Are you in favor of a 30-second shot clock?

[Halldan1]

Looks like it's coming. What your view?



Thirty-second shot clock? BTN analyst Stephen Bardo loves the idea

• By BTN.com staff

Brian Spurlock-USA TODAY Sports

Could a 30-second shot clock be coming to college basketball? It sure looks like it.

The men’s basketball rules committee will meet this week to discuss several topics, including shortening the shot clock from 35 seconds to 30 ahead of the upcoming season.

Committee chairman Rick Byrd, the head coach at Belmont, believes the change will be approved.

Remember, the NIT experimented with a 30-second shot clock this past postseason, perhaps paving the way for this to become reality.

BTN analyst Stephen Bardo is a big proponent of this move, and BTN.com caught up with him to get his thoughts on why a 30-second shot clock makes sense.

BTN.com: Why are you in favor of a 30-second shot clock?
SB: I think the college game needs to be in alignment more with the rest of the basketball world. It doesn’t make sense to me that men’s college basketball has the longest shot clock in the world, men or women. The game suffers from lack of scoring and this is a needed first step in addressing this.

BTN.com: How would this impact the game the most?
SB: It would increase the amount of possessions each team would have each game. It would provide more opportunities to score, increase the tempo due to less time per possession, and hopefully make for a more watchable game.

BTN.com: Which Big Ten teams would benefit the most from such a change?
SB: Iowa, because of its style of pushing the ball on offense and extended pressure on the defensive end. I think Michigan would be able to take advantage with its guard-oriented offense and multiple players being able to shoot with range and space the floor. Indiana wants to push tempo and it could create even more opportunities on the offensive end. They wouldn’t have to guard as long on each possession, too, which was a problem last season. Minnesota’s ability to pressure full court would benefit, as well.

BTN.com: How about ones that would be negatively affected?
SB: Nebraska would be a team that would have to adjust on the offensive end. They run a lot of motion to get to the end of the shot clock and then look to score. They would have to find other ways to get early offense. Rutgers will struggle simply because they don’t have enough playmakers right now to create offense. It will be interesting to see how Purdue adjusts. They have the twin towers but can they effectively get them into position and give them enough time to score consistently?

BTN.com: In an ideal world, what would you like to see the shot clock be in the college game?
SB: I think 30 seconds is a good start right now. To change the clock from 35 to 24 would be too much for the college game right now. The reason scoring is down is because players aren’t as skilled offensively as they need to be. This is a much larger problem that stems from the high school and AAU levels. The NBA and NCAA need to come together and create real, meaningful change to the developmental system in the country. It’s hurting the game on every level. The 30-second shot clock will hopefully force college coaches to work on skill development more and send a message to the lower levels of their need for more skilled players.

BTN.com: Finally, if you could change one other rule, what would it be?
SB: I would limit the amount of times officials can go to instant replay and correct situations. It takes entirely too long for them to make up their minds if they will change a call or not. It takes the excitement away from the fans, it kills momentum of the game, and drags the games on far longer than they need to. I have plenty more, but I would start with this one!

http://btn.com/2015/05/12/thirty-second-shot-clock-btn-analyst-stephen-bardo-loves-idea/

 

[Pirate64]

30 seconds now. Then 24 down the road.
Will force coaches like Willard to advance the ball and stop waiting for the better shot which hasn't come for 5 years.
Also might give the green light to anyone who has an open look at any time.
The women play a 30 second clock and Tony has them running on every possession. Let up- and you are benched.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

hate it. i dont need a sped up college game and i don't need it to mirror the pros.

 

[hallball95]

we woulda been a lot worse off with it last year with all the standing around throwing it around the perimeter we do. but in favor of it.

 

[Bud Boomer]

No. College players are not skilled enough to get efficient shots in such a short period of time. Shorter shot clock = more one-on-one = crappier shots = bad basketball. I'd rather go back to 45 seconds.

 

[knowknow456]

I am in favor of leaving the shot clock at 35 seconds. I like the NBA but I am not looking for CBB to be more like the pros. I would consider widening the lane or extending the three point line before I changed the shot clock. I suspect I am in the minority and that a 30 second shot clock is inevitable.

 

[hallgrad80]

Not in favor at all. What you'll see are more bad shots, more forced shots, more turnovers and less flow to the game.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

Not in favor at all. Just another thing to make sure the big conferences with superior talent advance in March.

The game is not broken. It's not the NBA and it shouldn't be modeled after it.

 

[Seton75]

I am not in favor of it. Time outs and too many game stoppages have a far bigger impact on watchability. Were the KY/Wisc or Wisc/Duke games unwatchable? Games are unwatchable when teams play poorly. So now they will play poorly for more possessions and THAT somehow improves something. This change is kneejerk all the way

 

[shu09]

The responses on this thread are a little surprising to me. I didn't know there was so much opposition to it.

As for me, I see very little risk involved if the shot clock goes to 30. I don't think it will have much of an impact either way. May as well try it, though, and see what happens.

However, I would not be in favor of reducing the clock any lower than 30. Like others on this thread, I don't want to see the college game mirror the pro game. To me, the pro game is unwatchable. Mostly one on one individualized offense, coaches have no real say (it's a players league) and very little defense played by most (not all) of the teams. I prefer the imperfect but more exciting team game that we see in college, along with stronger coaches who make their mark on the game. That's a big reason why I like college basketball.

 

[Seton75]

This idea that no defense is played in the NBA is insane. Hellacious defense is played.

 

[Shuathelete]

honestly, if you dont like this you are a fan of bad basketball. NBA has the BEST defense. Bad offense IS NOT good defense. What is with you guys?? Shorter shot clock is forcing these kids to get better and make a better product. 35 second shot clock is a luxury shitty defenses have to make them look far better than they actually are against shitty offenses. Unreal. Unreallllll.

 

[Hoya1987]

Yeah surprised so many are against it.

This is a plus especially for major conference teams like those in the BE. Shorter clock = more possessions. More possessions means more likely that the more talented team comes out on top. Only reason to be against this is if you think Seton Hall cannot compete with the big boys and thus would rather a system that makes it more likely for an upset.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

uh yeah, that's exactly why I like the current system. Even the playing field. You also have hundreds of low-talent teams that will never sniff an NCAA bid or a major conference that have to play by these same rules in their rinky dink leagues. They matter also.If you're gonna 350-odd teams in DI, then you have have rules that are fair for all, not just the high majors.

 

[Seton75]

The upsets in the tourney are a huge reason for the madness in March, maybe the only reason. Lessening their chances makes March more sane.

 

[its haLL baLL]

All for it. Those additional 5 seconds don't help the teams get better shots, they just help limit the other team's possessions. Should make the games more entertaining, as well.

 

[Bud Boomer]

Yeah surprised so many are against it.

This is a plus especially for major conference teams like those in the BE. Shorter clock = more possessions. More possessions means more likely that the more talented team comes out on top. Only reason to be against this is if you think Seton Hall cannot compete with the big boys and thus would rather a system that makes it more likely for an upset.

Some of us watch more than just one team. Increasing the number of possessions, while worsening the quality of those possessions, will make college basketball less watchable IMO. More plays will devolve into one-on-one situations because there is not enough time for the offense to develop. To be fair, the shorter shot clock did result in increased offensive efficiency in the NIT this year. I don't think that would be the case across a wider sample though.

 

[Hoya1987]

The upsets in the tourney are a huge reason for the madness in March, maybe the only reason. Lessening their chances makes March more sane.

1 as a high major team you should want march to be more sane. This is spoken as someone who is used to just watching from the side line during the NCAAs. If you expect Seton Hall to be making the NCAA in the future you should want any advantage you can take to advance in the NCAA tournament.

uh yeah, that's exactly why I like the current system. Even the playing field. You also have hundreds of low-talent teams that will never sniff an NCAA bid or a major conference that have to play by these same rules in their rinky dink leagues. They matter also.If you're gonna 350-odd teams in DI, then you have have rules that are fair for all, not just the high majors.

1) I absolutely think they need to cut off the bottom 100 or so teams from D1. Far too many programs in D1 and the bottom one's cannot compete as is. Life isn't fair why should there be a level playing field.

2) This helps the best teams in the smaller leagues reach the NCAA tournament. One could argue it makes it more likely that the regular season champion will win their conference tournament and make the NCAAs and therefore a better team will be making the tournament than might under the current system. So it could be argued this will actually improve the NCAA tournament because teams like Murray St, Louisiana Tech, NC Central last year will be in the tournament.

 

[Hoya1987]

Some of us watch more than just one team. Increasing the number of possessions, while worsening the quality of those possessions, will make college basketball less watchable IMO. More plays will devolve into one-on-one situations because there is not enough time for the offense to develop. To be fair, the shorter shot clock did result in increased offensive efficiency in the NIT this year. I don't think that would be the case across a wider sample though.

Not sure why the assumption is that shorter possessions = worse quality possessions. As it is now many offenses pass up good shots in attempt to find a great shot that never comes. I think what we saw in the NIT will hold true that it will improve offensive efficiency rather than decrease it. Teams will be more likely to take advantage of fast break and second break opportunities that are usually more efficient than working against a set defense.

 

[its haLL baLL]

Not sure why the assumption is that shorter possessions = worse quality possessions. As it is now many offenses pass up good shots in attempt to find a great shot that never comes. I think what we saw in the NIT will hold true that it will improve offensive efficiency rather than decrease it. Teams will be more likely to take advantage of fast break and second break opportunities that are usually more efficient than working against a set defense.

The first 5 seconds of most possessions are spent doing absolutely nothing. The offense doesn't start to develop until later into the shot clock and those 5 seconds should have no impact on the quality of shots the teams get.

 

[Halldan1]

We all have our reasons for liking or disliking the 35 second clock. Personally I think it's too long and like the decrease to 30 seconds.

But no one has answered this fact. The only shot clock in the world over 30 seconds is in men's college BB. Even their women counterparts don't need that bloated time to run their offense.

Why should men's BB be the exception to a worldwide rule?

 

[SHUSource]

I don't see Seton Hall as being the type of program that will consistently show up in the NCAAs as a 1 to 6 seed (sorry, but there is no historical precedent for it), so to me, we are the team that needs to reduce the number of possessions in order to increase our chances at pulling the upset.

I could not be more against the 30-second shot clock. It works against us, plain and simple.

 

[Bud Boomer]

Not sure why the assumption is that shorter possessions = worse quality possessions. As it is now many offenses pass up good shots in attempt to find a great shot that never comes. I think what we saw in the NIT will hold true that it will improve offensive efficiency rather than decrease it. Teams will be more likely to take advantage of fast break and second break opportunities that are usually more efficient than working against a set defense.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely, there will be an increase in teams that hunker down on defense (token press to clip the first 10 seconds, and then dig in for a stop), and then run isolation sets on offense (which lead to fewer of the open shots you claim are getting passed up). Watching the best college kids try to adjust to a shorter shot clock in the NBA summer league is like pulling teeth. Watching Jimmy Jones from Rider try to adjust is going to be much worse.

Coaches will eventually figure out that a BYU-style offense leads to more efficient points. We don't need to artificially force that change by reducing the shot clock.

 

[Section112]

No because it will lead to a 24 second shot clock eventually. I like the college game. I like defense. I don't need games to be played in the 90's to be happy.

Two things are happening - the bigger schools are trying to take control every chance they can. I like the fact that this gives the little guys a chance and big guys have to play smarter. And folks are trying to make the college ranks look like the NBA which it never will. Collegiate sports are supposed to be just that - sports for college kids to play. Why does the college game have to be compared to the NBA constantly. If the decision makers don't pay attention they will lose the college fans that do not like the NBA. But whatever. In the end the move to 30 won't be a big deal but it is a prelude to getting to the 24-sec clock.

 

[Shuathelete]

35 is too long and thats just the facts. If you dont think that you are delusional. Like dan said, only league in the world above 30 seconds.... GET A GRIP PEOPLE. I dont even think its a matter of opinion. Pro 30 are right, Pro 35 are wrong.

Put it this way, would you rather sit through 30 seconds of misery watching our offense or 35 seconds of misery watching our offense?

 

[Bud Boomer]

35 is too long and thats just the facts. If you dont think that you are delusional. Like dan said, only league in the world above 30 seconds.... GET A GRIP PEOPLE. I dont even think its a matter of opinion. Pro 30 are right, Pro 35 are wrong.

Put it this way, would you rather sit through 30 seconds of misery watching our offense or 35 seconds of misery watching our offense?

Hmmmm. Where else have I seen a poster who aggressively asserts his opinions as unassailable fact, and then calls anyone who disagrees with him delusional?

 

[knowknow456]

35 is too long and thats just the facts. If you dont think that you are delusional. Like dan said, only league in the world above 30 seconds.... GET A GRIP PEOPLE. I dont even think its a matter of opinion. Pro 30 are right, Pro 35 are wrong.

Put it this way, would you rather sit through 30 seconds of misery watching our offense or 35 seconds of misery watching our offense?

The fact you can't distinguish between a fact and an opinion is amusing. But don't listen to me. Listen to Bud. You are on a bad road young man. I'm hoping you can turn it around before it's too late.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

You are on a bad road young man. I'm hoping you can turn it around before it's too late.

OMG STOP

 

[Shuathelete]

OMG STOP

haha some people just dont know how to internet

 

[Seton75]

The first 5 seconds of most possessions are spent doing absolutely nothing. The offense doesn't start to develop until later into the shot clock and those 5 seconds should have no impact on the quality of shots the teams get.

Or in our case "The first 25 seconds of most possessions are spent doing absolutely nothing."

 

[HALL85]

I can just see it....KW excuse #457: "Our guys are having a hard time adjusting to the 30 second shot clock"

 

[Seton75]

Is the college game unwatchable? Not to me. How does more shots in a game make it more watchable? (Again Wooden speaks - don't confuse activity with achievement.) People seem to acknowledge that more possessions helps the better team. How is that helpful to the college game?

The only argument that is absolutely true is that it is the only league with a clock that long (...that's what she said...). But so what? The shot clock is longer. The National League is the only league with no DH. And it is the best league in the sport.

 

[sportsfantatic44]

I can just see it....KW excuse #457: "Our guys are having a hard time adjusting to the 30 second shot clock"

You are so right about this. I can guarantee there will be a game early on where we have multiple shot clock violations and he'll use this excuse for sure.