Andy Katz: Poll results: Earlier start, shorter shot clock

Donate To GopherHole

Somewhere in Wisconsin, Bo Ryan can be seen crying.
 

afurry91 said:
Somewhere in Wisconsin, Bo Ryan can be seen crying.
Click to expand...

He comments on it in the article. He starts off by saying he's fine with it but then goes on to criticize the decision to lower it. Haha
 

afurry91 said:
Somewhere in Wisconsin, Bo Ryan can be seen crying.
Click to expand...

From the bottom of the article:

"I'm OK with 30 seconds. [But] when they say go to 30, they'll think oh man the points will go up. People are much more sophisticated on defense, bodies stronger. There is a lot more than the shot clock on why scoring is down.'' (Wisconsin's Bo Ryan)

HA!

Seems like the 30 second shot clock would be an advantage for Tubby's up-tempo offense. Errr...........
 

Bo makes a solid point, but we all know he selfishly despises this. His success has always been predicated on limiting the number of possessions his opponents get, and being at least marginally more efficient with his offense by the end of the game . With roughly 15% less shot clock to work with, there's mathematically more possessions available to Bo's opponents, even if his Badgers used up the shot clock to it's extent, every possession. Bo should just try and get comfortable with Dekkar shooting with 15 left on the clock.

Personally, I've wanted a reduced shot clock for sometime, so I hope this passes the rules committee. Should allow for some more intense possessions, and I don't mind if it leads to more bad forced shots and misses. To me, the NCAA basketball product has never been about 'high quality basketball' (it's not, the NBA is a superior product IMO), but rather 'exciting basketball, despite a lot of bad/boring/ugly play around the country'.
 


Do away with the shot clock again. I miss old Dean Smith and the North Carolina 4 corner all game stall. :)
 


Let's get this done. This is step one.

Step two is calling fouls. You know, calling off-hand shoves on offense, tackling on defense under the bucket, eliminating body bumps on cutters in the lane, getting rid of hand-checks, and making the game less physical in general will benefit the game.

If you like to watch skill and athleticism instead of football this is great news. We are on the right track.
 




How many teams really use all of the shot clock? I see a lot of teams just passing the ball around the perimeter to run time off the clock, and then with about :10 left on the shot clock, they try to get into their offense - only to have the set break down, and have to toss up some off-balance '3'.

Or, they start to run their offense, and someone has a good look at the basket, but he sees there's still a lot of time on the shot clock, so he doesn't pull the trigger.

Maybe with a shorter clock, teams will get into the offense a little quicker, and bring some more flow to the game. A good shot is a good shot, whether it comes with :20 or :02 on the shot clock.
 

The shorter shot clock is a good idea IMHO.

My dream rule change is NO timeouts in the last 2 minutes !!!!!!

Let the players PLAY!

:clap::clap::clap:
 

If you are going to shorten the shot clock you need to limit the amount of zone teams can play.

I actually agree with Bo here. This alone wouldn't make scoring go up, reduce the zone defense allowed, IMO, and scoring will be go up.

I wouldn't be shocked if scoring stayed the same or went down with this change alone. The defense is still just as good, but now you have less time to beat it and get a good shot.

Hopefully it doesn't impact the Gophers though as we shoot after 6 seconds.
 

Dr.Don said:
Do away with the shot clock again. I miss old Dean Smith and the North Carolina 4 corner all game stall. :)
Click to expand...

Wasn't Bill Musselman the worst? I think he had a Minn halftime score like 12 to 7 or something like that.
 



The old rule just used to state, prior to the shot clock, was the the team behind in the score had to force the action.

So if you are behind, and on offense, you had to "attack" the basket.

If you were behind and on defense, you could not pack a tight zone, you had to attack the full half court.

Those were the days, my friend.
 

No offense Don, but that sounds terrible. Kinda reminds me of a soccer game. A team with good guard play could get up and completely stall, creating "soccer like" scoring moments.

I like the rule change, but I do agree with other posters that the score might not increase. It may help teams like VCU, Louisville, and hopefully us! The press can create a slow upbringing of the ball. This may force teams to get into a set with about 18 - 20 seconds on the shot clock after they cleared half court and get to the right spots.
 

captain.hindsight said:
This may force teams to get into a set with about 18 - 20 seconds on the shot clock after they cleared half court and get to the right spots.
Click to expand...

This would make the game more NBA-like, which I don't want to see. I totally get why people would be happy with a more uptempo college game, though. Each to their own.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Let's get this done. This is step one.

Step two is calling fouls. You know, calling off-hand shoves on offense, tackling on defense under the bucket, eliminating body bumps on cutters in the lane, getting rid of hand-checks, and making the game less physical in general will benefit the game.

If you like to watch skill and athleticism instead of football this is great news. We are on the right track.
Click to expand...

You know, I think the Big Ten refs aren't all bad. Yes, stuff like bumping cutters is something that it makes sense to call and is pretty easy to call. But you've got to be concerned if you're going out and telling the refs to call a lot more fouls, as they will make a lot more suspect calls. In this past NCAA tourney, I saw a lot of bad calls simply because I think the refs were trying to call everything and they ended up calling a lot of stuff that probably shouldn't have been called. The Wichita-Louisville held ball at the end of the game for example - very doubtful that gets called in a B1G game because the refs have more restraint. I would say there is a happy medium out there, you can officiate by letting them play without allowing overly physical play, but it seems difficult for the refs to reach that middle ground because they are either focused on letting them play or calling everything.
 

I think moving the shot clock to 30 would be a win for the Big Ten. They have been the slowest pace league consistently for several years. Forcing teams like Wisconsin to play at a faster rate is a good thing for the Big Ten. Of course, other leagues will have to play slightly faster as well, but none of them have had the reputation as a slow league so much as the Big Ten, and at least the strategy of playing at a deliberately slow pace to throw opponents off their game will be a little harder to implement.
 

I say leave the 35 second clock alone just have the refs call fouls when there are clearly fouls instead of worring about the flow of the game.
 

OSUfan said:
You know, I think the Big Ten refs aren't all bad. Yes, stuff like bumping cutters is something that it makes sense to call and is pretty easy to call. But you've got to be concerned if you're going out and telling the refs to call a lot more fouls, as they will make a lot more suspect calls. In this past NCAA tourney, I saw a lot of bad calls simply because I think the refs were trying to call everything and they ended up calling a lot of stuff that probably shouldn't have been called. The Wichita-Louisville held ball at the end of the game for example - very doubtful that gets called in a B1G game because the refs have more restraint. I would say there is a happy medium out there, you can officiate by letting them play without allowing overly physical play, but it seems difficult for the refs to reach that middle ground because they are either focused on letting them play or calling everything.
Click to expand...

I see the problem as an NCAA problem, not Big Ten alone. I finally lost my cool when I saw McGary get shoved and tackled to the ground from behind under the basket without a whistle. The game is way too physical.

Also, I don't think you will have to worry about lots of fouls called. Players and coaches will adjust to what is called. You might see more fouls called initially, but that will subside quickly.

The physicality diminishes skill. The less physical the game is the more skill and talent will thrive. Physicality is an equaliser. The game is currently weighed too much on the physicality side.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
I see the problem as an NCAA problem, not Big Ten alone. I finally lost my cool when I saw McGary get shoved and tackled to the ground from behind under the basket without a whistle. The game is way too physical.

Also, I don't think you will have to worry about lots of fouls called. Players and coaches will adjust to what is called. You might see more fouls called initially, but that will subside quickly.

The physicality diminishes skill. The less physical the game is the more skill and talent will thrive. Physicality is an equaliser. The game is currently weighed too much on the physicality side.
Click to expand...

100% correct.
 

A lower shot clock may make the end of games more watchable. Hopefully they'll be able to get one more possession out of this so I don't need to watch guys miss free throws for the final minute (only the final 50 seconds now).

I do agree with Bo that the shot clock isn't the only issue with the lack of scoring. There are very few skilled players in college basketball now and most teams play an unwatchable pace. There was a 45 second shot clock prior to 1993 (or was it '94) and team regularly got up and down the floor. How many points would LMU have scored with a 35 second shot clock as opposed to 45?
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
I see the problem as an NCAA problem, not Big Ten alone. I finally lost my cool when I saw McGary get shoved and tackled to the ground from behind under the basket without a whistle. The game is way too physical.

Also, I don't think you will have to worry about lots of fouls called. Players and coaches will adjust to what is called. You might see more fouls called initially, but that will subside quickly.

The physicality diminishes skill. The less physical the game is the more skill and talent will thrive. Physicality is an equaliser. The game is currently weighed too much on the physicality side.
Click to expand...

Well, if they don't want a physical game they should have higher foul limits. 5 fouls is not enough when they call it close. I think everyone wants the best players to play as much as possible, but that's not what happens when you call it tight.
 

Make it 30 if for no other reason then to match the same shot clock as the NCAA women play with. It should be the same.
 

OSUfan said:
Well, if they don't want a physical game they should have higher foul limits. 5 fouls is not enough when they call it close. I think everyone wants the best players to play as much as possible, but that's not what happens when you call it tight.
Click to expand...

100% incorrect.
 

Tim1406 said:
Make it 30 if for no other reason then to match the same shot clock as the NCAA women play with. It should be the same.
Click to expand...

Right. And no 10 second rule and use the smaller ball too (more scoring!). Line it all up. Because it matters if the men and women have the exact same rules at all.
 

GopherJake said:
Right. And no 10 second rule and use the smaller ball too (more scoring!). Line it all up. Because it matters if the men and women have the exact same rules at all.
Click to expand...

And start listing the weights of the women players. Talk about sexist.:rolleyes:
 

scher215 said:
If you are going to shorten the shot clock you need to limit the amount of zone teams can play.

I actually agree with Bo here. This alone wouldn't make scoring go up, reduce the zone defense allowed, IMO, and scoring will be go up.

I wouldn't be shocked if scoring stayed the same or went down with this change alone. The defense is still just as good, but now you have less time to beat it and get a good shot.

Hopefully it doesn't impact the Gophers though as we shoot after 6 seconds.
Click to expand...

Have to respectfully disagree. NBA teams almost always get into their offense immediately because they know if they don't they will usually get a crap shot. Most college teams have dozens of possessions each game where they come down and dont run anything at all for 15 seconds.
 

GopherJake said:
Right. And no 10 second rule and use the smaller ball too (more scoring!). Line it all up. Because it matters if the men and women have the exact same rules at all.
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue for the Women to use the Men's sized ball and include the 10 second backcourt. But in this instance the Mens game would need to change. NCAA basketball should actually have the same rules for Men and Women, I don't see why they shouldn't(Separate is inherently unequal, though don't turn this into me saying we should have coed leagues). Will making those adjustments to the women's game(which would result in less scoring) really make fewer people watch women's basketball? Probably not. But changing the Mens shot clock will likely result in a more fun product to watch. Not really sure why anyone would be against this except that they don't like change or they go by the name Bo Ryan.

Way to attempt to make my comment sound dumb without actually saying why they shouldn't have the same rules.
 

Upsets

Lowering the shot clock to 30 will contribute to fewer upsets. The team with the best athletes can"t
be disrupted as much. Teams will have to play faster. It will be harder to control tempo. Tubby got out coached a lot by other teams controlling the tempo. We had the better athletes to run. He just did not control tempo. Teams with the best or stronger players will dominate more often. It will make it a lot harder for a 14 to beat a 3 etc.

Like Alford was quoted: good luck trying to score versus a Syracuse type zone with 5 seconds less in which to do it. You have to change sides of the floor with the ball to break any good defense down to distort it...man or zone. If you have the tallest, strongest, best players you don't care, you'll win.

You eliminate zone and you are further taking away coaching and the ability for strategy to effect the game. It's no fun to watch blowouts, winning or losing.

If you can't bump cutters how do you guard them? Now all you are watching is layups. Every game is different. The rules of basketball are determined by the officiating crew on that particular night...nothing else. There is no rule book. It's what they wanna call...it's their rules and as a coach it is your job to adjust, communicate the rules of the night to your team and take advantage of how it's being called. Some games you couldn't get a traveling call, (this very much effects pressure defense efficiency). Some games you couldn't get a charge no matter how much in position you are, (this effects attacking the basket, posting up etc) I could write a book on adjusting your game plan to referees. It's coaching. If you are stubborn or stupid and talent is equal or less you'll lose for sure. If your talent is better and you don't adjust and the other coach is superb, you'll lose. Referees are a huge factor that has be adjusted to. They almost always call it the same for both teams. They're just bad not unfair.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom