Phantom Warrior
04-23-2013, 04:03 AM
First of all, I hope the NCAA does not adopt the 24-second clock. If there is going to be a change, I'd prefer trying a 30-second shot clock first and then analyzing the impact of the change. Dropping to 24 seconds is much too drastic.
Either way, especially if it ends up being a 24-second clock, the game could see some major ramifications.
1. It will harm teams like Wisconsin and GTown that play a more deliberate style of offense. It will be interesting to see how coaches like Bo and JT-3 react.
2. Teams will be more inclined to pressure full court, even if it's relatively moderate pressure. If it takes a team eight or nine seconds to get into the front court, rather than four or five, it will be much more difficult to get a decent shot in 15 seconds, then it would in 19 seconds. With a 35-second clock, even if a team pressured full court, there were still 26 or 27 seconds to create a good shot.
3. More coaches will look to score in transition before the defense has a chance to set up. Turnovers will become even more important than they are now. This will lead to more half-court extended pressure, including traps, to try to not only slow offenses down but also force turnovers.
4. Teams will do more switching of defenses as that will often cause an offense to spend at least a few precious seconds determining what defense a team is playing and then react accordingly.
5. Post/interior players will become less important, or at least take on different roles, on offense. Teams will have perhaps up to 33% less time to work the ball down low. Post players will become even more valuable on the defensive end if they can block or alter shots, or intimidate offensive players from even taking shots. The change will make defensive bigs, like CO, more valuable, while back-to-the-basket post players, like DG, will have less of an impact.
6. Coaches will be more inclined to double the low post when the ball does go inside, again forcing offenses to use up precious seconds kicking the ball back out.
7. Players who can create their own shot, particularly in the mid-range, will become more important with a reduced shot clock. Players like Duane Wilson and JaJuan Johnson will become even more valuable, while players who need two or three off-ball screens to get open will lose value.
8. In general, speed, quickness, and overall athleticism will become even more crucial than they are now, which will obviously have a significant impact on what kinds of players coaches recruit.
9. Some offenses, such as the Princeton offense and the Swing and Flex offenses, may go the way of the dinosaur, while the "two-man game" may become more prevalent as there will not be the same kind of time to involve all five players. I think we will see much more one-on-one offense.
10. Depth will become more critical as the pace of the game picks up. Teams that can go 9nine or 10 deep without much drop off will have even more of an advantge than teams that can go only seven deep.
11. The bottom line, I think, is that the change will benefit the "haves" and hurt the "have nots." Teams that already attract and recruit terrific athletes - like Louisville, Kentucky, Syracuse, and North Carolina - will benefit. It gives them even more of an advantage. It works to the detriment of teams that like to slow the pace - the grind-it-out teams - like UW and GTown. These teams also tend to be deeper.
12. The change will not eliminate strategic and tactical planning. If anythng, it will put more of a premium on coaches' ability to game plan and to make adjustments during games.
I think the overall impact on the game will be huge, much greater than most fans might think. It will affect what teams do on both ends of the court, and it will defintely affect recruiting. I'd be very curious to hear what Buzz (and Bo) have to say about this proposed change. Will they be proponents of the change or opponents? Also, I can't help wondering if he/they would agree with my predictions, or if they would say, "This guy has no idea what he's talking about."
I think about a player like Derrick Wilson and wonder what kind of impact it will have on his playing time. On one hand, on the defensive end he could become very valuable. Would that increase his minutes? On the other hand, on offense he plays at a relatively slow pace. He does not seem able to create his own shot, and he seldom is able to create open shots for teammates. Would those issues lead to a decline in his minutes?
Whatever happens, if there is a clock-shot change, it's going to be interesting.
Either way, especially if it ends up being a 24-second clock, the game could see some major ramifications.
1. It will harm teams like Wisconsin and GTown that play a more deliberate style of offense. It will be interesting to see how coaches like Bo and JT-3 react.
2. Teams will be more inclined to pressure full court, even if it's relatively moderate pressure. If it takes a team eight or nine seconds to get into the front court, rather than four or five, it will be much more difficult to get a decent shot in 15 seconds, then it would in 19 seconds. With a 35-second clock, even if a team pressured full court, there were still 26 or 27 seconds to create a good shot.
3. More coaches will look to score in transition before the defense has a chance to set up. Turnovers will become even more important than they are now. This will lead to more half-court extended pressure, including traps, to try to not only slow offenses down but also force turnovers.
4. Teams will do more switching of defenses as that will often cause an offense to spend at least a few precious seconds determining what defense a team is playing and then react accordingly.
5. Post/interior players will become less important, or at least take on different roles, on offense. Teams will have perhaps up to 33% less time to work the ball down low. Post players will become even more valuable on the defensive end if they can block or alter shots, or intimidate offensive players from even taking shots. The change will make defensive bigs, like CO, more valuable, while back-to-the-basket post players, like DG, will have less of an impact.
6. Coaches will be more inclined to double the low post when the ball does go inside, again forcing offenses to use up precious seconds kicking the ball back out.
7. Players who can create their own shot, particularly in the mid-range, will become more important with a reduced shot clock. Players like Duane Wilson and JaJuan Johnson will become even more valuable, while players who need two or three off-ball screens to get open will lose value.
8. In general, speed, quickness, and overall athleticism will become even more crucial than they are now, which will obviously have a significant impact on what kinds of players coaches recruit.
9. Some offenses, such as the Princeton offense and the Swing and Flex offenses, may go the way of the dinosaur, while the "two-man game" may become more prevalent as there will not be the same kind of time to involve all five players. I think we will see much more one-on-one offense.
10. Depth will become more critical as the pace of the game picks up. Teams that can go 9nine or 10 deep without much drop off will have even more of an advantge than teams that can go only seven deep.
11. The bottom line, I think, is that the change will benefit the "haves" and hurt the "have nots." Teams that already attract and recruit terrific athletes - like Louisville, Kentucky, Syracuse, and North Carolina - will benefit. It gives them even more of an advantage. It works to the detriment of teams that like to slow the pace - the grind-it-out teams - like UW and GTown. These teams also tend to be deeper.
12. The change will not eliminate strategic and tactical planning. If anythng, it will put more of a premium on coaches' ability to game plan and to make adjustments during games.
I think the overall impact on the game will be huge, much greater than most fans might think. It will affect what teams do on both ends of the court, and it will defintely affect recruiting. I'd be very curious to hear what Buzz (and Bo) have to say about this proposed change. Will they be proponents of the change or opponents? Also, I can't help wondering if he/they would agree with my predictions, or if they would say, "This guy has no idea what he's talking about."
I think about a player like Derrick Wilson and wonder what kind of impact it will have on his playing time. On one hand, on the defensive end he could become very valuable. Would that increase his minutes? On the other hand, on offense he plays at a relatively slow pace. He does not seem able to create his own shot, and he seldom is able to create open shots for teammates. Would those issues lead to a decline in his minutes?
Whatever happens, if there is a clock-shot change, it's going to be interesting.