Pantherdreams |
Fri Apr 19, 2013 06:18am |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
(Post 891387)
I think you're overestimating the importance of 5 seconds on the shot clock. I don't see it having a lot of effect either way. If the coaches really want more offense, then the conference supervisors will need to have the officials lower their threshold for advantage.
As far as 8 vs 10 seconds in the BC; what difference would it really make? Of course they could, but why? What would the point be in making the change? Just to match the rest of the world? If we wanted to to that, we'd care more about soccre.
|
I'm not trying to overestimate the importance of 5 seconds, because I'm talking about 11 seconds. The difference this and the back court time make is in the tactics offense and defense must use to move the ball and get shots. If you take your max time getting up the floor and try to pull back when stuff doesn't go correctly your remaining possession is going to be with less the 10 seconds to shoot. Not 20+ seconds to run offense.
My point is that defense locks into sets, and players who are limited in what they are allowed to do and where they are allowed to go. Defense is defending habits and weaknesses. The longer teams hold the ball and play chess the more time and opportunity for physical play increases. Shots or creative plays that ead to more shots or turnovers you need to increase pace and scoring.
No one is complaining about contact in transition. Most plays vs good defense end up with a 1 on 1 battle or ball screen attack late in the shot clock anyway. If the majority of the game is played in those two situations instead of the space in between you get more shots, more pace, less lock in and lockdowns. It requires players with more creativity, freedom, and shot making ability to be on the floor. It changes how teams play, recruit, coach . . . etc.
You give Wisconsin a 24 second shot clock and a 90+ possesion game, and see how they play and who they put on the floor. My feeling is the game is too physical because phsyical play happens mostly in confined spaces of the front court as teams compete for a particular spot/screen that coaches want them to get. If the game was faster, with more universally skilled players, more kids with the freedom to make decisions and attack (along with the skill sets to do it) along with the need to get shots faster and invariably from a variety of players and paces most of the other issues change/go away.
The point was made that if you look at classic games shots that were taken would be considered "bad" shots now because teams can run offense to get better looks for better players. If the rules made/allowed those shots to be "good" or at least required and there wasn't a chance to work for a better one, then wouldn't that increase scoring and required skill on the floor to make those plays and shots?
|