View Full Version : TSN: Don't expect 30-second shot clock to come to men's college hoops

04-23-2013, 01:17 PM

The push for a 30-second clock is a reaction to a season in which offensive production was episodically horrific—who can forget Tennessee failing to reach the 40-point mark in consecutive games, or Northern Illinois scoring four points in a half?—and statistically depressed.

Per team scoring fell from 68.01 points per game in 2011-12 to 67.14 this past season, the lowest average of the shot-clock era—in fact, the lowest since 1952.

The knee-jerk solution to this concern is to assume a shorter shot-clock cycle will create more possessions, and that more possessions will lead to higher scoring totals.

It’s really not that simple. As explained by Jeff Waksman, proprietor of the Basketball Predictions website, scoring plunged in college basketball soon after the shot-clock cycle was trimmed from 45 seconds to 35, from a 45-second high of 76.7 in 1991 to 70.2 in 1997. That’s a dozen fewer points per game between the two teams.

“Once you start reducing the clock close to 24, you’re going to make the basketball sloppier. You’re going to have more turnovers and more missed shots,” Wakman said. “I’m not sure it’s going to make total scoring go up significantly, and it’s going to make the basketball uglier.”

In Izzo’s interview with WWLS Radio in Oklahoma City, he recounted a conversation he had with Stanford coach Johnny Dawkins, in which Dawkins stated, “We have the slowest game in the world.” The NBA and FIBA play with 24-second clocks, and NCAA women use 30.

The slackened pace in college basketball is not the fault of the shot clock, however. It’s the coaches who are responsible. They are the ones who’ve sneaked such concepts as bumping cutters and making opponents “earn” the points available on a clear-path layup by hacking them and forcing them to convert free throws.

It is more likely when the rules committee convenes that the three busiest words will be “freedom of movement.” Coaches have been informed that it’s likely that secondary defenders will have to be in legal guarding position as a ballhandler gathers himself into a layup attempt, rather than before he is airborne. Expect some effort to find rules that can codify the concept of offensive players moving more freely through possessions.

04-23-2013, 01:26 PM
I like the idea of reducing it to 30, but no need to go less than that. Definitely agree that work can be done in regards to the hack-a-player defensive model.

04-23-2013, 04:29 PM
I would much rather them tighten up on the tackling and holding before they mess with the shot clock - - an extra 5 seconds to get an extra try at a set play instead of "breaking a man down" is far preferable to me.

04-23-2013, 10:11 PM
I enjoy watching motion offenses. I can't stand watching the isolation sets of the NBA. Reducing the shot clock may increase the number of shots and turnovers in a game, but it doesn't increase the number of good shots in a game (and points in a game).

If we want to speed the game up, while allowing teams to continue to choose between motion offenses and isolation sets, we should change the requirement to cross half court from 10 seconds to 8. More teams will press. Better, quicker shots when you break the press, and better quicker shots when you force a steal due to your press. More points.

04-24-2013, 04:58 AM
Spot on fly in my opinion, I truly dislike the nba and what it has done to the team game of basketball

Changing shot clock isn't going to help put the ball in the hoop

Clean up the fouls will clean up the game

04-24-2013, 07:50 AM
I felt this was the most interesting part of the article:

ESPN’s Andy Katz surveyed nearly 40 college coaches and found abundant support for a shorter clock cycle, but the vast majority of those he interviewed were from the college game’s highest levels. Only one of the committee’s 12 members represents a high-major school or conference.

“My inclination tells me that the better the talent you have, the shorter you’d want the clock,” Dambrot told Sporting News. He said when he took the Akron squad to Canada for a playing tour and the games were played under FIBA rules with a 24-second clock, “I felt like it was rushed completely. I think it’s good for the pro game because those guys are so talented.

04-24-2013, 08:35 AM
The shorter the clock the less strategy and coaching are factors and the more recruiting is a factor.
Lower scoring may be the result of a trend toward hard contact that has been allowed by the attitude of officials that they can't call all the fouls.
What happened to Kelly in Provo should have resulted in an ejection. Until that happens regularly the violence will increase and the scoring decrease as player are recruited as inforcers rather than shooters and defenders