It's Time: Lower the NCAA Shot Clock to 24 Seconds

[benjordan]

On Tuesday night, Michigan State and Illinois played a basketball game, and the score was 42-41.
That was not the score at halftime. That was not the score after a meteor hit Assembly Hall in Champaign, stopping play and killing hundreds. That was not the score when Tom Izzo went mad, took off his clothes, and ran across the court quoting scripture until his wife chased him down and gave him a mysterious injection, prompting Illinois to cancel the game out of pity.
That was the final score. Two Division I teams that will both make the NCAA tournament were scarcely able to crack the 40-point barrier. And if you're curious about who won, the correct answer is: nobody.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...-time-lower-the-ncaa-shot-clock-to-24-seconds

I think a lot of us can relate to this article, and I personally have been complaining about how lock the shot clock in college is. I don't know why UConn in particular has adopted this style of play the last few years, or if they just haven't had the playmakers, but they really haven't been that fun to watch in a few years, sans Kemba doing Kemba things.

Here are the scoring averages for UConn teams (from ESPN.com.. 2002 is as far back as they go)

2002 78
2003 79
2004 79
2005 78
2006 82
2007 70
2008 77
2009 78
2010 70
2011 72
2012 70

 

[champs99and04]

I've been screaming for this change for a while now. Maybe not 24 seconds, but 28 definitely seems more reasonable.

 

[Kitaman]

I agree and disagree, 30 secs maybe but not 24 to me. Maybe a gradual transition. College ball is unlike NBA ball and I think the game would suffer. The talent to work in a 24 second environment would be restricted to fast thinkers and quick shooters. The lumbering guards (and there are some good ones) would have a hard time adjusting and it could make for some ugly basketball. I always felt in college quite often 30/35 seconds is like 24 secs of NBA ball. Some teams aren't built for speed, and the contrast is what makes college bball so unique.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Most NBA offenses consists almost entirely of pick-and-rolls, isolations, and post-ups. A main reason for this is because, with only 24 seconds to get a shot off, there isn't enough time to do much else.

I find the NBA to be entertaining from a talent perspective, but quite boring from a strategic perspective. A 24 second clock in college just means more isolation plays being run for inferior players.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Yep, in the pro's watching experienced teams there might be 4-5 times per 48 minute game where a team takes an extremely rushed shot or has a shotclock violation. I'd imagine it'd be double that for 24 secs in college particularly because coaches would employ more 'slow to start the offense' presses. So 30 seconds seems right as it still gives you 20 seconds to run an offense after beating a press.

 

[benjordan]

28-30 seconds seems about right to me. Doing some very simple math, if every team took the entire 35 seconds there would be 68 posessions. If they took 30 it would be 80.

 

[jordoo]

I'm for anything that puts a stop to this ugly bball trend that teams like Butler and Pitt have started.
I don't want to watch ND do nothing for 34 sec and then bank in a bad 3 pointer ever again. Make them play the game!

 

[UConn990411]

Um, no. Not for college.

But I have no idea why the men's shotclock is 35 seconds when the women's is 30. You shouldn't be able to just hold the ball for over half a minute per possession.

I don't expect the NCAA to change this, though, since they're a bunch of dumb duck*s.

 

[Burnsbros23]

24 is a horible idea. I dont even like 30. For all the above reasons the game would be so ugly.

 

[NOTaDIME]

Um, no. Not for college.

But I have no idea why the men's shotclock is 35 seconds when the women's is 30. You shouldn't be able to just hold the ball for over half a minute per possession.

I don't expect the NCAA to change this, though, since they're a bunch of dumb duck*s.

I don't follow womens hoops that much so I may be wrong but I think it has something to do with the fact that they don't have a ten second backcourt violation. So in theory a lower shot clock would force them to get the ball down the court faster I guess.

 

[UConn990411]

That was the original the reason behind it, but honestly how much does that come into play?

The women have little trouble getting a shot off in 30 seconds for the most part, so why would the men? It's ridiculous that teams like Notre Dame can dribble the ball for over half a minute before taking a shot. Just absurd.

edit: Also, the no 10 seconds in the women's game might be the worst rule in the history of sports. I'm not even exaggerating.

 

[NOTaDIME]

That was the original the reason behind it, but honestly how much does that come into play?

The women have little trouble getting a shot off in 30 seconds for the most part, so why would the men? It's ridiculous that teams like Notre Dame can dribble the ball for over half a minute before taking a shot. Just absurd.

I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either why the two are different.

 

[August_West]

Because women are inferior athletes and need the help of not having the 10 second rule. Just like when they are cooking a turkey dinner, you can't rush them. in fact I think that on each possession change the women should automatically get the ball at half court and "check" it in. (icebear, please link this on the women's board for discussion, we need the mojo)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk