30 Second Shot Clock

[Goose85]

The NCAA is moving to a 30 second shot clock.

Two questions.

Will this lead to more full court pressure.
Make teams take 8 seconds to get the ball up. Less time to get going offensively, which is needed in college as you don't have the NBA level one on one players.
I would really consider doing this if I were a coach (and of course had a full roster).

Could it lest to more Zone D?
With less time on the clock, and possibly more pressure on teams bringing the ball up court, is it likely to see more zone D?
Do coaches generally think it takes more time to break down a zone for a good shot or break down a man to man D?

[DCwarrior]

Unfortunately I think it will lead to more rushed (and bad) shots to beat the shot clock unless the refs further eliminate some of the physical defense and hand-checking.

[CaribouJim]

For college b-ball in general, I see no negatives in going to 30 - I don't see 5 seconds making a hugely discernible difference and if it makes for even a slightly more fast paced game, I'm in favor of it.

For MU specifically, even with 5 seconds less I can see significantly more MU players involved per possession with the new roster this year. Last year's pace was painful to watch and all too often resulting in getting off a forced or panic shot with the possession clock ticking to 0.

[Phantom Warrior]

It may also eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of meaningless time spent standing and holding the ball or purposeless dribbling in place.

I really hated watching last year how many seconds we spent doing nothing but running the clock down while Derrick stood in place and dribbled. I understand the rationale behind this strategy, but I still disliked watching it.

I am not a fan of that style of basketball regardless of what team is playing it.

[Goose85]

Bob Huggins take on the change to the 30 second shot clock.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...-college-hoops

[The Reptile]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Some coaches will adapt quickly and place multiple PG's on the floor. Then recruiting will favor ball handling and players who can create their own shots above other skills for a while. It was the same way when they added the 3 point line. Coaches like Digger Phelps refused to change while others like a young Rick Pitino fielded teams who lived and died by it. Recruiting changed and player development at the lower levels changed because coaches viewed the value of players differently.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I love the college game, but that's because I have a definite stake in it. If Huggins thinks the college game is more appealing to the eyes than the NBA, I don't know what to say. Yes, I enjoy college basketball more, but to say that it's a more aesthetically pleasing product is just delusional.

[IWB]

I have to agree with Huggins here....

I'm puzzled with the infatuation with the NBA. We keep going in that direction (but) I think we have a game that's a lot more pleasing to the eyes. So I don't understand why we continue to go that direction.

[IWB]

I understand what you are saying Alan, but I agree with Huggy here. NCAA ball is different from NBA and many, like myself, prefer college hoops. Question is, why is the NCAA constantly trying to move closer to the NBA game? Why keep fixing what is not broken?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I agree that it's different, but for me they are two different animals. What I love about college sports in general is the pageantry, the passion, the bands, the local feel, the constantly changing rosters, and the fans with a more invested interest. I love student sections and waiting for seats and the far more close-knit relationships between the players and the fans.

But when it comes to sheer on-the-court eye appeal, it's not even close. The NBA has players that are more talented, more varied in their abilities, and better at their specialties. There is no one at the college level that will drop jaws the way a Lebron, Steph Curry, or the other elite players will.

I'm not sure that shortening the shot clock is the answer. I can see the argument that it will lead to worse offense because the lesser talent level will be all the more evident as teams are rushed into even faster shots. But I don't think it's just about becoming more like the NBA, it's about finding ways to increase scoring. Let's be honest, the American fanbase is all about scoring. That's why baseball has fallen out of favor compared to other sports in recent decades, that's why the NFL and NHL are constantly changing rules to increase scoring, that's why there's a three-point line, and that's why soccer still hasn't caught on with the mainstream.

What would help more than anything is higher shooting percentages, and honestly, worse defenses. It's far easier to to slow down the game and clamp down on defense for wins than it is to play like the old UNLV teams that ran it down your throat. But when ratings aren't where they want them to be, the push will always be for more offense, and the easiest fix seems to be to force teams to play faster and take more shots. Who knows if it will work, but the alternative is to try to complete change the culture and mindset of the average American sports fan. As a huge soccer fan, all I can say is good luck with that.