The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I don't know if this deserves it's own thread, but here goes anyway. This is a great article by the DP'S Dave Fairbank regarding both ODU's Jones', and W&M's Shaver's thoughts on use of the 30 second shot clock during this year's NIT.

Both seem to think it is a way that the P5 teams will gain yet another advantage over the schools with smaller budgets, both also think it might not stop at 30 seconds.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/william...tml#page=1

the Kenpom numbers. Really. To me the numbers that need to be compared are shooting percentages. Scoring is not down because of possessions. It's down because kids do not shoot as well as they used too. Kenpom needs to look at field goal percentages nit just number of possessions.

This just in...

I liked the 30 second clock personally.

It was a good piece by Fairbank. Shooting percentages are down for a variety of reasons and Kenpom is a valid AND trusted source.

IMO shooting percentages are down for more reasons than kids cannot shoot. The game has changed, there are fewer, if any low post players which cause the defense to collapse anymore. The D has evolved into where they can gameplan and take away every available inch. I guarantee that if Odell Hodge played on ODU this season, everyone's shooting percentage would go significantly up.

Shortening the shot clock will lower the shooting percentages and favor the P5's with greater individual talent.

Killing the 3 would help because it wouldn't disincentivize mid to mid-long range shooting. But there's no unringing that bell.

Teams would adjust. I remember hearing how adding a shot clock would hurt the small schools who couldn't play a slowdown game in order to stay in punching distance. But all the 15 vs. 2 upsets in the tournament took place with a shot clock.

I think they are looking at this all wrong, if they REALLY are trying to improve offense with this rule change. Going in the other direction and bumping it back to 40 or 45 would improve offense more than lowering it.

Why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but people that know an awful lot about basketball say that's completely inaccurate.

(04-04-2015 06:11 PM)djnva Wrote:  Why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but people that know an awful lot about basketball say that's completely inaccurate.

People in the media? The same people who work for companies that have massive contracts with conferences that would benefit from shorter shot clocks?

(04-04-2015 06:11 PM)djnva Wrote:  Why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but people that know an awful lot about basketball say that's completely inaccurate.

A couple reasons. The obvious one is it gives teams more time to run offense which would allow more motion on the offensive end and a lot less high screen and roll & isolation, ultimately allowing/forcing coaches to coach to the offensive end rather than focusing so much on how they play defense. That would be further driven by the fact that it is a lot harder for a team to defend the way UVA or ODU does for 45 seconds than it is for 30. Both of those things disincentivize coaches from spending 70% of their practice time, and so much of their recruiting efforts on building a dominant defense. In my opinion, the evidence is there if you go back and watch basketball from the pre 35 second era. You also have to clean up the fact that there are probably more than 5 situations that would have been called fouls during that era on every single trip down the court, but that is another discussion. I think so many coaches like the 30 second shot clock idea, not because it will improve offense, but because they know that they can win with defense and effort to a greater degree as the time is lowered, and with so many young players and transfers in their program, they don't have the time to teach a system as well as they would like, so they resort to getting better athletes and getting them to play hard. They won't admit this, but I do suspect that there is at least a good percentage of them who are looking at it this way.

(04-04-2015 06:23 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 06:11 PM)djnva Wrote:  Why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but people that know an awful lot about basketball say that's completely inaccurate.

People in the media? The same people who work for companies that have massive contracts with conferences that would benefit from shorter shot clocks?

That's not actual proof. Coaches are saying it. The NBA went to it for a reason.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

The girls play with a 30sec shot clock, why shouldn't the men.

(04-06-2015 08:13 AM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  The girls play with a 30sec shot clock, why shouldn't the men.

Should the men play with the smaller basketball, too?

The men's and women's game are almost too different sports, that is not really a good comparison at all, and I suppose if you prefer NBA basketball to the college game, you would be just fine with a 24 second shot clock, but most college fans can't stand the NBA in my experience. I would be very upset if the college game was just like the NBA

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

(04-06-2015 08:42 AM)Monarch Blue Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 08:13 AM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  The girls play with a 30sec shot clock, why shouldn't the men.

Should the men play with the smaller basketball, too?

And no 10 second rule? And should we praise a sport where the same two teams are in the championship every year.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

(04-06-2015 08:44 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  but most college fans can't stand the NBA in my experience. I would be very upset if the college game was just like the NBA

Where no one plays defense, everybody gets 8 steps, and continuation starts at the oppsite foul line.

Going to a 30 second clock is best for college basketball, imo; even if it isn't best for ODU.

Going to a 40 second shot clock may increase shooting percentages, but you are going to have a lot of games end with under 100 points. A 30 second clock speeds up the game and provides more actual basketball play versus stalling and running down the clock.

(04-06-2015 08:44 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  The men's and women's game are almost too different sports, that is not really a good comparison at all, and I suppose if you prefer NBA basketball to the college game, you would be just fine with a 24 second shot clock, but most college fans can't stand the NBA in my experience. I would be very upset if the college game was just like the NBA

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

I agree. I love college basketball, but almost never watch more than a few seconds of an NBA game. All they do is run up and down the floor and shoot. NBA games are not nearly the chess games that college BB games are.

(04-06-2015 10:10 AM)Monarch Blue Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 08:44 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  The men's and women's game are almost too different sports, that is not really a good comparison at all, and I suppose if you prefer NBA basketball to the college game, you would be just fine with a 24 second shot clock, but most college fans can't stand the NBA in my experience. I would be very upset if the college game was just like the NBA

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

I agree. I love college basketball, but almost never watch more than a few seconds of an NBA game. All they do is run up and down the floor and shoot. NBA games are not nearly the chess games that college BB games are.

This is completely untrue. I don't watch a ton of NBA bc I prefer to watch college basketball, but they run far more sophisticated sets than college basketball.

Although I prefer college, the argument that the NBA doesn't play defense and they just run up and down the court is wrong.

(04-06-2015 10:04 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Going to a 30 second clock is best for college basketball, imo; even if it isn't best for ODU.

Going to a 40 second shot clock may increase shooting percentages, but you are going to have a lot of games end with under 100 points. A 30 second clock speeds up the game and provides more actual basketball play versus stalling and running down the clock.

There is no evidence for any of this. There is at least some evidence that scores will be higher with a longer shot clock since there is anecdotal evidence of an entire era when the shot clock was at 45 seconds. The data we have from your preference is that there were 2 more possessions per game in the NIT. TWO. What is that going to help?