PDA

View Full Version : Why the NCAA's march towards a 30 second shot clock is off target



CDC84
05-11-2015, 03:26 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-11/ncaa-shot-clock-rules-committee-college-basketball-30-second?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


In the 2012-13 season, scoring in Division I basketball dropped to 67.5 points per team, the lowest level since 1952, long before the game featured either a shot-clock or 3-point shot.

For 2013-14, rules were codified to make certain types of contact definitively fouls and the charge/block rule was changed to force secondary defenders to be in position before driving ballhandlers pulled the ball off the floor to initiate a shot. Scoring improved to 71 points per team for the season — even though it was obvious officials were less emphatic about enforcing the no-contact rules as conference play arrived.

For 2014-15, however, the rules committee reverted to the original charge/block rule that allowed defenders to earn a call merely by being in place before the offensive player jumped to shoot. Concurrently, officials all but abandoned the effort to enforce the directive against defensive contact. Scoring plunged again, to 67.6 points per team.

“Our game is ugly right now,” SMU coach Larry Brown said before last season, during a panel discussion among American Athletic Conference coaches. “I think our game will get uglier with a shorter clock.”

It is intriguing that Brown would be one to voice this position, given that he has coached so many years at the professional level, even won an NBA championship in charge of the 2004 Detroit Pistons.

Why does he say this? Because he’s smart enough to understand a 30-second cycle would profoundly enhance the strength of the defense. The coaches know this. I spoke with a handful of Division I head coaches and assistants at the adidas Uprising tournament near Indy last month, and unanimously they expressed that a 30-second clock would lead to more “soft” pressure designed to cut shot-clock time, more zone defenses and more unattractive late-clock shots attempted merely to avoid an impending turnover.

Even when attempted by players such as Chris Paul, Mike Conley, John Wall and Derrick Rose, such shots can appear hopeful or desperate. And there are few such talents spread across the 350-plus programs competing in Division I.


In a sense, when the shot-clock reaches a certain point in its cycle — when those lapsing single digits begin to enter the consciousness of the team in control of the ball — it is like a sixth defender has entered the court. The offense must beat the five guys in sneakers as well as the clock. With 30 seconds, more coaches will design their defenses to force opponents into these uncomfortable circumstances.

Because that’s what the majority of college coaches do: They teach defense first. They do this because the officials have permitted so much contact to infiltrate the game it’d be foolish not to. They do this because it wins. If they are given one more menacing weapon by the rules committee, they are going to use it.


Data collected from the three non-championship postseason tournaments (CIT, CBI and NIT) that experimented with the 30-second clock this year showed the offensive impact was almost negligible. Teams in those tournaments averaged 70.13 points in 2013 and 70.38 in 2014 using a 35-second clock. With a 30-second clock this past March, scoring increased only to 71.47. Shooting efficacy declined, and there actually were fewer possessions in CIT/CBI/NIT games this season than there were two years earlier.

gonzagafan62
05-11-2015, 05:50 PM
I was fine with everything except the last quote there with that data of the three non championship tournaments. Okay, so we are going to compare the best 68 teams with other scrubs that can't shoot a basketball? Ok, let me rephrase that. We are going to compare 68 teams that are the best at scoring (winning I suppose) with other teams that are given :

A) more opportunities to miss shots that they already miss (they lose)
B) a shot clock impromtuly which they didn't have time to prepare.
C) mid level BCS teams and mid majors that probably can't play a lot of defense

Yeah, let's expirement and compare to the best teams in the nation. Real smart. That information doesn't even make sense

seacatfan
05-11-2015, 06:21 PM
I was fine with everything except the last quote there with that data of the three non championship tournaments. Okay, so we are going to compare the best 68 teams with other scrubs that can't shoot a basketball? Ok, let me rephrase that. We are going to compare 68 teams that are the best at scoring (winning I suppose) with other teams that are given :

A) more opportunities to miss shots that they already miss (they lose)
B) a shot clock impromtuly which they didn't have time to prepare.
C) mid level BCS teams and mid majors that probably can't play a lot of defense

Yeah, let's expirement and compare to the best teams in the nation. Real smart. That information doesn't even make sense


You know the best 68 teams aren't in then NCAA Tournament. With automatic qualifiers from some of the 1 bid leagues being completely mediocre or worse teams that manage to win their conference tourney, there are going to be several teams that just aren't very good. Generally the teams that advance far in the NIT are good enough that they could've won a game or two in the NCAA Tournament if they'd been invited. I would agree that the CBI and CIT are full of weak teams.

Baseline
05-11-2015, 06:25 PM
Don't mean to redirect this thread, but I see a way bigger problem with the drive and jump into the guy for the foul. I cringe every time a guard goes down the lane, either he jumps into PK for the foul or PK stands there with his hands straight up trying to avoid a call and the guy just goes around. Getting bigs into trouble early by the drive and jump changes the game - this needs to end.

Mr Vulture
05-11-2015, 07:00 PM
I haven't read the article but I think 30 seconds is better than 35. I hate less skilled teams milking the clock to stay in games. I do think 24 is getting a little short but 30 seems reasonable. I would like to see the 3pt line moved out further as well but not a big deal really.

gonzagafan62
05-11-2015, 07:14 PM
You know the best 68 teams aren't in then NCAA Tournament. With automatic qualifiers from some of the 1 bid leagues being completely mediocre or worse teams that manage to win their conference tourney, there are going to be several teams that just aren't very good. Generally the teams that advance far in the NIT are good enough that they could've won a game or two in the NCAA Tournament if they'd been invited. I would agree that the CBI and CIT are full of weak teams.

True ... I also left out that teams that do play good defense (San Diego state) can't shoot a kick either. Neither does cincy. (At least that's their reputation) lol

DixieZag
05-11-2015, 07:59 PM
I'm not the basketball mind that some are, but I find the reasoning sound.

I'm also not a fan of the "break down a man on dribble drive" and I see that more as a product of shorter shot clocks - could be wrong.

But, clearly, the biggest problem they have to address is the football that goes on in the lane. Rethinking the manhandling of our guys by Duke, the tackle of Sabonis in AZ, it just makes me think the game itself is getting away. (Though I'm sure we got plenty of calls along the way, too. One is forced to meet force with force).

I think it is just as clear that WCC refs tend to call a tighter game - to a huge fault. When teams are in the double bonus with 11:00 minutes left in the half, something is wrong. But, when we see the B1G, the ACC, etc and see them come into the tourney...it's just ugly and takes so much skill away. Even defensive "skill" falls away to just brute clutching, holding.

The reasoning in the article seems sound. I like BB with off the ball movement, passing, space, and smarts. As much as I hated BYU beating us on Senior night, their offense was beautiful with their passing. Anything that adds to that, sounds good to me. It sounds like the 30 second clock would detract from that.

sittingon50
05-11-2015, 08:28 PM
FWIW, Few said in his last Sunday night show that because of the pace the Zags play, he would prefer the shorter clock.

TexasZagFan
05-12-2015, 09:53 AM
FWIW, Few said in his last Sunday night show that because of the pace the Zags play, he would prefer the shorter clock.

Paul Westhead's teams didn't need no steenking shot clock.

cjm720
05-12-2015, 10:25 AM
The problem is with the refs. They need to swallow the whistle more and be more consistent between conferences.

Kiddwell
05-12-2015, 11:40 AM
Thirty-Second Shot Clock = :000tens:





:]

VinnyZag
05-12-2015, 11:47 AM
I wish we could just standardized the rules of the sport across all levels.

Robzagnut
05-12-2015, 02:20 PM
Thirty-Second Shot Clock = :000tens:




Yes please.

There's two types of basketball that will make me turn off the TV. Dick and Tony Bennett 'slow the game down, use every second of the 35 second clock, watch the paint dry' brand of basketball. I hate it.

Number Two, Hack-A-Shaq, now Hack-A-Jordan basketball. When San Antonio started doing it I changed channels. Now that Houston is doing it too I quit watching. There's no flow to the game and we don't get to watch two awesome players in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin play the game.

Hoopaholic
05-12-2015, 02:51 PM
Yes please.

There's two types of basketball that will make me turn off the TV. Dick and Tony Bennett 'slow the game down, use every second of the 35 second clock, watch the paint dry' brand of basketball. I hate it.

Number Two, Hack-A-Shaq, now Hack-A-Jordan basketball. When San Antonio started doing it I changed channels. Now that Houston is doing it too I quit watching. There's no flow to the game and we don't get to watch two awesome players in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin play the game.

And you really think 5 seconds is going to change their philosophy

We will see more 1 on 1 basketball

seacatfan
05-12-2015, 04:36 PM
the tackle of Sabonis in AZ

I realize quite a few fans on this board are never going to let that go, but Sabonis tackled an Arizona player earlier in the game that was just as or more egregious, that also didn't result in a foul being called. Just sayin'.

gonzagafan62
05-12-2015, 07:15 PM
I realize quite a few fans on this board are never going to let that go, but Sabonis tackled an Arizona player earlier in the game that was just as or more egregious, that also didn't result in a foul being called. Just sayin'.

Please show the footage

sittingon50
05-12-2015, 08:43 PM
I realize quite a few fans on this board are never going to let that go, but Sabonis tackled an Arizona player earlier in the game that was just as or more egregious, that also didn't result in a foul being called. Just sayin'.

Don't remember the play seacat, but have the game on tape. Time of the incident, please.

Robzagnut
05-12-2015, 08:45 PM
And you really think 5 seconds is going to change their philosophy

We will see more 1 on 1 basketball

Who cares about their philosophy. That's 5 less seconds of pain each possession and the other team gets the ball that much quicker. I don't see a lot of one on one bball in the women's game.

Hoopaholic
05-12-2015, 10:09 PM
Who cares about their philosophy. That's 5 less seconds of pain each possession and the other team gets the ball that much quicker. I don't see a lot of one on one bball in the women's game.

my point is if the sole intention is to try and get coaches to change their philosophy of paitence, execution, clean cuts, good open solid shots, moving the shot clock down by 5 seconds wont change those actions

I stand by my view that it will increase isolation 1 on 1 at the 20 second mark and many times we will see hurried poor shots, especially if the team was pressed and had 8-12 seconds ran off the clock before they can set up for offense, leaving less than 15 seconds for a clean executed look

Robzagnut
05-13-2015, 05:19 AM
my point is if the sole intention is to try and get coaches to change their philosophy of paitence, execution, clean cuts, good open solid shots, moving the shot clock down by 5 seconds wont change those actions

I stand by my view that it will increase isolation 1 on 1 at the 20 second mark and many times we will see hurried poor shots, especially if the team was pressed and had 8-12 seconds ran off the clock before they can set up for offense, leaving less than 15 seconds for a clean executed look

I disagree.

But we will see a reduction in the amount of time the PG stands around the half court area dribbling the ball waiting for time to run off the clock, or the offense running the weave out top to run some clock, then starting their offense.

Mr Vulture
05-13-2015, 08:12 AM
I would disagree as well...there is plenty of time to run offense with a 30 second shot clock. All a five second reduction would do is increase total possession in a game by 8-10 per team on average. What it does require is for a team to get into their offense quicker. How many times do teams dribble around 30ft from the basket right now before getting into their offense...the answer is very often. More possessions will typically separate the better team which is why less talented teams like to milk the clock.


my point is if the sole intention is to try and get coaches to change their philosophy of paitence, execution, clean cuts, good open solid shots, moving the shot clock down by 5 seconds wont change those actions

I stand by my view that it will increase isolation 1 on 1 at the 20 second mark and many times we will see hurried poor shots, especially if the team was pressed and had 8-12 seconds ran off the clock before they can set up for offense, leaving less than 15 seconds for a clean executed look

seacatfan
05-13-2015, 08:27 AM
Don't remember the play seacat, but have the game on tape. Time of the incident, please.

I don't remember for sure, my recollection is late in the first half. GU has the ball, on a missed shot Ashley has inside rebounding position on Sabonis. Domas goes over the back, in trying to secure the ball he basically gets Ashley in a headlock and then drags him to the ground.

mgadfly
05-13-2015, 11:40 AM
I would disagree as well...there is plenty of time to run offense with a 30 second shot clock. All a five second reduction would do is increase total possession in a game by 8-10 per team on average. What it does require is for a team to get into their offense quicker. How many times do teams dribble around 30ft from the basket right now before getting into their offense...the answer is very often. More possessions will typically separate the better team which is why less talented teams like to milk the clock.

I think it will do both. On one hand, teams that delay starting their offense will have to start their offense five seconds sooner. That's a good thing in my opinion. I've hated the trend toward waiting to start the offense until later in the shot clock. Often times what you have is a team playing isolation or triangle ball but holding the ball for fifteen seconds before they do. That, in my opinion, is the worst of both worlds. Boring wasted time + boring most athletic/biggest team offense.

On the other hand, teams that run motion/flex offenses (and I know they are increasingly endangered) will transition to isolation and triangle offenses. Which, in my opinion, is a bad thing for basketball. There was a time when five average sized guards could run a motion offense and make bigger players chase them all over the court. It led to easy baskets because the big guys couldn't defend a motion offense for five or six passes and also knew the offense would keep doing it (seven or eight passes) because they were given all the time in the world. Now the big guys know they don't have to chase very long. They can give soft pressure to run clock as the other team brings it up. Then they have to defend for 15 seconds until the pressure of a shot clock violation will kick in and get the offense to take a bad shot. Every time you shave time off of the shot clock the bigger, stronger, athlete has an advantage over the smaller skilled athlete. Slashing is prioritized over passing. Jumping over a defender is prioritized above working hard for position (because there is less time to do so).

If we want the "better" teams to play, and define "better" as bigger, stronger, and more athletic then we should keep creating rules that limit the variety of basketball that can be effective. I don't know that I buy the NBA's definition of "better" and therefore see these rule changes as both good (I can't stand the stall tactics going on) and bad (forcing comformity of style by incentivizing one offense over the other).

scott257
05-13-2015, 11:44 AM
Seems like a 24 second clock would benefit the players. They may as well use the same standard as the professionals so they prepare for what to expect in the NBA or Europe.

sittingon50
05-13-2015, 12:07 PM
I don't remember for sure, my recollection is late in the first half. GU has the ball, on a missed shot Ashley has inside rebounding position on Sabonis. Domas goes over the back, in trying to secure the ball he basically gets Ashley in a headlock and then drags him to the ground.

I seem to remember that. Will check it out. Thanks.

CDC84
05-18-2015, 07:36 AM
Looks like we're going to get the 30 sec shot clock. This article also points out some other rule changes that are likely headed our way:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-moving-to-30-second-clock-in-effort-to-increase-scoring-ncaa-rules-committee-march-madness

TSN's analysis on why many of the rule changes are "half-measures" that may miss the mark on what ails college basketball:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-15/college-basketball-rules-change-ncaa-committee-shot-clock-timeout-charge-call

Mr Vulture
05-18-2015, 07:39 AM
I still like the move to the 30 second shot clock...its only going to help teams like Gonzaga. The other changes are better too..reducing timeouts by one and not letting a team carry over as many to the 2nd half is a good one. Let the game play, to much stoppage and delays.

willandi
05-18-2015, 09:34 AM
"1. Eliminating the prohibition against dunking in warm-ups.

2. When officials review a potential flagrant foul, any faking by the allegedly fouled player will be penalized.

3. Minor technical fouls, such as hanging on the rim, will be penalized by one free throw.

4. Elimination of the five-second closely guarded rule.

5. Allowing officials to use reviews to check if the shot clock has been violated.

6. Removing the ability of coaches to call timeouts when the ball is in play."

I think I like all of these. It seemed to me that when they wrote "to enforce rules against physical contact and to give the same verticality protection to offensive players that is accorded defenders." they got it backwards. There should be a fouls when the driving guard jumps into the defender, and the defender should have the right to slide left, right or back, in defense, w/o it being a foul. Absolutely stationary is absurd. 35-30 sec clock doesn't matter, to me.

CDC84
05-18-2015, 10:21 AM
6. "Removing the ability of coaches to call timeouts when the ball is in play."

I'd still go one step further....."removing the ability of coaches AND players to call timeouts when the ball is in play." I have always preferred the FIBA rule. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction. There were several instances last season of refs granting timeout requests from coaches during floor scrambles where possession of the ball clearly had not been established. The refs were looking at the coaches in anticipation of a timeout being called instead of paying attention to the action on the court.

CDC84
05-18-2015, 10:42 AM
ESPN also mentioned this:


2. Stricter enforcement of resumption of play coming out of timeouts and after a player has fouled out.

I have been griping about this for years. People underestimate how much time is wasted after a player fouls out. I wouldn't even allow the players to go their benches. It should just be treated like any other player substitution.

willandi
05-18-2015, 12:28 PM
ESPN also mentioned this:



I have been griping about this for years. People underestimate how much time is wasted after a player fouls out. I wouldn't even allow the players to go their benches. It should just be treated like any other player substitution.

Agree. Anything should be a technical, and the ball.

77Zag
05-18-2015, 02:34 PM
I think it will be a good change and hopefully up the scoring - it should bode well with our style.
Off the subject, I also want professional boxing to go 5 Rounds maximum, similar to the Olympics 3 Round -- then we will see some action as opposed to the run away, roper doper scam to hold the crown. So disappointed in the big fight...blah!

Go Zags -- score on every 30 second possession.

ProjectMKUltra5
05-18-2015, 04:19 PM
I think it will be a good change and hopefully up the scoring - it should bode well with our style.
Off the subject, I also want professional boxing to go 5 Rounds maximum, similar to the Olympics 3 Round -- then we will see some action as opposed to the run away, roper doper scam to hold the crown. So disappointed in the big fight...blah!

Go Zags -- score on every 30 second possession.

Check out Glory if your willing to throw kicks into the mix. Short 4 or 5 round fights that are violent, action packed affairs. Fun stuff

Zagpower
05-19-2015, 07:28 AM
I propose that NCAA take a page out of the Major League Baseball playbook and make the coaches wear the same uniforms as the players.