Candid Coaches: Should college basketball keep the 30-second shot clock

[Halldan1]

Candid Coaches: Should college basketball keep the 30-second shot clock or change to 24 like the NBA and FIBA?

The votes are in, the quotes are thought-provoking and the question lingers: Is the 30-second clock hurting college hoops?

www.cbssports.com

The votes are in, the quotes are thought-provoking and the question lingers: Is the 30-second clock hurting college hoops?​

By Matt Norlander

Graphic by Keytron Jordan

CBS Sports' Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander surveyed roughly 100 coaches for our annual Candid Coaches series. They polled everyone from head coaches at elite programs to assistants at small Division I schools. In exchange for complete anonymity, these coaches provided unfiltered honesty about a number of topics. Over the course of three weeks we are posting the results of our summer survey on the state of college basketball.

For almost a century, men's D-I basketball didn't have a shot clock. In 1985, after some conferences experimented with one for a few years, the NCAA officially instituted a shot clock for all of its games.
A whopping 45 seconds per possession were allowed.

That first generation of the shot clock era lasted for nearly a decade. In 1993, 10 seconds got lopped and men's college hoops played with a 35-second clock for more than 20 years. Another shave came in 2015 when it was cut to 30. In the past decade, there has remained a push by some to get the clock 24 seconds, which is the length in every other major men's iteration of competitive organized basketball around the globe.

Some argue college basketball has playing and coaching styles that are accentuated by a longer shot clock and that those attributes shouldn't be taken away in the spirit of trying to emulate the NBA or other professional leagues.

With that in mind, we wanted to see where college coaches stood on this topic in 2022.

How long should the shot clock be: 24 or 30 seconds?​ 30 seconds 50% 24 seconds 50%

 

[Halldan1]

Quotes that stood out​

In favor of 30​

• "The less time a team has, the more you simply have to rely on talent and it takes some of the coaching out of the game. In the NBA it is basically a set of quick-hitters. But their players can make those shots. In the college game, our players aren't as skilled, so we need more time for better shot opportunities to come. I have a REAL FEAR that if we lower the shot clock it will increase possessions, but points per possession will actually decrease because we will all be taking harder shots. May score more overall points due to higher volume of possessions, but I think the quality of those shots will be reduced significantly because we don't have players who can produce off of quick-hitter actions at the same proficiency as NBA players."

• "I think the biggest reason is most high schools don't have shot clocks, and for kids to come in as freshmen to learn to play the game the right way, I think you need more time on the clock. They're not adapted to play at a speed that is technically a 16-second shot clock. That's what you're changing the shot clock to at 24."

• "Those that argue for 24 fail to acknowledge that the NBA has five guys on the court that can get their own shot. That's NOT the case in college basketball."

• "I don't want to be like the NBA. I like our game and the rules. When we have gone on oversea trips and played at 24 it limits what I as a coach can do on offense. From a defensive side, you will only have to guard one side change on the floor. The more the ball changes sides the better the chance to score, so you're helping the defense with this rule. I think we see enough pick-and-roll basketball. This will make it more prevalent."

• "I have a strong opinion on this. We're trying to be the NBA and we're not. Our players aren't that talented. I think it still gives some strategy for coaches. The more we look like the NBA the less we're going to be watched because they do it at a higher level than us. I think it's awful. The NBA takes bad shots but they're elite at making bad shots. College would be taking bad shots and we're not elite. It's going to be bad-bad."

• "I don't believe that youth basketball in the United States would prepare prep players well enough to effectively play with a 24-second shot clock early in college. NBA players are the most talented scorers and shooters on the planet. European/international players learn the details of pick-and-roll and spacing -- as well as prioritize skill development -- at a very early age. The undeveloped talent would dumb down and muddy the game from what can be accomplished with a 30-second clock. Unless youth basketball in the states completely changes from a game-heavy, AAU-centric structure, a change from a 30-second will lead to an inferior product of college basketball."

• "I think [30] is best for the game because, to me, the best thing about college basketball is the parity. Thirty seconds creates more parity than 24. If you're a fan that wants to see the best teams always win, the 24 shot clock is going to favor that. But if you want to see upsets and schools that maybe have lesser talent find a way to equalize themselves, to me it's the 30-second shot clock and to me that's what's best for the game. Parity is the greatest part of college basketball. And this is from someone who's been a coach involved with FIBA and Team USA. I love FIBA rules, but not all for college basketball."

• "Watch (Nike) EYBL at 24 seconds. Worst shots ever. Need to teach them the game before they try to play fast. Even Jordan learned to play right before fast."

​

 

[Halldan1]

In favor of 24​

• "Twenty-four seconds. There is no substitute for uniformity across all levels of basketball in my opinion. As you come up in the game in this country, what you learn about the game and how to apply these skills and within the game should have a direct translation to the way the game is played in college and at the professional level. For the same reason that high school basketball should have a shot clock as well. If we can limit the learning curve from one level to the next, the better our game becomes."

• "From coaching some with USA Basketball, the players adapt, the coaches adapt, I think it's a more exciting game. I think there's more coaching, actually. Not in a bad way. You've got to be thoughtful about more things. I like eight seconds in the backcourt as well, and that goes along with the 24 seconds."

• "A lot of teams practice with a 24-second shot clock."

• "I think there should be some uniformity across basketball, from high school, college, international basketball, FIBA. … The other thing it would do is hopefully eliminate these games in the 50s, get teams to play a little bit more up-tempo, faster. It's a more fun style for players, but also the fans."

• "I would love to see a 24-second shot clock, but there would be an ugly adjustment period based on the speed decisions would need to be made. Some states don't even have a shot clock in high school, so 30 seconds is an adjustment, let alone 24. Some young European leagues play with 24 seconds and maybe that is why they move the ball and themselves better."

• "My theory is because of the NBA and how everything is heading in that direction, why not have it all be NBA stuff? Make the 3-point line the same, make all of the rules the same. Why not? If that's a measuring stick, guys trying to get to the league."

• "Fans want the college game to be faster and with higher scores, so let's give them what they want -- the 24-second shot clock."

 

[Halldan1]

My opinion, stay as you are and it's not close.

The game in college is both unique and tailored to that level of player. 24 seconds would result in ugly less efficient basketball. More one on one and less team play.

And most importantly skew the game to the most talented teams, who with all the current rules are going to eventually destroy the competitive balance anyway.

How exciting is college football with the same 3-4 teams dominating every single year? That's where college basketball is heading and if the shot clock changes it will get there faster.

 

[hallgrad80]

The same 3 or 4 teams dominate college football every year because every year they dominate the recruiting wars and wind up with the superior talent . With the advent of NIL the schools that offer the most financial rewards will dominate the recruiting wars and thus dominate college football and basketball.
I favor keeping the 30 second clock as you do.

 

[Section112]

Keep the 30 second clock. It's a ridiculous argument because the talent level is not the same at all. They got what they wanted in instituting a shot clock. Does everything have to be the exact same thing as the NBA?

 

[cernjSHU]

Do not go below the 30 seconds shot clock. Essentially, I agree with the first coach who said that lowering it would be advantageous to the more talented team. The beauty of the NCAA Tournament is watching the underdog work the clock to get a good shot. I think players have more time to institute a coaches play.

Running up and down the Court chucking up shots is not what the college game is. I am sure the 50% that wanted it lowered were all from top tier schools that recruited the best players. Year after year. Sure let’s just skew the game where the most powerful teams can take advantage.

 

[SHUSA]

My opinion, stay as you are and it's not close.

The game in college is both unique and tailored to that level of player. 24 seconds would result in ugly less efficient basketball. More one on one and less team play.

And most importantly skew the game to the most talented teams, who with all the current rules are going to eventually destroy the competitive balance anyway.

How exciting is college football with the same 3-4 teams dominating every single year? That's where college basketball is heading and if the shot clock changes it will get there faster.

couldnt you argue this forces the game to be more efficient? and that it gives the advantage to teams that focus on defense, skewing it away from the most talented teams?

could even out in the wash

 

[BostonBlackie]

Those guys who argued that HS, college, NBA should all have the same clock for compatibility sake never gave a compelling reason why that’s desirable.

 

[SOBO1]

No no no no no no no (breath) no no no no no to the 24 second.

 

[Seton75]

If not 30 then 35

 

[walshtrips]

I'm okay either way. How many times do we watch teams waste 9 seconds to get the ball over the midcourt line, and start playing offense with 21 seconds remaining? Willard did it quite often. I don't think the game will suffer by reducing the clock, it will create more offensive opportunities and won't hurt defense dominant teams. Benches will need to be deeper as players will tire quicker, a plus for players in their freshman season.

 

[SHUSA]

I'm okay either way. How many times do we watch teams waste 9 seconds to get the ball over the midcourt line, and start playing offense with 21 seconds remaining? Willard did it quite often. I don't think the game will suffer by reducing the clock, it will create more offensive opportunities and won't hurt defense dominant teams. Benches will need to be deeper as players will tire quicker, a plus for players in their freshman season.

haha yea it could just save 8 seconds of the weave.

 

[Halldan1]