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

[APG]

Men's college basketball headed for 30-second shot clock, according to 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."

[Pantherdreams]

Good. NOw move past 30 down to 24 and get rid of all the gosh darn timeouts.

[rockyroad]

I would agree with getting rid of a bunch of the timeouts - although most of that is media and $$ driven...but why in the world go down to 24 seconds?? If you want that, just watch the NBA.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I would agree with getting rid of a bunch of the timeouts - although most of that is media and $$ driven...but why in the world go down to 24 seconds?? If you want that, just watch the NBA.

It they want scoring to go up, they only have to convince officials to call the fouls that often go uncalled with one excuse or another. They've tried but many officials resist and the game devolves into too much of a physical wrestling match. The game was never designed to require a guard, or even post players, to have enough strength to play through level of contact that they are forced to deal with. The amount of contact that really creates and advantage is far less than what is commonly called. If the fouls are called, the game opens up and scoring increases.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It they want scoring to go up, they only have to convince officials to call the fouls that often go uncalled with one excuse or another. They've tried but many officials resist and the game devolves into too much of a physical wrestling match. The game was never designed to require a guard, or even post players, to have enough strength to play through level of contact that they are forced to deal with. The amount of contact that really creates and advantage is far less than what is commonly called. If the fouls are called, the game opens up and scoring increases.

Agreed but you have to be willing to do it an invest in the long term. THe year the NCAA tried this by conference play in the first year and definitely by the 2nd year it had gone back to the way it was.

Scoring will increase in the long term. When the value on recruiting, and training is on shooting, and skills not physical development and body type.

If you get a bunch of athletes in your program that are there to bang and defend physically then you take away physicality from the game scoring doesn't go up then. THen you get longer games, with more whisltes, less flow, kids who aren't doing what they've been trained or brought in to do, and needing to do things they aren't good at. Scoring doesn't go up that year or maybe even the next. Or if it does the fans and coaches freak out because its all foul shots. You need to be able to stick with it until you see cultural change in the types of players and sytle of play at mulitple high level institutions.

If you call the calls that are there the game will adapt and clean up. But the breaking in period will be rough (whether that is fouls, footwork, whatever) you just have to be able to get through it until its not just something officials are trying but rather something programs have to adapt to on a long term basis.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the fouls are called, the game opens up and scoring increases.

Where is the "like" button?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I would agree with getting rid of a bunch of the timeouts - although most of that is media and $$ driven...but why in the world go down to 24 seconds?? If you want that, just watch the NBA.

35 seconds = Minium 69 possessions per game.
30 seconds0 = Miimum 80 possessions per game.
24 seconds = 100 possessions per game.

I'm not sure what the stats are on points per possession in the NCAA but lets for the sake of math say its 1 pt per possession.

In the shift from 35 - 30 secods you would add 11 points per game. Which divided between 2 teams is going to be a couple of hoops each.

24 seconds you would add 21 points. Which is going to be close to a double digit increase in scoring for both teams.

If you want to adjust the shot clock to increase scoring and want a visual the 24 second clock makes more sense. It also means more possessions, more fouls, less time for coaches to run sets and you need coaches grooming more skilled players not controlling the play of a few as often. Better looking game again creating more better players.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I would agree with getting rid of a bunch of the timeouts - although most of that is media and $$ driven...but why in the world go down to 24 seconds?? If you want that, just watch the NBA.

He's pushing for FIBA rules.

At some point, there's going to be diminishing returns. Why not just make the shot clock 15 seconds if all we care about is scoring?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Adam

He's pushing for FIBA rules.

At some point, there's going to be diminishing returns. Why not just make the shot clock 15 seconds if all we care about is scoring?

Probably some validity to that argument if you just want more possessions then going below 24 obviously does the same thing.

I just feel like going from 35-30 and using the argument we are doing it to increase scoring is setting yourself up to be challeneged as based on your current scoring rates the numbers of possessions you are increasing isn't going to get you enough more points for people to feel the pain/implementation is worth it. Changing the clocks, facilities, rules, the way teams play, and recruit is not going to be worth it and in some cases won't happen over 4-5 points per game to each side. If you are talking about double digit point totals on each side and a dramatic shift in ways you breakout, run offense, having players create and take shots then you are going to requie buy in from coaches and players to adapt and fans can see a noticeable change.

I don't think the shot clock by itself improves your game. As others have stated if players and coaches don't adapt then you've jsut got more poor shooting and poor shot selection. Now if you change enough rules or adapted the clock far enough to change coaching habuts, recruiting philiosophies and style of play then you will see the game improve and scoring increase.

You could go down to 15 but everyone is going to be out of a job because no one knows how to coach or what that version of basketball looks like. We know what 35 wth the current rule set looks like and people are complaing about the visual and quality of product. 24 and whether its rule sets like FIBA or NBA people know what that product looks like.

[SoInZebra]

If a 30 second shot clock will improve scoring, show me the data that the reduction from 45-35 helped this.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

35 seconds = Minium 69 possessions per game.
30 seconds0 = Miimum 80 possessions per game.
24 seconds = 100 possessions per game.

I'm not sure what the stats are on points per possession in the NCAA but lets for the sake of math say its 1 pt per possession.

In the shift from 35 - 30 secods you would add 11 points per game. Which divided between 2 teams is going to be a couple of hoops each.

24 seconds you would add 21 points. Which is going to be close to a double digit increase in scoring for both teams.

If you want to adjust the shot clock to increase scoring and want a visual the 24 second clock makes more sense. It also means more possessions, more fouls, less time for coaches to run sets and you need coaches grooming more skilled players not controlling the play of a few as often. Better looking game again creating more better players.

Or...the shortened time will lead to many more wild, out of control shots being taken in order to get something off before the shot clock violation.

This is just a bad idea all around.

[JRutledge]

None of this is going to change the skill of the players. You still have to make shots.

Peace

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

None of this is going to change the skill of the players. You still have to make shots.

Peace

Rather than increasing scoring, it will just decrease FG%

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

Rather than increasing scoring, it will just decrease FG%

It could have little or no affect on FG%, I just do not see it increasing scoring by much. Coaches over manage the clock or there teams. All this is going to do is kick the can down the road and then they will find something else IMO that will be the blame for low scores.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

None of this is going to change the skill of the players. You still have to make shots.

Peace

Amen. If you can't shoot, making teams shoot in less time just means more bad shots.

I'm a numbers geek so I looked at a few things:

*3 of the top 6 scoring teams in men's D1 history for a single season played before the shot-clock/3-point line (UNLV in '75-76 and '76-77 and Oral Roberts in '71-72). The other three were the Loyola Marymount teams from '87-90 and they started shooting when they walked into the gym.

*11 of the top 15 single-season FG% teams in men's D1 history played before the shot-clock/3-point line. Of the four that didn't, only one played with both the shot-clock and the 3-point line (Michigan's '89 championship team) and at that time the shot-clock was 45 seconds.

What that says to me is if you have the talent and you can shoot, score and run a decent offense, you'll do it regardless of whether there's a shot-clock. The UNLV teams in the mid-70s averaged just over 100 PPG with no shot-clock and only scoring by 1s and 2s. Walking the ball up the court + allowing players to beat the hell out of each other = less scoring.