|
|
Post by sdcoug on Apr 27, 2015 15:54:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 27, 2015 16:00:05 GMT -8
it's only a difference of 5 seconds -- I don't think it will have that big of an impact on overall efficiency or shot selection ... but should lead to more possessions
|
|
|
|
Post by TruAztec on Apr 27, 2015 16:23:47 GMT -8
I love when rules get changed when there is no real need or issue. Probably will not matter but I don't see the issue that is prompting the change. Just please do not go to the NBA model with 24 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 27, 2015 17:31:39 GMT -8
I love when rules get changed when there is no real need or issue. Probably will not matter but I don't see the issue that is prompting the change. Just please do not go to the NBA model with 24 seconds. Just what makes you think that calls for a 24 seconds will not be heard if those who want a shorter clock are not pleased with the results of the change being considered. Personally, I agree with those who think the whole idea is misguided. The current shot clock is fine. And I also agree that a shorter clock will just cause players to run and gun thoughtlessly. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 27, 2015 17:49:30 GMT -8
they used a 30 second clock in NIT and others tournaments , plus thought the ACC did it in some OOC games . Coaches did not complain . Why not try it and see how it works , if not they can always switch it back . Believe Coach Fisher has said it is fine with him . Many teams take about 6 to 8 seconds to get the ball into the front court against the Aztecs , so that limits them to maybe 23 to get off a shot . Also how many times do teams just spend at least 5 seconds or more , just wasting times . Article also says they may also increase that half circle in the lane , also look at time outs by coaches and what can be reviewed .
In another article there are comments to take a look at all the transfers , as it keeps growing , maybe see what they can do to limit some .
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuballer on Apr 27, 2015 18:32:56 GMT -8
I love the rule change. Realistically, teams like Air Force and Wyoming attempt to shorten the game by running a “dummy offense.” The dummy offense is executed for about ten to fifteen seconds before using their actual offense. Last year, I witness a team almost use 3 minutes of game clock in one possession. During the possession they had a foul, two kick balls (one which was a awful call by official), and a lucky offensive rebound. After 3 minutes of stalling, the team failed to score and then the ball went out of bounce causing an extended media time out. In another game: Fresno vs Wyoming, Larry Shyatt took out one of his players for scoring “too soon” on the shoot clock. You would think he would reward his player for actually making a shoot.
Things I would also like to change is:
Kick balls and fouls. If another team has less than 14 second in shoot clock they should not get their full 30 seconds. They should only received a shoot clock reset to 14 seconds.
Media Timeouts: If a full time out is called within 45 seconds of a media time out, then it automatically becomes a TV time out.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Apr 27, 2015 19:10:43 GMT -8
I'm all for it.
Promotes faster ball movement and possessions which will ultimately increase points
Look we all no that this is a bad aide type cure.
The issues is lack of shooting ability across the country.
No easy fixes
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Apr 27, 2015 20:35:49 GMT -8
The 30 second clock was used in the NIT, CBI, and CIT this year and it resulted in an additional 4 points total per game. I highly doubt that minimal increase will be enough to satisfy those who think scoring is too low. So instead of seeing 64-62 games we'll see 66-64 games, is it even worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Apr 27, 2015 20:51:38 GMT -8
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'd rather they make rules that encourage ball movement and actual offensive sets (as opposed to isolation); than just quickening the tempo of what seems to be inefficient offenses as a whole.
The smart fix seems to be quit bailing out offensive players so much. A lot of times, all an offensive player has to do is jump into a defender and get bailed out; temas know this so they dont risk running an offense with ball movement, rather isolate your best player and hope for the best (foul, or the defenders move out of the way and the help defender misses on the block).
If they stopped bailing offenses out, then players would have to further develop mid range shooting skills, and teams would be encouraged to pass the ball and maybe play up tempo to beat the defense down to get a higher % shot. The most beautiful offense I've seen in 20 years was the '05 Illinois team, and they did it with motion, screens, movement away from the ball, and passing.
I know its a pipe dream, but I feel as if the NCAA made a concerted effort we could get a lot more offenses like that. Unfortunately I realize good offensive sets doenst sell on ESPn like highlight dunks with the dunker charging over a defender
|
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Apr 27, 2015 21:45:34 GMT -8
It seems strange, but scoring was higher back when we had no shot clock, no 3 point line, a narrower lane, jump balls and only 2 refs.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 27, 2015 22:36:56 GMT -8
It seems strange, but scoring was higher back when we had no shot clock, no 3 point line, a narrower lane, jump balls and only 2 refs. Wasn't the shot clock 45 seconds when Loyola Marymount played USIU and USIU LOST while scoring 144 points? They could have used a 4.5 second shot clock for that game and not had any shot clock violation. My dad and I went to that game in Golden Hall--it was like watching a tennis match. Or a track meet. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Apr 28, 2015 0:41:19 GMT -8
This really only affects Wyo and Larry Shyatts offense in the MWC. Btw, the NCAA needs to speed up the game and let the kids play a little.
Also, lets commit to the jump ball again.
|
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Apr 28, 2015 0:57:38 GMT -8
Personally, I think changes like these are kinda ridiculous. We're seeing the whole "speed the game up" type of mentality in virtually every sport now. Why? If you're complaining that a game is too long or a style of play is "boring," then you simply don't enjoy the game, period. "Let the kids play?" What does speeding up the game do for them? Nothing. But, it makes it more entertaining for us, and that's what's most important, right?
I get tired of people complaining that they spent 3 hours of their day watching a game. Guess what? No one forced you to go to or watch the game. No one made you make 50 different plans that same day. If your life is too busy and you have too much to do, then don't watch games, it's that simple. With society's millisecond attention span these days, we're bound to see more pointless changes like this, unfortunately.
For everyone claiming (under the false pretense) that this will make teams like Wyoming or Air Force more enjoyable to watch, I say you simply don't get it. To me, it's like someone saying a 1-1 game going into the 9th is boring. It's plenty exciting if you know and appreciate the game and strategy of baseball (and baseball has done plenty to try to speed up the pace of games so our ADD-riddled pea brains can stomach them).
|
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Apr 28, 2015 3:28:31 GMT -8
I saw a tweet come March that said the efficiency was actually slightly up with 30 second shot clock. I guess I'm in minority on here but I really like it. And yes the 4 PPG difference isn't too significant but it is a start. NCAA should not stop here, they also should have a 3 or 5 second defensive player in lane violation, and try to do other things to open the game up. I like idea of giving 8 seconds to get it across, and late game timeouts being able to advance the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by junior on Apr 28, 2015 4:47:12 GMT -8
What difference will 5 seconds make either way? I sure hope they play a better offense next season. Watching them pass around and then not finish - time after time - was just plain brutal…
|
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Apr 28, 2015 6:05:02 GMT -8
I love college basketball, and I love this change. The games are too slow in college right now IMO. I wish the NBA would change to 30 seconds as well, I think 24 is too short. The shot clock is basically at ~15 already by the time they bring the ball across half court
|
|
|
|
Post by xohsxc on Apr 28, 2015 7:11:37 GMT -8
I love college basketball, and I love this change. The games are too slow in college right now IMO. I wish the NBA would change to 30 seconds as well, I think 24 is too short. The shot clock is basically at ~15 already by the time they bring the ball across half court +1 |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Apr 28, 2015 8:08:50 GMT -8
Try the 30 second shot clock . If it does not hurt the game then keep it . Will help teams that play D . Push all teams that waste time on offense to move it a little quicker ,
Also looks as though they will also change the time out rules .
Would like to see if you cause a team to call a time out because they can not get it across the time line . they should not get another 10 seconds to do it.
actually make the coaches stay in coach's box on the sideline , either becomes a time out or a T
|
|
|
|
Post by therealoracle on Apr 28, 2015 8:21:45 GMT -8
They should change the shot clock to 24 seconds, and have four 12 minute quarters.
The Real Oracle Out
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 28, 2015 12:53:45 GMT -8
It is good for teams like the Aztecs who play great defense.
It is good for teams like BYU who play at a crazy speed anyway.
A lot of late clock situations end up as an isolation play for the lead guard. With a 30 second clock: If you take 8 seconds to get the ball over the half court line and another couple to get into your offense. You have about 12 seconds to avoid a late clock situation. This will increase iso plays late in the clock.
If we were at 30 seconds now and they were planning on going to 35, I am sure a lot of folks who are sure this is a bad idea would likewise think that change would be a bad idea too.
|
|
