I really only like college basketball around tournament time. The quality of play is very mediocre compared to the NBA, and unlike college football the lower talent levels don’t result in more scoring, they result in more missed shots. The ends of games are interminable with all the fouls and timeouts.
In my opinion, bringing the shot clock down to the NBA level would be the single change that would do the most to improve the quality of play. Aside from reducing the ridiculousness at the end of games, it would target what I think is the biggest problem in the college game: the coaches. There are so many college basketball coaches that it’s hard to tell which ones are actually more than good recruiters. A lot of these coaches have their systems that they demand strict compliance with from their players. Offensively, this leads to teams making a bunch of passes around the perimeter because no one is allowed to just hoist up an open shot without passing the ball around first. Open shots get passed up in favor of passing the ball around and setting up the play because the coach demands that only the highest percentage shots be taken. More often than not, the shot clock dwindles down and they end up being forced to take a tough shot anyway. There is, of course, nothing preventing a coach from running an uptempo offense, aside from his opponent slowing down the pace when he has the ball, but the shot clock is so long that it makes sense to patiently wait for the best shot.
If the shot clock was 24 seconds then college teams wouldn’t have time to second guess themselves on taking particular shots. If you’re open for a half second, you take the shot. If nobody can get open, you better start driving it inside and drawing fouls rather than hang out around the perimeter.
While I don’t really want to get into a debate about the rest of the points being made at this time, how would a 24 second clock “fix the problems” with the end of the game? If a team is waiting for more than 24 seconds to foul the other team, then they’re not trying to lengthen the game. Hell, in those “must foul” situations, a 10 second shot clock wouldn’t speed the game up. The team being fouled is the one who wants to milk the clock, but can’t as they get fouled right away, while the team doing the fouling is perfectly happy shooting the ball as quickly as possible when they have possession.
Ugh, just what we need, a rule that helps turn the strategy of college basketball into the shoot as soon as possible, preferably with a thundering slam dunk approach of the NBA. :rolleyes:
And I’m with DMC, asking how the rule change proposed would work to “solve” the issues that are perceived by the OP to exist?
Checking the stats, it doesn’t seem that there are more missed shots in college, team field goal % in both the nba and the top 100 college teams ranges from 44%-50%. As for fouling at the end of a game, if you’re down 6 points with a minute to go, you gotta foul whether the shot clock is 35 or 24 seconds
I think these points you make here are actually reasons why a lot of people prefer college basketball to the NBA. I think it’s cool to see such a huge variety of playing styles match against each other. I prefer systemic offenses that require compliance from the players, but I understand the appeal the NBA has to fans of that style too. Thats why I think its best how it is, there’s a choice of which kind of basketball to be a fan of.
Even in the NCAA Tournament, you can see a fair share of aimless perimeter passing before an offense gets moving. That would be reduced a bit with a shorter shot clock and would not impair the game. And there isn’t much “shoot as soon as possible” in the NBA.
As someone who has live in rural areas in the south and midwest for the last 25 years, I know no one who watches the NBA. It is a team sport that barely pings the radar screen, just above soccer. Hockey is more closely followed than the NBA.
Most of my buddies, most of them sports fans, couldn’t tell you which team has the best reocrd and are serious contenders. FTR, I think it is either the Lakers or the Cavaliers have the best record, but that is strickly a guess.
IMO, College baketball is much more riveting. College basketball doesn’t need to be changed.
I know my sample size isn’t large, but i have lived in rural GA, TN, MS and MO for the last 25 yrs.
I didn’t say it would fix the problem, I said it would reduce it. If it’s a one possession game and there’s under 35 seconds left, you have to foul. With a 24 second clock you can afford to just play defense. If a team is down by 8, then yeah, nothing will change.
Every time I watch a college game I see multiple good shots passed up that would get taken in the NBA because they’re better shooters in the NBA and because their coach isn’t making them pass the ball around the perimeter as a matter of routine.
One virtue of college ball is that everyone absolutely has to work their butts off on defense or they’re going to sit the bench. But sometimes it’s less about energetic defense and more about the opposing team just passing around the perimeter because they don’t have anyone capable of beating their man off the dribble, so let’s pass around for 30 seconds and hope one of the defenders misses a rotation. BORING
So far in this thread, I’ve learned that there’s no strategy or defense in the NBA, that everyone in the NBA is a thug gymnast, and that all they know how to do in the NBA is dunk and walk.
I’m not sure if it’s more interesting how objectively wrong those statements are, or how incredibly bigoted the delivery was.
I think the college game is fine as it is, however.
That has much more to do with the quality of talent across the team in college ball than it does the existence of a 35 second shot clock. All you would see if you shortened the shot clock is more missed shots, hardly a solution to anything.
The NBA is boring. It’s useless to watch anything but the last five minutes of the game; everything up to that point has no suspense at all. And watching dunkfests does me nothing, because that’s a type of game I can’t play, and can’t even relate to. I gave up on the NBA years ago, and I’ve never been able to reacquire the taste, no matter how often I try. Personally, I say run the shot clock back to 45 seconds, like college originally had it, and let the NBA have unlimited zone defense. Then, a basket would have meaning again.
Cite for the bolded? You might be on the pipe with the athletic doggerel that is the NBA, but others aren’t. I do manage to watch some hoops action at least a couple of times a week, because the great players and teams make up for the thugs and crybabies. I’ve seen better action in recent years because there’s been an infusion of players from other parts of the world that haven’t relied on walking to make their highlight reels all their career. Maybe this “issue” will take care of itself.
Right. Watching a team take over 100 shots per game is the definition of boring. If a team takes fewer shots, then the shots themselves, along with the defenses implemented, become more interesting.
You’ll notice that the most popular sport in the US is football, which involves far less scoring than basketball.
I’m not sure who came up with the idea that more repetition = more excitement, but I’d like to have a word with him.
The only thing wrong with college ball is that the last 2 minutes of the game seem to take 30 minutes of real time, what with all the deliberate fouling and excessive time outs. The only rule change I’d make would be to limit the number of T.O.s in the last 2 minutes to 1 per team. Let the players play.
I’m sure it’s more popular because there’s less scoring, not because it’s a completely different sport or anything. But if you want to talk football, imagine how boring it would be if the play clock was 60 seconds long. Would the extra time improve the quality of each play attempted? I don’t think the extra time in college basketball improves the shot selection to a meaningful degree, just as I don’t believe that the 24 second clock in the NBA forces the players to routinely hurry bad shot attempts.
And why would more scoring attempts be boring? The whole point of basketball is to put the ball into the basket. It’s far more boring to watch a team pass up an open shot in favor of rotating the ball around another 15 seconds.
I just can’t get into college ball, and i don’t think the shot clock has anything to do with it. Most players are just not very good, its barely any better than watching people playing at the gym. The NBA is the NCAA with the 90% of bad players cut off, how can that ever be worse?
I really don’t care what you’re “on the pipe” for, or whether you think I am (classy analogy by the way, and let’s go straight for the ad hominem if we can), but your assumption is about as half-assedly incorrect as the rest of what you’re saying.
The defense in the NBA is exponentially better than in the college game. Is this a serious argument? You want a cite? Look at Kevin Durant’s career arc and tell me why he wasn’t a 26/14 guy when he made the jump. Or, shit, just watch a good NBA team play. You think Lebron’s going to be held to less than 40 by any college team? You think there’s any all-conference college team that could get a basket reliably against the Magic, the Celtics, the Cavs, the Spurs, or the Rockets? Or, for that matter, against anybody in the league? I’m citing to common sense here.
Now you want a cite for more strategy? Well, the best coaches end up there, have more resources, more time to prepare, and it’s the players’ full-time career. They practice more, there are more coaches, and they have better scouting systems. Again, this is just obvious.
What else? That NBA players can do something other than walk and dunk? Yeah, OK. Or is the argument here that college players somehow abide by a different set of rules and don’t fudge the letter of the law? Yeah, OK.
Tell you what, how about you name for me some players who make a living out of nothing but walks and dunks, and we’ll work from there. I mean, don’t actually answer that, because it’s a ridiculous argument, and I’m being sarcastic, but really? Cite?
