The 30-second shot clock primer
Fran Fraschilla looks ahead to next week’s vote on decreasing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30 seconds in college basketball, and the implications of the move.
How do you think reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds will improve the game, if at all?
If coached correctly, the rule change will improve the game.
First of all, the rule will promote ball movement and faster play. With less time to shoot, coaches will need to flow into an offense on the run and be in attack mode against any defense. Every cut, pass and screen would put a premium on precision and execution of proper offensive fundamentals.
Good coaches will promote crisp ball movement so that the ball does not stick in one player’s hands, knowing that little time can be wasted on each possession. One only needs to think back to the San Antonio Spurs’ championship season a year ago to understand what great ball movement looks like.
Second, the 30-second clock will enhance coaching creativity. Right now, the coaching of offense at the college level is stagnant, with the majority of offenses looking fairly similar. Smart coaches will have to think about how to create good flow, spacing and ball movement in a shorter period of time. And they will teach their players not to pass up great shot opportunities early in a possession.
Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan told me recently that he adjusted his offense to play a little quicker when playing with the FIBA 24-second clock on a summer trip the Badgers took to Canada two years ago -- and his players loved the shorter clock. Even so, his ruthlessly efficient offense played at a snail’s pace this season. He’ll adjust easily.
Iowa State’s Fred Hoiberg, because of his NBA background, understands the “shorter clock” philosophy, and he changes his offense -- sometimes from possession to possession -- based on his personnel. Few are better at creating quick-hitting mismatches. This is an offensive concept that's conducive to playing with the shorter clock.
My sense is that if you gave Ryan, Hoiberg, John Beilein, Bob McKillop, Randy Bennett or the many others thought of as “offensive coaches,” even a 10-second shot clock, they would get good shots for their teams.
Next, the 30-second clock would enhance the development of multiskilled players.
In recent years, the lack of ball movement in college basketball has invited teams to become more point guard-dominant than ever. So many offensive possessions begin and end with the ball in the point guard's hands. Defenses that can keep the point guard from getting the ball back at the end of a possession often cut off the head of the snake.
But because the shot clock is shorter in FIBA basketball, international basketball tends to develop more complete players. This is why many international big men can handle, pass and shoot the ball and play comfortably on the perimeter. They are accustomed to having the ball in their hands, both inside and out.
I believe the 30-second clock would help develop all-around offensive players at all five positions. There would be more possessions in a game and more decision-making opportunities all around. Eventually, with proper skill development, I believe play would improve.
The 30-second clock also will bring the NCAA, FIBA and the NBA closer to playing with the same rules. While some would disagree, I think it would be healthy for the sport. It will ultimately force high school federations around the country to consolidate and add the shot clock to their game. Ultimately, it would make for a more cohesive global game.
The shorter shot clock will be conducive to more possessions late in a game, enhancing the opportunity for teams to come back from larger deficits. It should create more excitement for fans.
There is one major caveat to advocating for the lower shot clock. None of the reasons I have cited will have the positive impact on college basketball until the physicality is removed from the game -- again. We made so much progress, in my opinion, at the start of the 2013-14 season to this end but backslid when a plurality of coaches vocally complained about the officiating.
If the college game is to improve for the players, the coaches and the fans, in my opinion, it has to become a free-flowing game again.
If I were coaching my team to adapt to the 30-second clock, there are a number of things that I would focus on immediately.
Working backward first, we would work on our “under seven seconds” offense from the first practice of the season and do it every day. With a shorter shot clock, teams will have to have great organization with the clock running down. FIBA teams do this very well and a “seven second offense” teaches players to play with an internal clock in their heads.
The first key to “seven second offense” is creating great spacing. This opens the court late to dribble-penetration offense, and screen-and-rolls, dribble handoffs and post-up plays become important as well. These are teachable offensive concepts as opposed to running by rote, set plays.
The second thing I would do is to put our zone offense in immediately. Most teams wait a week or two in preseason practice to do that, but with the shorter clock, many teams, defensively, will likely press full court more and fall back to a zone defense next season in order to “shrink the clock” for the offense. Good coaches will anticipate that strategy by practicing zone offense.
And I would teach “flowing” from the fast break into a half-court offense immediately, without wasting time. In order to accomplish this, players have to be coached to run the court hard. That takes a heavy commitment.
In addition, I would spend an inordinate amount of time on individual skill development. The shorter clock means that you must develop more than one quality ball handler in your offense. As I pointed out already, good international teams make sure that even their big men can handle and pass the ball to make plays.
Defensively, although I have always been a man-to-man defense coach, I would sprinkle in some low-risk full-court pressure and a zone defense so that we could give opponents that “change of pace” look to slow them down. The goal would be to milk about 10 to 12 seconds on the clock before they could run their half-court offense.
When I hear that the lower shot clock will promote bad shots, poor play and more inefficiency, it sounds to me like an excuse. I have pointed out what the challenges are. The key to being successful is what you teach and demand every day in practice.
Super Bowl-winning coach Dick Vermeil once said, “Players respect organization, regimentation and attention to detail.” Those coaches who have a plan for the lower shot clock will be successful.
Coaches who already have a good understanding of offensive basketball are going to have no problem adjusting to the new rules, whether they play fast or slow.
It’s been my observation through the years that coaching defensive basketball is much easier than coaching offensive basketball. If you can get a team to play hard and be in the right position in a man-to-man defense or in a zone, you can have success. So, by default, young coaches spend more time learning defensive basketball.
On the other hand, many of the best offensive coaches in the country are guys who have tinkered in obscurity with their offensive philosophies for a long time before arriving on the national stage. Some really outstanding offensive coaches like Ryan, Beilein, McKillop, Iona’s Tim Cluess, Auburn’s Bruce Pearl and La Salle’s John Giannini all started at the high school or small-college level.
A coach like Belmont’s Rick Byrd, ironically the chairman of the NCAA basketball rules committee, is not in favor of the change. But his program has an “offensive execution” culture that he cultivated as an NAIA coach, and he is such a creative offensive mind, he’ll figure out a way to continue to get great shots.
There are a number of coaches who have strong NBA backgrounds as players or coaches who understand the rhythm and the flow of the shorter clock.
Larry Brown, John Calipari, Lon Kruger, Bobby Hurley, Fred Hoiberg, Steve Alford, Tony Bennett, Rick Pitino and Larry Krystkowiak all coached their teams to the NCAA tournament this year. And Kevin Ollie, a 13-year NBA veteran, led his UConn team to the NCAA title a year ago. Their teams should react positively to the change.
Fran Fraschilla, ESPN Insider
Fran Fraschilla looks ahead to next week’s vote on decreasing the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30 seconds in college basketball, and the implications of the move.
How do you think reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds will improve the game, if at all?
If coached correctly, the rule change will improve the game.
First of all, the rule will promote ball movement and faster play. With less time to shoot, coaches will need to flow into an offense on the run and be in attack mode against any defense. Every cut, pass and screen would put a premium on precision and execution of proper offensive fundamentals.
Good coaches will promote crisp ball movement so that the ball does not stick in one player’s hands, knowing that little time can be wasted on each possession. One only needs to think back to the San Antonio Spurs’ championship season a year ago to understand what great ball movement looks like.
Second, the 30-second clock will enhance coaching creativity. Right now, the coaching of offense at the college level is stagnant, with the majority of offenses looking fairly similar. Smart coaches will have to think about how to create good flow, spacing and ball movement in a shorter period of time. And they will teach their players not to pass up great shot opportunities early in a possession.
Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan told me recently that he adjusted his offense to play a little quicker when playing with the FIBA 24-second clock on a summer trip the Badgers took to Canada two years ago -- and his players loved the shorter clock. Even so, his ruthlessly efficient offense played at a snail’s pace this season. He’ll adjust easily.
Iowa State’s Fred Hoiberg, because of his NBA background, understands the “shorter clock” philosophy, and he changes his offense -- sometimes from possession to possession -- based on his personnel. Few are better at creating quick-hitting mismatches. This is an offensive concept that's conducive to playing with the shorter clock.
My sense is that if you gave Ryan, Hoiberg, John Beilein, Bob McKillop, Randy Bennett or the many others thought of as “offensive coaches,” even a 10-second shot clock, they would get good shots for their teams.
Next, the 30-second clock would enhance the development of multiskilled players.
In recent years, the lack of ball movement in college basketball has invited teams to become more point guard-dominant than ever. So many offensive possessions begin and end with the ball in the point guard's hands. Defenses that can keep the point guard from getting the ball back at the end of a possession often cut off the head of the snake.
But because the shot clock is shorter in FIBA basketball, international basketball tends to develop more complete players. This is why many international big men can handle, pass and shoot the ball and play comfortably on the perimeter. They are accustomed to having the ball in their hands, both inside and out.
I believe the 30-second clock would help develop all-around offensive players at all five positions. There would be more possessions in a game and more decision-making opportunities all around. Eventually, with proper skill development, I believe play would improve.
The 30-second clock also will bring the NCAA, FIBA and the NBA closer to playing with the same rules. While some would disagree, I think it would be healthy for the sport. It will ultimately force high school federations around the country to consolidate and add the shot clock to their game. Ultimately, it would make for a more cohesive global game.
The shorter shot clock will be conducive to more possessions late in a game, enhancing the opportunity for teams to come back from larger deficits. It should create more excitement for fans.
There is one major caveat to advocating for the lower shot clock. None of the reasons I have cited will have the positive impact on college basketball until the physicality is removed from the game -- again. We made so much progress, in my opinion, at the start of the 2013-14 season to this end but backslid when a plurality of coaches vocally complained about the officiating.
If the college game is to improve for the players, the coaches and the fans, in my opinion, it has to become a free-flowing game again.
If I were coaching my team to adapt to the 30-second clock, there are a number of things that I would focus on immediately.
Working backward first, we would work on our “under seven seconds” offense from the first practice of the season and do it every day. With a shorter shot clock, teams will have to have great organization with the clock running down. FIBA teams do this very well and a “seven second offense” teaches players to play with an internal clock in their heads.
The first key to “seven second offense” is creating great spacing. This opens the court late to dribble-penetration offense, and screen-and-rolls, dribble handoffs and post-up plays become important as well. These are teachable offensive concepts as opposed to running by rote, set plays.
The second thing I would do is to put our zone offense in immediately. Most teams wait a week or two in preseason practice to do that, but with the shorter clock, many teams, defensively, will likely press full court more and fall back to a zone defense next season in order to “shrink the clock” for the offense. Good coaches will anticipate that strategy by practicing zone offense.
And I would teach “flowing” from the fast break into a half-court offense immediately, without wasting time. In order to accomplish this, players have to be coached to run the court hard. That takes a heavy commitment.
In addition, I would spend an inordinate amount of time on individual skill development. The shorter clock means that you must develop more than one quality ball handler in your offense. As I pointed out already, good international teams make sure that even their big men can handle and pass the ball to make plays.
Defensively, although I have always been a man-to-man defense coach, I would sprinkle in some low-risk full-court pressure and a zone defense so that we could give opponents that “change of pace” look to slow them down. The goal would be to milk about 10 to 12 seconds on the clock before they could run their half-court offense.
When I hear that the lower shot clock will promote bad shots, poor play and more inefficiency, it sounds to me like an excuse. I have pointed out what the challenges are. The key to being successful is what you teach and demand every day in practice.
Super Bowl-winning coach Dick Vermeil once said, “Players respect organization, regimentation and attention to detail.” Those coaches who have a plan for the lower shot clock will be successful.
Coaches who already have a good understanding of offensive basketball are going to have no problem adjusting to the new rules, whether they play fast or slow.
It’s been my observation through the years that coaching defensive basketball is much easier than coaching offensive basketball. If you can get a team to play hard and be in the right position in a man-to-man defense or in a zone, you can have success. So, by default, young coaches spend more time learning defensive basketball.
On the other hand, many of the best offensive coaches in the country are guys who have tinkered in obscurity with their offensive philosophies for a long time before arriving on the national stage. Some really outstanding offensive coaches like Ryan, Beilein, McKillop, Iona’s Tim Cluess, Auburn’s Bruce Pearl and La Salle’s John Giannini all started at the high school or small-college level.
A coach like Belmont’s Rick Byrd, ironically the chairman of the NCAA basketball rules committee, is not in favor of the change. But his program has an “offensive execution” culture that he cultivated as an NAIA coach, and he is such a creative offensive mind, he’ll figure out a way to continue to get great shots.
There are a number of coaches who have strong NBA backgrounds as players or coaches who understand the rhythm and the flow of the shorter clock.
Larry Brown, John Calipari, Lon Kruger, Bobby Hurley, Fred Hoiberg, Steve Alford, Tony Bennett, Rick Pitino and Larry Krystkowiak all coached their teams to the NCAA tournament this year. And Kevin Ollie, a 13-year NBA veteran, led his UConn team to the NCAA title a year ago. Their teams should react positively to the change.
