Well, that’s what I meant, for you to say something like that is objectively wrong is ridiculous. Opinions about sports are very strong, but they don’t meet the definition of objective, and no amount of advocacy, spirited as it may be, can change your opinion from being subjective to being objective.
One man’s poetry in motion is another man’s visual comic book, que sera sera.
So, having more time doesn’t improve shot selection? Okay, I think we can go ahead an call it a day. There isn’t anything left to say.
Really, this nonsense about college players passing up open shots is just that. They may look open relative to the kinds of shots you see NBA players taking, but there’s a reason why shooting percentage is about the same in the college game as it is in the NBA. Shot selection has something to do with that, IMO. Also, I’m not sure what it is you don’t get about the fact that more shots taken is going to result in diminished importance per shot. Why in god’s name do you think everyone in the world wants to watch someone take a shot every 20 second per hour of playing time? Like I said before, repetition = boredom for a whole lot of people.
I’m always pretty amused at the suggestions by pro sports fans to “improve” the college game. If you want to watch an NBA-type game, then go watch an NBA game.
It would be boring in basketball also, if the shot clock was 60 seconds. But the NFL clock is 40 seconds. Should it be 24? But why stop there? You’re saying the NCAA shot clock should be 24 seconds, because that’s the number in the NBA. So…shouldn’t the NBA clock be 20 seconds? how about 10? Imagine how exciting that would be.
There’s nothing wrong with having that opinion, but, for an example, most people I know find 2-1 baseball games much, much more exciting that 15-14 slugfests, and runs are the whole point of baseball.
Probably somebody who got bored with the endless stalling that followed when there was no shot clock at all. Granted, there are other options between 24 seconds and no shot clock, but most people prefer some more offense. Like I said in a recent basketball thread, some people were very bored with the dominance of defense in the last few years, and that was without any changes to the clock. I think it’s unlikely that that kind of rule change would be a benefit to the NBA or get the people in here to watch a lot more.
You can thank Dean Smith and his BS 4-Corners offense for the shot clock. I think he participated in more than one game where one or both teams had less than 10 going into the half.
I don’t have a problem with a shot clock. I don’t think 35 seconds is too long, either.
Why would you want to make the college game more like the NBA? Or vice versa, for that matter? They’re the same sport, but they’re different games. And, as we can see in this thread, one game appeals to one group of fans, and another game appeals to a different group (with some overlap, of course). I happen to prefer the college game, because I’d rather see 10 awesome plays from a team than 30 awesome plays by one player, but that’s just me. If you want to see Kobe shoot the ball every time he touches it, I’m not about to suggest a rule that says nobody can shoot the ball until it has been passed at least four times. Just watch your NBA game, and let me enjoy my March Madness.
And really, are the last minute or two of the college game significantly slower than the last minute or two of the professional game? They’re both slow as hell, but then again, the last couple of minutes of football are longer too, and a baseball coach will go to the mound or call up relievers more often in the latter innings than the earlier ones. It’s an inherent bug/feature of any competition – you pull out more stops as you get closer to the end. Shaving a few seconds off a shot clock isn’t going to fix that.
I agree and I like the variety, but I don’t think it’s the shot clock that makes the difference there. In college there are so many different levels of competition and talent, different skills, other different rules and so forth that I don’t see the difference between a 35-second clock and 30-second clock as a big issue. I think shortening it would just lead to less wasted time. And if you’re a fan of Grinnell College, it wouldn’t matter anyway. 
I think they should eliminate the shot clock altogether. If a team wants to slow things down to a crawl to win, they should have that opportunity.
I also thought the old four-corner offense was fun to watch.
I always thought the NBA would be a little more watchable if they had a 35 second shot clock. I think that is a perfect amount of time for both college and NBA…basketball is by far my favorite sport to watch and play, but I can’t stand the NBA, and that makes me sad. I want to watch the best players and best coaches battle it out - I don’t feel the NBA provides that though - but that is for another thread.
Also, I disagree with the OP’s point about the coaches being college hoops biggest problem. I think it is the exact opposite, in that the coaches are the face of college basketball, more than the players.
Take a look at some of the tournament game and potential games and how they are being analysed: Syracuse vs. Oklahoma: The story is how Boeheim’s zone will handle Blake Griffin. Take the possible Memphis-UConn matchup: Calhoun vs. Calipari. Duke-Pitt: Jamie Dixon’s hard-nosed defense vs. Coack K’s tough man-to-man and three point offense.
What I am trying to say is that each college coach gives their team a very unique reputation and style of play, and with so many coaches, you can see so many incredibly different styles of play on both offense and defense and see how they match up with each other during the season and tournament. Compared to the NBA, which seems so bland-man-to-man all the time and one on one offense. Blah!
For what its worth, I don’t think the timing on the shot clock is the problem with college hoops. My beef lies with the three point shot. I think it ought to be eliminated from the college game altogether. It makes coaches lazy and discourages kids from developing a range of shooting techniques from all parts of the floor. Contrary to popular belief, your technique for shooting a 10 -12 footer is decidely different than what is called for when shooting the bomb. Also, the over-reliance on the three pointer turns too many games into blowouts when a team gets down by eight to ten points and begins slinging up ill-advised threes in a panic. Watch any Clemson game for evidence. Finally, the three has caused coaches to get away from developing the proper offensive skill sets in their Inside players, and I think these skills are an important part of the game. Just my two and half cents.
I do, however, think the three pointer is fine in the pro game.
Since the shot clock in basketball and the play clock in football have two entirely different purposes, comparing them is like saying something about apples and, oh, rocking chairs. You make it sound like all the college teams do is waste time with perimeter passing until forced to shoot. If that’s your conception of the college game, it’s at least as out-of-whack as my perception that the pros do nothing but walk, dunk and bomb, without much defense being played at all.
It should be remembered that the college shot clock, when originally instituted, was set for 45 seconds. I’m not sure when it was reduced to 35 seconds, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but at some point, someone must have thought that 45 seconds was too much time to make up your mind about taking a shot. I still think going shorter is simply not needed; if the college game gets anything closer to the pro game, I won’t be watching it, either. 
The technique itself is different?
How do you figure?
I, for one, have always thought the 35 second clock is odd. Why 35? And why is it only 30 for ladies? And why on Earth did they move the 3 point line this year for men but not for women, meaning we now have THREE three-point lines on floors set-up for both college and NBA.
If I had my way, I’d just switch college to the International rules, which, IIRC, include both the trapezoid lane and a 30 second clock (but don’t quote me on that). If the biggest problem with US basketball at the International/Olympic level is an unfamiliarity with the international game, and if as many or more American kids are going to be playing in Europe than in the NBA every year anyway, then wouldn’t the best thing for them be to learn how that game works at the collegiate level?
And on an unrelated note - Dear God I hate the 5 second rule in college basketball. Why should the defense be credited with a turnover just for standing next to the guy with the ball for 5 seconds? If you’re concerned with players stalling, well… that’s what the shot clock is for in the first place!
I like it - rewards good defense. I’ve never called it, or seen it called on just ‘standing there’. The 15 seconds you get (standing, dribbling, standing) are more than enough to get past someone or pass it. Most times it gets called are on a good trap or similar - can’t get the ball without fouling, but they can’t pass out either, and just waiting for the shotclock to expire there would be rather boring.
I agree with lowering the shot clock. I’m a Big Ten fan (pity me). The default style of play in the Big Ten is to pass the ball around the perimeter for 25 seconds, dreaming that maybe maybe maybe you’ll spring somebody loose off of a back door play or a pick for a layup.
Of course it almost never happens, so finally when the shot clock reaches 10 you get serious about looking for a less-than-perfect shot. Penn State and Illinois followed this strategy to a 38-33 game.
Cut the clock down to 30, and at least you eliminate five seconds of boring perimeter passing per possession.
I was all set to post “don’t change anything,” and then Freddy the Pig posted. And he’s all kinds of right about the Big Ten (much as I love my Badgers). And that style of basketball is rather tedious.
Aside from that, I prefer college ball all sorts of kinds over NBA. I can’t be bothered to watch a sport that won’t even follow its own rules. For its faults, college ball is way more exciting than NBA, IMO.
Bumping this because, according to an ESPN poll, nearly 60% of coaches favor reducing the shot clock to 30 seconds.
Make it happen. That only 15 men’s Div I teams average more than 60 FG attempts per game is disgusting.
It is 30 for women because it has been 30 for women since they started using it in the 1970s. The 35 for men was developed after a year or two of experimentation - some leagues used 30, some 35, and at least one used 45.
Also, there are four 3-point lines if high school is included.
International rules switched to a 24-second shot clock quite a few years ago (the 30-second clock was first used in 1972 or slightly earlier), and a 16-foot-wide rectangular lane in 2010. FIBA has been moving more and more towards NBA rules, except for 10-minute quarters and no “illegal defense” rule.
In fact, the NCAA nearly did make everybody switch to trapezoid lanes back in 2008 or so, but it was decided that it would be too much of a hardship on a lot of the smaller schools to repaint their courts (and “one set of rules for Division I and another for everybody else” was out of the question).
It’s a holdover from the pre-shot clock days, I suppose. While they’re at it, why not get rid of the 10-second (or is it 8 now?) backcourt count? They don’t have in women’s basketball, and this is because of the shot clock.
NCAA bball has a lot of problems these days and the shot clock is not among the worst.
I actually think the shorter clock will further exacerbate one of the real problems in NCAA hoops, which is the talent disparity between the top 1% of teams and the rest. More talented teams running a faster pace will crush the little guys who need to play stall ball and hope to keep it close.
Which is one of the three primary reasons why there’s no shot clock in high school (the other two being “A lot of schools can’t afford to install one” and “We have enough trouble finding an adult to keep the game clock - now we need another one to run the shot clock?”).
However, maintaining parity tends to be a reason not to do things in NCAA basketball. There are still a few schools out there that feel that there are too many teams in Division I, especially as all of them get a share of the tournament TV money. Besides - you forget that the shorter shot clock would be used in Divisions II and III (and the NAIA, and most likely junior college ball) as well, not just in Division I.