"Slowest game in the world." Izzo, Dawkins call for a shorter shot clock. What do YOU think???

[atskooc]

TV Timeouts or media timeouts are killing the game for a spectator. I wish Coaches would realize when they are beat and call off all of the fouling to stop the clock at the end of the game. The clock does not need to stop in the last minute of play. Games are too long, not necessarily too slow. Maybe a 30 second clock but not 24. But remember, the women don't have a time line at midcourt.

Any idea why that is?

[kldm64]

 

TV Timeouts or media timeouts are killing the game for a spectator. I wish Coaches would realize when they are beat and call off all of the fouling to stop the clock at the end of the game. The clock does not need to stop in the last minute of play. Games are too long, not necessarily too slow. Maybe a 30 second clock but not 24. But remember, the women don't have a time line at midcourt.

Any idea why that is?

 

 

Because they have a shorter shot clock.

[atskooc]

 

 

TV Timeouts or media timeouts are killing the game for a spectator. I wish Coaches would realize when they are beat and call off all of the fouling to stop the clock at the end of the game. The clock does not need to stop in the last minute of play. Games are too long, not necessarily too slow. Maybe a 30 second clock but not 24. But remember, the women don't have a time line at midcourt.

Any idea why that is?

 

 

Because they have a shorter shot clock.

 

It's shorter in the NBA, but they have a time line.

 

I don't get that women's rule at all.

[Norm Peterson]

If they move to 30, there'll be a big advantage for teams who press effectively.  Teams that struggle breaking the press are going to have a hard time.  I suspect shooting percentages will go down even as possessions go up.  Is that a good thing?  I suppose it is if you like watching ugly basketball.

[AuroranHusker]

Didn't the time for the shot clock used to be 45 sec???

[atskooc]

Didn't the time for the shot clock used to be 45 sec???

Yup.

[Blindcheck]

If the intention is to increase scoring....then the shot clock should not be reduced, it should be expanded back to 45 seconds.

 

The shot clock is a defensive tool...it helps the defense not the offense, so anyone saying that scoring will go up...is not realizing that the shot clock is like an extra defender...make it 24 seconds and it is like the defender just got 4 inches taller and a step faster.

 

My ideas to increase scoring.

 

1. shot clock back to 45 seconds...this allows for more passing, more styles of offense and will eliminate a few jacked up shots a game if the clock was at 35, because a team could make 4 or 5 more passes to get open....Pace of play won't really be effected as it did not change much when the 45 second clock was reduced...the only effect seemed to be to reduce scoring.

2. Start calling the Travel and palming of the ball....and in conjunction with this....defensive players will start  getting called for more of the clutching and grabbing they have been allowed to do...since they started to let players take extra steps, palm the ball, and start their jump stops after they have gained possession of the ball....Defensive players had to start grabbing as guys that travel, palm and take a hop step are much harder to guard with just good footwork and it started the clutching and grabbing that we see so much of.

[trickey]

If the intention is to increase scoring....then the shot clock should not be reduced, it should be expanded back to 45 seconds.

 

The shot clock is a defensive tool...it helps the defense not the offense, so anyone saying that scoring will go up...is not realizing that the shot clock is like an extra defender...make it 24 seconds and it is like the defender just got 4 inches taller and a step faster.

 

My ideas to increase scoring.

 

1. shot clock back to 45 seconds...this allows for more passing, more styles of offense and will eliminate a few jacked up shots a game if the clock was at 35, because a team could make 4 or 5 more passes to get open....Pace of play won't really be effected as it did not change much when the 45 second clock was reduced...the only effect seemed to be to reduce scoring.

2. Start calling the Travel and palming of the ball....and in conjunction with this....defensive players will start  getting called for more of the clutching and grabbing they have been allowed to do...since they started to let players take extra steps, palm the ball, and start their jump stops after they have gained possession of the ball....Defensive players had to start grabbing as guys that travel, palm and take a hop step are much harder to guard with just good footwork and it started the clutching and grabbing that we see so much of.

While I agree with all your points about how referees should call a game...I do not agree that lengthening the shot clock would be a good thing.

 

If you had to sit through some of the 4 corner games of keep away  that us old guys did, you would understand why I want teams to attack the basket!

[Huskerpapa]

...I repeat, if you want to speed up a game, keep the shot clock the same, but take away contact...it will free up the players and bring the artistic element of the game back to the forefront.

[hhcscott]

...I repeat, if you want to speed up a game, keep the shot clock the same, but take away contact...it will free up the players and bring the artistic element of the game back to the forefront.

I was all set to agree that this is the lesson from the women's game. Yes they have a shorter shot clock, but the lesser degree of physical play allows more scoring, but I look at the shooting percentages, and I can't tell. Since both are hitting at equal percentage, is it the shorter time or just easier looks that are causing almost 10 points difference?

NU Men 58.3 ppg on 40% shooting. 1,741 attempts

NU Women 67.0 ppg on on 40% shooting. 2,047 attempts.

[atskooc]

 

...I repeat, if you want to speed up a game, keep the shot clock the same, but take away contact...it will free up the players and bring the artistic element of the game back to the forefront.

I was all set to agree that this is the lesson from the women's game. Yes they have a shorter shot clock, but the lesser degree of physical play allows more scoring, but I look at the shooting percentages, and I can't tell. Since both are hitting at equal percentage, is it the shorter time or just easier looks that are causing almost 10 points difference?

NU Men 58.3 ppg on 40% shooting. 1,741 attempts

NU Women 67.0 ppg on on 40% shooting. 2,047 attempts.

 

I wonder if the numbers would be different if you chose to look at more than just one team from each gender.  Is only using two teams a large enough data field?

 

Honestly, I have no idea.  Interesting information, though.

[uneblinstu]

 

...I repeat, if you want to speed up a game, keep the shot clock the same, but take away contact...it will free up the players and bring the artistic element of the game back to the forefront.

I was all set to agree that this is the lesson from the women's game. Yes they have a shorter shot clock, but the lesser degree of physical play allows more scoring, but I look at the shooting percentages, and I can't tell. Since both are hitting at equal percentage, is it the shorter time or just easier looks that are causing almost 10 points difference?

NU Men 58.3 ppg on 40% shooting. 1,741 attempts

NU Women 67.0 ppg on on 40% shooting. 2,047 attempts.

 

They also play strikingly different styles, though Miles has said more than once that he'd like the men to more resemble the women's style.  I'm hoping the men's numbers will go up as the talent increases.  Miles has expressed a willingness to open it up, we'll see if it does or not.

[hhcscott]

...I repeat, if you want to speed up a game, keep the shot clock the same, but take away contact...it will free up the players and bring the artistic element of the game back to the forefront.

I was all set to agree that this is the lesson from the women's game. Yes they have a shorter shot clock, but the lesser degree of physical play allows more scoring, but I look at the shooting percentages, and I can't tell. Since both are hitting at equal percentage, is it the shorter time or just easier looks that are causing almost 10 points difference?

NU Men 58.3 ppg on 40% shooting. 1,741 attempts

NU Women 67.0 ppg on on 40% shooting. 2,047 attempts.

I wonder if the numbers would be different if you chose to look at more than just one team from each gender. Is only using two teams a large enough data field?

Honestly, I have no idea. Interesting information, though.

I'm sure it would be different if a greater sample size was considered but just grabbing the ones that matter to me,I was surprised to see the women shooting no better than the men but getting more points. Like I said, I agree that eliminating physical defense should lead to more scoring and better spectacle, but it may not be the shot clock or the defense it may just be that modern players can't shoot. Sure Redick, Curry, Fredette, and others are pretty locked in, but how many blown lay ups, bricked jumpers and 5/14 shooting nights do we see in every college game?

[NUdiehard]

 

I'm sure it would be different if a greater sample size was considered but just grabbing the ones that matter to me,I was surprised to see the women shooting no better than the men but getting more points. Like I said, I agree that eliminating physical defense should lead to more scoring and better spectacle, but it may not be the shot clock or the defense it may just be that modern players can't shoot. Sure Redick, Curry, Fredette, and others are pretty locked in, but how many blown lay ups, bricked jumpers and 5/14 shooting nights do we see in every college game?

 

I don't think this issue is that there aren't any kids out there any more who can shoot, I think the problem is that the way the game is currently called rewards strength, quickness and athleticism over skill.  Thus, if a coach is choosing between the more athletic, but less skilled player vs. the more skilled (ie, better shooter, passer, etc) but less athletic, most coaches are choosing the athletic kids.  That coach knows that it is easier to teach a really athletic kid how to grab, clutch, hold and push than it is to teach a kid how to shoot.  He also knows that if his tall, strong athletic kid is grabbing, clutching, holding and pushing the less athletic but skilled opponent, that opponent isn't going to be able to make many shots because he won't be able to get open enough to shoot it.  Thus, the product we see on the floor most nights is a bunch of athletic, but less skilled players, grabbing, clutching and holding rather than swishing shots. 

 

To me, the only way to change this is to change the way the game is called such that it rewards skill more than, or at least just as much as, athleticism.  Stop allowing the defender to grab, clutch, arm-guard, hand-check and hold, and you will start seeing more kids making shots because coaches will start recruiting skill over athleticism.  This skilled kids are still out there, the game just has to give coaches an incentive to actually recruit them and play them. 

[Dean Smith]

I find it hard to  believe that people are still discussing this when all they have to do to find the real answer is look at my eariler post. The best players only play one year and the NCAA has taken away a large fraction of allowed team practice time. What would the Houston teams of phi slamma jamma do to everyone in the tourney this year. Patrick Ewing, Reggie Williams, David Wingate et al of Georgetown. I mentioned the OU teams earlier, the Louisville team that Houston beat: Wagner, McCray, McCray, Thompson, Gordan, I could continue with all the Duke teams. There are so many teams from back in the day that were only really good and never won the title that would dominate with their upperclassmen today. 1984 Memphis was a good team: Lee, Bedford, Turner, Baskerville Holmes (had to use his first name) and Askew. The best team doesn't always win but that team with upper classmen would be better than anything anybody put on the floor this year. There were better TEAMS before the one and done rule. Better teams that got to practice together longer equals more points per game.

[Norm Peterson]

Jumping early to the NBA is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Used to be a rare exception.  The Isaiah Thomas or the Michael Jordan leaving a year or two early.  There was no rule that prevented it at the time.  Players just didn't do it because it was a huge transition and if they weren't ready and washed out, they'd be nowhere.  It was a big risk.

 

When Shawn Kemp jumped straight to the NBA from high school, it was somewhat unheard of.  (Darryl Dawkins did it but maybe not as successfully as he might have if he'd spent some time in college -- or so went the conventional wisdom of the day.)  And the only reason Shawn Kemp jumped was because he was radio-active in the college ranks after the allegation surfaced that Eddie Sutton had someone take his college entrance exam for him.

 

Then, in the early-mid 90s (don't recall exactly when) more and more high school players decided to try jumping directly to the NBA with varying degrees of success.  For every Kevin Garnett who succeeded, there was a kid who went to the Clippers whose names you'll never remember who didn't succeed.  So, I think the NBA sees this huge amount of talent getting wasted because teams can't bring themselves to NOT pick the high school superstar with loads of potential.  And I think it was the NBA that wanted the rule requiring players play at least one year of ball post high school before being eligible for the NBA draft.

 

In the end, the number of kids jumping early to the NBA is not, has not been and never will be statistically significant across the college-age, basketball-playing population.  The NBA draft has two rounds and it's rare to see a player taken outside the top 20-25 picks being an impact player in the pros.  I don't know the statistics, but I would be surprised if there were any more than half a dozen high school players chosen in a single NBA draft back when high school players could be picked.  That is NOT draining the talent pool to any significant degree that it would have an impact on how the college game is played.

 

Nebraska had teams in the early to mid-90s with no early NBA draftees and we were still scoring in the 100s on occasion.  And we're talking teams that were 3rd to 5th best in the Big 8.  Playing with a 45 second shot clock.  So I don't think guys jumping early to the NBA is the best explanation.  It might play a role but only a small one.  I think the best explanation is the way the games are called and the emphasis it places on athleticism over skill.  And the fact that, as Coach Miles lamented recently, we're not developing players in high school as well as we used to.  And then, as Dean says, the lack of practice time probably has an effect as well.

[NUdiehard]

Jumping early to the NBA is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Used to be a rare exception.  The Isaiah Thomas or the Michael Jordan leaving a year or two early.  There was no rule that prevented it at the time.  Players just didn't do it because it was a huge transition and if they weren't ready and washed out, they'd be nowhere.  It was a big risk.

 

When Shawn Kemp jumped straight to the NBA from high school, it was somewhat unheard of.  (Darryl Dawkins did it but maybe not as successfully as he might have if he'd spent some time in college -- or so went the conventional wisdom of the day.)  And the only reason Shawn Kemp jumped was because he was radio-active in the college ranks after the allegation surfaced that Eddie Sutton had someone take his college entrance exam for him.

 

Then, in the early-mid 90s (don't recall exactly when) more and more high school players decided to try jumping directly to the NBA with varying degrees of success.  For every Kevin Garnett who succeeded, there was a kid who went to the Clippers whose names you'll never remember who didn't succeed.  So, I think the NBA sees this huge amount of talent getting wasted because teams can't bring themselves to NOT pick the high school superstar with loads of potential.  And I think it was the NBA that wanted the rule requiring players play at least one year of ball post high school before being eligible for the NBA draft.

 

In the end, the number of kids jumping early to the NBA is not, has not been and never will be statistically significant across the college-age, basketball-playing population.  The NBA draft has two rounds and it's rare to see a player taken outside the top 20-25 picks being an impact player in the pros.  I don't know the statistics, but I would be surprised if there were any more than half a dozen high school players chosen in a single NBA draft back when high school players could be picked.  That is NOT draining the talent pool to any significant degree that it would have an impact on how the college game is played.

 

Nebraska had teams in the early to mid-90s with no early NBA draftees and we were still scoring in the 100s on occasion.  And we're talking teams that were 3rd to 5th best in the Big 8.  Playing with a 45 second shot clock.  So I don't think guys jumping early to the NBA is the best explanation.  It might play a role but only a small one.  I think the best explanation is the way the games are called and the emphasis it places on athleticism over skill.  And the fact that, as Coach Miles lamented recently, we're not developing players in high school as well as we used to.  And then, as Dean says, the lack of practice time probably has an effect as well.

I agree with this completely.  There are approximately 330 NCAA Div. 1 teams.  There are only a handful of kids that leave early for the draft each year (and there are even fewer that are true "One and Done, leaving after their freshman year).  Although these early entrants to the draft may affect the scoring average of a few teams at the top (ie, Kentucky, Duke, etc.), that effect is nominal when averaged out over 330 Div. 1 teams.  Scoring is down across all of college basketball, including at NU.  NU has only had a couple players leave early in its history (and even those weren't until after their junior year), yet the scoring is still down.   

 

Besides, you must consider the effect of early entrants to the draft on both sides of the court.  To the extent these kids are leaving early, their defensive capabilities are also leaving early.  Thus, that teams opponents should be able to score more against them as well.  For instance, Kentucky would have scored more points this year with Anthony Davis on the team, but it also would have held its opponents to fewer points, thus negating any statistical difference on the whole (ie, 60 v. 55 = 65 v. 50). 

 

One last thing (and this is just a personal pet peeve of mine).  The phrase "One and Done" is not really an accurate description of the issue.  There are very, very few players that actually leave after only just one year in college.  For instance, even a guy like Trey Burke at Michigan returned for his sophmore year.  He technically is not a "One and Done".  He played 2 full years in college, not just one.  The majority of players that leave early remain in college for at least 2 years.  Does anyone know the number of freshman from this year who are declaring for the 2013 NBA draft? 

[atskooc]

In the end, the number of kids jumping early to the NBA is not, has not been and never will be statistically significant across the college-age, basketball-playing population.  The NBA draft has two rounds and it's rare to see a player taken outside the top 20-25 picks being an impact player in the pros.  I don't know the statistics, but I would be surprised if there were any more than half a dozen high school players chosen in a single NBA draft back when high school players could be picked.  That is NOT draining the talent pool to any significant degree that it would have an impact on how the college game is played.

 

I don't know that it matters, but this got me interested in seeing the numbers.

 

The drafts in 2004 and 2005, I think, were what made the NBA decide to do away with high school draftees.  In those two drafts combined, 17 high school kids were taken (8 in '04 and 9 in '05).  I realize it's a small sample size, but it appears the numbers were on the rise (5 in '03) before the rule change.

 

Again, I'm not sure it means a whole lot, but I found it interesting.

[Norm Peterson]

I wonder how those players did in the NBA.  Where did you find the info?  Did it give the names of the players who were drafted so that one could follow up on their careers?  My guess is that the NBA saw a significant number of them weren't able to make the transition to the NBA at such a young age and basically washed out, thereby wasting a huge amount of potential talent.  I don't think the rule change was designed to assist the college game so much as it was designed to keep kids from wasting their talent by jumping to the NBA before they were ready.  But that's just a hunch on my part.

[atskooc]

I wonder how those players did in the NBA.  Where did you find the info?  Did it give the names of the players who were drafted so that one could follow up on their careers?  My guess is that the NBA saw a significant number of them weren't able to make the transition to the NBA at such a young age and basically washed out, thereby wasting a huge amount of potential talent.  I don't think the rule change was designed to assist the college game so much as it was designed to keep kids from wasting their talent by jumping to the NBA before they were ready.  But that's just a hunch on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees

 

Most of these names are ones I don't recognize (maybe that has to do with me not paying much attention to the NBA). 

 

And I assume you are correct in that the NBA was trying to protect its own product, rather than hoping to make the college game better (having the kids stay only one year doesn't really help the college game that much...I think another year or two would do that, but the NBA doesn't care, methinks...this is the point I think Dean was trying to make). 

[hhcscott]

Nudiehard said:

"One last thing (and this is just a personal pet peeve of mine). The phrase "One and Done" is not really an accurate description of the issue."

2 and through?

Dos y vamos?

Zwei und goodbye?

[cozrulz]

 

I wonder how those players did in the NBA.  Where did you find the info?  Did it give the names of the players who were drafted so that one could follow up on their careers?  My guess is that the NBA saw a significant number of them weren't able to make the transition to the NBA at such a young age and basically washed out, thereby wasting a huge amount of potential talent.  I don't think the rule change was designed to assist the college game so much as it was designed to keep kids from wasting their talent by jumping to the NBA before they were ready.  But that's just a hunch on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees

 

Most of these names are ones I don't recognize (maybe that has to do with me not paying much attention to the NBA). 

 

And I assume you are correct in that the NBA was trying to protect its own product, rather than hoping to make the college game better (having the kids stay only one year doesn't really help the college game that much...I think another year or two would do that, but the NBA doesn't care, methinks...this is the point I think Dean was trying to make). 

 

 

7 of 8 from 2004 are still playing.

 

8 of 9 from 2005 are still playing.

[Dean Smith]

I still think most of you have missed the point I was trying to make so it must be my fault. Players leave early on the best teams and they never get to be as good of a team as they might have. NCAA takes away practice time and teams never get to be as good as they might have. It does take more time to become a cohesive offensive unit than it does defensive. There are more skills that have to fit together. My focus was on the teams inability to maintain continuity and be given the practice time to develop to their full offensive capabilities.

 

I've been trying to stay away from the officiating angle because I didn't want to set anyone off when I said something like, "For those of you who are complaining about that extra step after the hop - if you actually read how the rule is written, the officials were wrong when they called you for traveling and as the rule is written it is  correct when they don't call it today." Good thing I didn't mention that huh?

[HB]

I still think most of you have missed the point I was trying to make so it must be my fault. Players leave early on the best teams and they never get to be as good of a team as they might have. NCAA takes away practice time and teams never get to be as good as they might have. It does take more time to become a cohesive offensive unit than it does defensive. There are more skills that have to fit together. My focus was on the teams inability to maintain continuity and be given the practice time to develop to their full offensive capabilities.

 

I've been trying to stay away from the officiating angle because I didn't want to set anyone off when I said something like, "For those of you who are complaining about that extra step after the hop - if you actually read how the rule is written, the officials were wrong when they called you for traveling and as the rule is written it is  correct when they don't call it today." Good thing I didn't mention that huh?

 

I didn't articulate it well, but I was referring to two steps taken before the hop--typically right after the catch on the low block--not the hop (presumably a jump stop) and then a step.  I still think that is travelling, but of course I could be wrong again.

[49r]

Rules committee boss: Men's college hoops headed for 30-second shot clock - ESPN.com

 

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12775789/men-college-basketball-headed-30-second-shot-clock-according-ncaa-rules-committee-chairman

 

Men's basketball is likely heading toward reducing its shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds, NCAA rules committee chairman Rick Byrd told ESPN.com on Monday.

 

Byrd, the coach at Belmont, said a year ago that there was a 5 percent chance of the change happening, but he changed his tone Monday.

 

"Now there's a real decent chance," Byrd said. "It's pretty evident a lot more coaches are leaning that way. The opinion of coaches on the shot clock has moved significantly to reducing it from 35 to 30. And all indicators are pointing toward that."