiating needs to stop favoring the defenses. Parity is already at an all time high because of the turnover at many top schools, and because teams have been able to hide their flaws against better teams by shortening games and fouling in place of defense.

 

[whatthebuff]

I was curious how they came up with the 24 second time so I looked it up.

The shot clock first came to use in 1954 in Syracuse, New York, where Syracuse Nationals owner Danny Biasone experimented using a 24-second version during a scrimmage game. According to Biasone, "I looked at the box scores from the games I enjoyed, games where they didn't screw around and stall. I noticed each team took about 60 shots. That meant 120 shots per game. So I took 48 minutes – 2,880 seconds – and divided that by 120 shots. The result was 24 seconds per shot.

The shot clock for ncaa has only been around since '85 and used to be 45 seconds until '93.

I think it's time to shorten it again. More scoring=more fun (applies to bedroom also).

 

[CarolinaBuff]

No because the game shouldn't be forcibly sped up that much. I think 35 is a good number.

 

[L Buff]

I was curious how they came up with the 24 second time so I looked it up.



The shot clock for ncaa has only been around since '85 and used to be 45 seconds until '93.

I think it's time to shorten it again. More scoring=more fun (applies to bedroom also).

You're wife/gf might disagree that "quicker is better."

 

[mitch]

27 sec's

 

[Buffnik]

You're wife/gf might disagree that "quicker is better."

Then again, she might not. :wink2:

 

[rolandftw]

If teams can't run an efficient offense in 35 seconds, what makes anyone think cutting it down to 24 would make offenses more efficient? Shooting percentages would dip even more then they are currently.

If the NCAA wants more scoring per possession, then they should incorporate the illegal defense rules of the NBA that in theory, prevent players from camping out in the paint all game long. Also, it would help if the refs learned the difference between a charging and blocking foul

 

[jgisland]

Scoring was never this big of an issue until very recently. It's down because officiating heavily favors the defense now. Coaches know this and are tailoring their styles accordingly. Play physical defense, run the clock. Shot clock needs to be reduced, and officiating needs to stop favoring the defenses. Parity is already at an all time high because of the turnover at many top schools, and because teams have been able to hide their flaws against better teams by shortening games and fouling in place of defense.

It depends on what your definition of recent is. Scoring peaked in the early-90's and has been at a steady decline since then (it went up slightly for 2 years after the shot clock changed in 94 but has been declining since). Pace and possessions have simultaneously declined, most of this has been attributed to teams focusing less on offensive rebounding and getting back on D which limits possessions and slows pace (offensive rebounding is down 10% over the last 10 years).

 

[Medford M.]

It depends on what your definition of recent is. Scoring peaked in the early-90's and has been at a steady decline since then (it went up slightly for 2 years after the shot clock changed in 94 but has been declining since). Pace and possessions have simultaneously declined, most of this has been attributed to teams focusing less on offensive rebounding and getting back on D which limits possessions and slows pace (offensive rebounding is down 10% over the last 10 years).

I basically meant that it has been in a decline. A slow, steady decline.

 

[mattrob]

Scoring was never this big of an issue until very recently. It's down because officiating heavily favors the defense now. Coaches know this and are tailoring their styles accordingly. Play physical defense, run the clock. Shot clock needs to be reduced, and officiating needs to stop favoring the defenses. Parity is already at an all time high because of the turnover at many top schools, and because teams have been able to hide their flaws against better teams by shortening games and fouling in place of defense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating parity. I prefer a survival of the fittest approach. But I also know that in a world driven by advertising revenue, more teams in contention equals more ticket sales and more viewers.

As for the officiating argument, I agree to an extent, but I also think that defensive approach is more effective against younger, more mistake-prone players. There's also a lack of quality bigs to counter defensive pressure. Any kid who's 6'10" or taller and can run and jump is in the NBA before they have the opportunity to develop their game. That lack of quality post play certainly impacts scoring.