OT: NCAA to Experiment With 30-Second Shot Clock In NIT
Given that Michigan is likely headed to the NIT this season, I thought this was board-worthy. With Beilein's more deliberate offensive style, how do you think a 30-second shot clock would impact the offense this year, and beyond?
LINK.
February 7th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
But I don't like this push to make college basketball faster. I think it takes some of the strategy out of running an offense, and it reduces the importance of each possession. I admit this is mostly a matter of taste.
Beilein is a great coach who will be fine, but I can't see how this is a positive for his offense. On defense, however, it could help -- It should improve the effectiveness of the 1-3-1.
February 7th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^
Personally, I just think they should just move to 24 seconds like the NBA and move the 3 point line back to where it is in the NBA as well.
Just normalize it.
February 7th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 5:39 PM ^
Do that and shooting percentages will plummet. Transition D will be at a premium since that's where a lot of scoring would come from.
February 8th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
24 second shot clock would be awful in college. Bad NBA teams are an eyesore in the halfcourt, college will be 100x worse because they're just not as skilled.
February 7th, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^
I'm with johnthesavage - no need to move the clock faster. It will only force a lot of one on one moves benefitting teams with strong playmakers and poor defense. Leave that to NBA where the games are more entertainment than sport.
Perhaps we should experiment with removing the shot clock and bring back the four corners.
February 7th, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 4:57 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 10:46 PM ^
I don't actually dislike Jay Bilas, but virtually everything he says about basketball irritates me. I've come to the conclusion that Jay Bilas's Platonic ideal of basketball and my Platonic basketball are diametrical opposites.
And his side's going to win the argument. I'm resigned to that.
February 7th, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 5:04 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 5:38 PM ^
How long have you thought this? It was moved back about 5 years ago.
February 7th, 2015 at 5:13 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2015 at 7:07 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 6:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^
Badgers coach Bo Ryan has used the slow-down tactics to great success, including last year's run to the Final Four and a 20-2 start this year that has Wisconsin ranked No. 5. Wisconsin ranks 39th in the country at 74.4 points per game this season, but many teams at schools both big and small have employed a more deliberate offensive system over the years to neutralize athletic shortcomings.
This is the first team I thought of when I saw this thread, and it would be interesting to see how it affects a Wisconsin-ish type team in the NIT, if indeed a comparable team ends up in the NIT so a comparison might be done. I can see this confounding some teams' offenses though.
Actually, the ACC actually did this, I believe, in exhibition games this year, which I don't think is enough of a sample to get good comparison data.
February 7th, 2015 at 5:41 PM ^
At least in terms of tempo, Michigan and Wisconsin are strikingly similar year after year. Both are averaging 60.5 possessions a game this year, good for 335th (Wisconsin) and 338th (Michigan), respectively.
Now, obviously the offenses themselves are quite different, but pace-wise they are about identical, so it would be interesting to see how the shorter clock would impact Michigan in the NIT.
February 7th, 2015 at 5:26 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 5:37 PM ^
I don't think it would make a big difference but you'd probably see shooting percentages drop a bit, since offenses have less time to operate.
February 8th, 2015 at 4:03 AM ^
I dont' think it will have a big effect. A lot of teams waste a ton of time in their offensive set right now. If they have 5 less seconds to waste, well, they will just get moving a bit quicker.
I don't think most desperation heaves right now come from a complete inability to get up a shot in 35 seconds. I think they come from not getting into your offense quickly enough.
Perhaps a team that is pressing/trapping might be better off because they can force a team now to only have 20 seconds or so of offense once they get the ball across half-court.
February 7th, 2015 at 6:34 PM ^
I'm not gung ho about reducing the clock time. I've hear some ridiculous arguments about how it will help sh**ty offenses. Since when does taking away options help someone? The stupidest thing I heard a few weeks ago was that it would help bad teams b/c they have less time they need to guard better teams, completely forgetting the fact that there will be more possessions for them to guard.
Having said/ranted all that, I am a big fan of such experiments in either the preseason or postseason (excluding the Tournament, obviously). So kudos.
February 7th, 2015 at 7:00 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2015 at 7:06 PM ^
Finally I can start to watch college basketball again. Really it should be a 27-28 second shot clock
February 7th, 2015 at 7:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2015 at 8:06 PM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 11:10 PM ^
I thnk that is so low on the totem pole we would likely not go. Nothing to brag about if you did well and a lot to lose if you did poorly. And it is a pay to play. And what is the poing again ?
February 8th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
February 7th, 2015 at 8:16 PM ^
to play with NBA 24 second shot clock, but maybe 30 seconds would be a good compromise.
I'd rather not see a game with a bunch of max elbow jumpers as time expires. But at the same time, it would be nice to see good defense rewarded more often.
February 7th, 2015 at 8:31 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 7th, 2015 at 9:22 PM ^
When are they going to experiment getting rid of atleast 2 timeouts?
February 7th, 2015 at 10:23 PM ^
Timeouts are when the money is made.
February 7th, 2015 at 10:33 PM ^
The shorter the shot clock, the more of each possession is late-clock. There's proportionally less looking for a good shot, more forcing the action to get a shot at a particular point in time.
It's to the disadvantage of any continuity offense (Beilein, Ryan), to the advantage of dribble-drive and high-ball-screen. I'm guessing the most dramatic effect won't be in pace or scoring or even shooting percentages, but in the average number of passes per possession.
February 8th, 2015 at 12:26 AM ^
Just implement the damn thing! A 35 second shot clock in men's college basketball is beyond stupid.
It should already be 30 and they should be experimenting with a 26 or 28 second shot clock.
February 8th, 2015 at 5:49 AM ^
There is nothing wrong at all with the 35 second shot clock. It actually makes the game more interesting, in my opinion. Plus, the NBA is virtually unwatchable, and anything that moves college basketball closer to that is a bad thing. Leave college basketball alone!!
February 8th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
During the charge/block discussions?
I recall a comment by Adam Silver that implied that the NBA would consider moving to two-and-done if the NCAA moved its rules, and game, in the direction of the NBA. Shorter clock, change in traveling rule, charge/block changes, bigger arc under the hoop.
To my surprise he lost that round and the charge/block rule was changed back to what it always was. But I don't have much hope in the long run.