Poll: Coaches favor 30 second clock

[MsProudSooner]

The ball can be played any time after it touches the rim without goaltending. In other words, there is no imaginary cylinder above the rim preventing players from touching it.

Of all the proposed changes, this one seems the most trivial to me. I don't see how the current rule really diminishes the flow or watchability of games, but better basketball minds than I think it might have an impact, so I'm at least intrigued.

It would please people who think the dunk is the best thing in basketball and it would make that part of the game easier for the officials.

 

[campbest]

If I'm the NCAA, and worried about pace of play and fluidity in the game...I am going to model my rules as closely as possible to FIBA. IMO, it's the most fluid game around.

Also, FIBA puts emphasis on stretch 4's and forwards who can shoot around the perimeter...most American PFs like to play that way anyway so it's a natural fit. Currently, you have a square peg-round hole situation with how you play PFs in the US. Putting emphasis on stretch 4's then forces true bigs, to become rim protectors. It's no coincidence that the best new rim protectors in the NBA are all foreign (European trained) bigs...see Zach Lowe's column from earlier this week.

But like I said, this comes back to coaches...they don't want to give up control so it will never happen.

 

[BoulderSooner]

the big issue is the way the game is called .. .last year there was the big push for "freedom of movement" and the game were called much tighter and the scoring went up

this year we are back to the clutching and grabbing ..

 

[campbest]

the big issue is the way the game is called .. .last year there was the big push for "freedom of movement" and the game were called much tighter and the scoring went up

this year we are back to the clutching and grabbing ..

...but those coaches want the same officials...

 

[catoosanumber22]

The 35 second clock is perfect...reasonable amount of time and you get to see great defensive possessions. We reduce the shot clock and everyone puts up crazy stats that mean nothing like all these spread offense qb's these days where they're all throwing for 8,000 yards & 49 td's. Averaging 20 ppg wont mean anything if every game is 122- 110. If it aint broke dont fix it

 

[BoulderSooner]

The 35 second clock is perfect...reasonable amount of time and you get to see great defensive possessions. We reduce the shot clock and everyone puts up crazy stats that mean nothing like all these spread offense qb's these days where they're all throwing for 8,000 yards & 49 td's. Averaging 20 ppg wont mean anything if every game is 122- 110. If it aint broke dont fix it

if that is the only rule change 35-30 or 24 stats will go down for lots of teams not up

 

[oSuJeff97]

The 35 second clock is perfect...reasonable amount of time and you get to see great defensive possessions. We reduce the shot clock and everyone puts up crazy stats that mean nothing like all these spread offense qb's these days where they're all throwing for 8,000 yards & 49 td's. Averaging 20 ppg wont mean anything if every game is 122- 110. If it aint broke dont fix it

Not sure if serious.

Most college games now are in the 50s and 60s. I don't see how reducing the shot clock from 35 to 30 is going to magically double scoring.

And many would argue with your notion that college basketball "ain't broke."

 

[campbest]

The 35 second clock is perfect...reasonable amount of time and you get to see great defensive possessions. We reduce the shot clock and everyone puts up crazy stats that mean nothing like all these spread offense qb's these days where they're all throwing for 8,000 yards & 49 td's. Averaging 20 ppg wont mean anything if every game is 122- 110. If it aint broke dont fix it

Attendance is down...viewership is down...what do you mean but it's not broke?

 

[opsooner]

Not sure if serious.

Most college games now are in the 50s and 60s. I don't see how reducing the shot clock from 35 to 30 is going to magically double scoring.

And many would argue with your notion that college basketball "ain't broke."

Sure many would disagree - this is America after all. Doesn't mean one side or the other is right.

I suspect that reducing the shot clock by 5 seconds alone will have no significant impact on scoring and will simply slightly reduce shooting percentages.

As you said, I could very well be wrong and many others will disagree.

 

[opsooner]

There are some real noticeable differences within the last few years.

Have you noticed we almost always miss the beginning of the OU game because the game before ours is almost always running long? Then you have these strange "timeouts after timeouts".

OU wants to run so we're more exciting than most teams, but watch a game with two teams who run the shot clock down every time. It's so effing boring. That's when I turn on Netflix.

Please explain your theory on how this will reduce longevity of games. The real problem there is that ESPN stuffs games back-to-back-to-back for the $$$$$$$$ and they all need to go perfectly to fit in the windows. If we want to reduce longevity we need to reduce automatic TV timeouts, length of timeouts, and length of halftime. The first two are not happening so it will have to be halftime duration.

As for the other part I don't think reducing 5 seconds is going to do much if at all to speed up the game - I think it will cause a slight increase in bad shots and a slight decrease in shooting percentages. Underdog teams are still going to run their offense and try to reduce possessions. I think it mainly helps the basketball power houses; more possessions typically favors the better teams.

 

[DenverSooner]

The first two are not happening so it will have to be halftime duration.

Agreed and no one should even advocate for it because those TV timeouts are why we get to watch the games.

 

[AdaSooner]

Attendance is down...viewership is down...what do you mean but it's not broke?

Funny how no one seems to notice that attendance is down anywhere except at OU. I have an idea that's because they only watch the highly-publicized games between two big name schools when the arena is packed, leaving them with the impression that all games should be like that.

The UCONN-Tulsa game yesterday was a good example of the decline in attendance you're referencing. Since UCONN was the national champs last year, one would think that they would pack the house for every game this season. The Huskies are fighting for their post season life. Tulsa was in a tie for first in the conference, so that was a big game for both schools. I was shocked by the number of empty seats at that game.

It's happening everywhere, folks! I'm all for anything the coaches and the rules committee can do to create more interest in the best sport in the country: college basketball.

 

[Zimwillett]

Funny how no one seems to notice that attendance is down anywhere except at OU. I have an idea that's because they only watch the highly-publicized games between two big name schools when the arena is packed, leaving them with the impression that all games should be like that.

The UCONN-Tulsa game yesterday was a good example of the decline in attendance you're referencing. Since UCONN was the national champs last year, one would think that they would pack the house this season. The Huskies are fighting for their post season life. Tulsa was in a tie for first in the conference, so that was a big game for both schools. I was shocked by the number of empty seats at that game.

It's happening everywhere, folks! I'm all for anything the coaches and the rules committee can do to create more interest in the best sport in the country: college basketball.

Great post. Fans have a multitude of options on where to spend their entertainment time and money. If college basketball does not take innovative steps toward eliminating the 50-48 slug-fests (see e.g. the Michigan/Illinois game last night) they'll continue to lose those dollars. I'm an avid college basketball fan, and even I'll tune out on that crap. If that's the case, you're damn sure not attracting casual fans.

I think most, if not all, of the rule changes suggested in this thread would go a long way towards making the game more fluid and watchable.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Great post. Fans have a multitude of options on where to spend their entertainment time and money.

I don't even think it's that fans are choosing to do something else... it's that because of technology, the home experience FAR exceeds the experience of going to the game for most people.

If you're in a P5 conference, every single game is now broadcast in HD. Most people have big HDTVs in their house, so you're basically getting a fantastic viewing experience.

Heck, just 10 years ago, the only games that were guaranteed to be on TV were conference games, and even then a lot of the mid-week games weren't on TV. And if they were, they were on some crappy third-tier network like "The Phillips 66 Network" and typically weren't in HD. (I remember listening to a few of the 2004 OSU team's game on the RADIO because they weren't on TV. This wasn't the dark ages... it was 2004, lol.)

About the only time you could be assured of a great viewing experience at home was if you were picked for Big Monday.

So people had a reason to go to mid-week and Saturday afternoon games, because the arena experience was better than the in-home experience, in terms of just watching the game. That just isn't the case any more.

 

[Zimwillett]

I don't even think it's that fans are choosing to do something else... it's that because of technology, the home experience FAR exceeds the experience of going to the game for most people.

If you're in a P5 conference, every single game is now broadcast in HD. Most people have big HDTVs in their house, so you're basically getting a fantastic viewing experience.

Heck, just 10 years ago, the only games that were guaranteed to be on TV were conference games, and even then a lot of the mid-week games weren't on TV. And if they were, they were on some crappy third-tier network like "The Phillips 66 Network" and typically weren't in HD. (I remember listening to a few of the 2004 OSU team's game on the RADIO because they weren't on TV. This wasn't the dark ages... it was 2004, lol.)

About the only time you could be assured of a great viewing experience at home was if you were picked for Big Monday.

So people had a reason to go to mid-week and Saturday afternoon games, because the arena experience was better than the in-home experience, in terms of just watching the game. That just isn't the case any more.

Agreed with respect to attendance, but even with all the improved home viewing, ratings are down too. I certainly don't casually watch as much as I once did. This is for a variety of reasons, but a big one is that I just don't find the games as entertaining as I once did. Another poster above says he tunes to Netflix if/when the game gets bogged down. These are obviously anecdotal, but I suspect a large percentage of fans feel the same way.

I don't know if these rule changes would be the panacea, but I don't think it could hurt to at least explore most, if not all of them.

 

[AdaSooner]

Great post. Fans have a multitude of options on where to spend their entertainment time and money. If college basketball does not take innovative steps toward eliminating the 50-48 slug-fests (see e.g. the Michigan/Illinois game last night) they'll continue to lose those dollars. I'm an avid college basketball fan, and even I'll tune out on that crap. If that's the case, you're damn sure not attracting casual fans.

I think most, if not all, of the rule changes suggested in this thread would go a long way towards making the game more fluid and watchable.

We can't rule out the economy as a factor in the decline in attendance. While economic conditions may not be why some fans would rather watch the games at home, that's not the case with some families who simply can't afford the price of admission and the additional costs of travel, meals and concessions at the game for an unemployed family of four, or for those who had to take lower paying jobs to get by.

One thing is certain, though, all of the things mentioned in this thread and more have contributed to unprecedented smaller crowds at games than we have seen in many years. It's not likely a change in the rules will cure all of these problems, but it definitely can't hurt.

 

[BCSooners]

Another reason viewership is down is because the games aren't as good as they once were. Now if you are a top 10 recruit you are leaving after your first year. You don't see the Sampson, Ewing, Jordan, Tisdale type talent stay for 3-4 years. They are here 1 year and they only start playing halfway decent basketball towards the end of the year, even then some don't (i.e. Zach Lavine). The "greatest" Kentucky team we are seeing right now might not have been in the top 3 in most years in the 80s.