Deleted member 807
Guest
I side with Tad.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Shot Clock - Reducing to 24 Seconds
- Thread starter jgisland
- Start date
This.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
I like the 30 second idea. It would give coaches (and teams) a chance to reset if their initial play didn't work; this also gives coaches a little extra time to do what they do.
24 seconds is too short .... it's too nba'ish. Few pro teams run any kind of press unless it's late in the game. Subtract the 10 second back court requirement and the short clock would leave a team with 10 - 12 seconds to run a play. That increases to 18 - 20 (roughly) with a 30 second clock. The kids learn to advance the ball, set and run a play, and then reset, adjust, and run something else in an effort to score. Makes more sense...
24 seconds is too short .... it's too nba'ish. Few pro teams run any kind of press unless it's late in the game. Subtract the 10 second back court requirement and the short clock would leave a team with 10 - 12 seconds to run a play. That increases to 18 - 20 (roughly) with a 30 second clock. The kids learn to advance the ball, set and run a play, and then reset, adjust, and run something else in an effort to score. Makes more sense...
I'm all for getting it under 35. I'd probably be better with 30, to start with.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
It's funny that I seem to be negative about parity, but you won't find a bigger advocate for parity than me. I want more parity than there already is.
If teams get there the right way- recruiting solid players and developing them, teaching fundamentals, etc.- then yeah, I like having a lot of really good basketball schools. My problem is that the powers that be tend to try to create parity through exactly the kinds of things you're talking about, like officiating games differently, favoring teams that neutralize talent instead of those that develop it, and sticking with a longer shot clock to slow the pace of games.
I see what you did there.
That's how I am about football. I miss the tie...it led to some interesting decisions.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
30.
Buffenuf
massive tool
With forecourt re-starts at 20, not 30?
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Are you saying you are ok with the officiating in college? Just wondering because one of the biggest complainrs about the college game, and it's a valid one, is that the refs aren't properly enforcing hand checking rules.
Absolutely not. The officiating is horrible but that is not the fault of the rules. I think the officiating in the NBA is horrible too. Should the NBA get rid of the traveling rule because the refs let NBA'ers step 5 times without dribbling? No. They need to enforce the damn rules!
You don't change the rules because the refs are idiots. The powers (conf. commissioners, ncaa, etc) need to come down on the refs when they are not calling the game as it should be called. that hand check rule is just as controversial as the charging/blocking rules. They are so subjective and often called wrong.
It's a very hard game to officiate I'm sure. I wouldn't want to do it (but I do anyways from the bleachers!) But that is what they get paid for, to enforce the rules of the game to the best of their ability.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Really the only way to change the way teams play is for refs to start whistling everything. Does that mean we're going to see games where there are 50 fouls called. Probably, but they need to change it somehow.
I don't want to go back to the jump ball on every tie-up. It would slow the game too much. Inside the last 2 minutes of the game is, I think, what Vitale has lobbied for to go back to jump balls. I don't know. It wouldn't seem fair to me if my team played great defense in the last minute and tied up the ball with a couple seconds on the shot clock only to lose the possession because the other squad had some Ralph Sampson-like freak of nature to do the jump ball.
If you follow NBA rules, the players involved with the tie-up would jump, so coaches can't pick like they do to open the game.
I agree but the 50 fouls a game would only happen for a very short period of time before the players adjusted to it. They would have to or they would be sitting on the bench before half time.
When you have rules that the refs only call when they feel like it, that is when, at the minimum, they open themselves up to criticism and at worst they can influence the games to whichever team they want to.
I love college basketball but the refereeing is infuriating most of the time due to their lackadaisical effort in enforcing the rules.
Even so. I wouldn't want to see a guy like Ski tie up a guy like Noel and have it turn into a bail out.
Agree with Buff 190 on both his post.
First I don't want CBB to try to be the NBA. Over the years I have found myself much less interested in the NBA, it just bores me with run it up and chiuck it most of the season then in the playoffs it becomes wrestle and grab to force the opponent to toss up some crap at the end of the shot clock.
Officiating is an issue, maybe the issue, but it isn't because of the clock rules it is how the games are called.
I also agree with figuring out a way to deal with the one and done guys. Getting an agreement with the NBA that allows a kid to go D-league directly out of HS or requires at least 3 years would result in a much better college game and improve the NBA game by giving players a chance to develop their fundamentals before going to the league.
There are some differences but the system works fairly well for hockey, both college and the NHL.
jgisland
Club Member
Well Tad's against going shortening the shot clock. In an ESPN Poll asking coaches about the shortening of the shot clock, Tad had this to say.
"I am vehemently opposed to the shot clock going to 30 seconds or less. Parity is what makes college basketball great and it's what differentiates us among other sports. A shorter shot clock will hurt that." (Colorado's Tad Boyle)
"I am vehemently opposed to the shot clock going to 30 seconds or less. Parity is what makes college basketball great and it's what differentiates us among other sports. A shorter shot clock will hurt that." (Colorado's Tad Boyle)
Voted 'no.' Would like to see it move to 30 seconds first.
Anybody who voted "yes" want to change their vote now? Dumbasses should have waited to see what Tad had to say on the matter, shouldn't you?
btbuff
It's an inside joke
I personally think Tad's answer was simplified without much background. I want a full explanation before that statement convinces me. Unlikely to do so, but I still would like a better explanation of his reasoning.
jgisland
Club Member
Agreed, with Tad's teams defensive intensity and the concept of playing an up-tempo style on offense nobody would benefit more from a shortened clock than Tad.
I think he's reacting as a fan of the college game rather than as a coach in his current situation. So many upsets that have defined the sport (e.g., NC State over Houston & Villanova over Georgetown, among many others) would never have happened if there had been a 30 second shot clock for those games. Tad is absolutely right that this rule change would reduce parity. It would be much more about talent and much less about coaches defining the sport.