It's going to give more possessions but it's won't help the offense IMO. Until the coaches take the shackles off it won't matter. Until the youth and jr high coaches go back to teaching proper fundamentals it won't matter. Unfortunately I think it's past the point of no return.

(06-11-2015 11:47 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  It's going to give more possessions but it's won't help the offense IMO. Until the coaches take the shackles off it won't matter. Until the youth and jr high coaches go back to teaching proper fundamentals it won't matter. Unfortunately I think it's past the point of no return.

The shackles will be on for 5 seconds less per possession. I think removing the closely guarded rule will also have an effect. It will probably help scoring slightly, but teams won't shoot as well. It will help the defense because they won't have to defend as long. It should help speed up the pace of games.

(06-11-2015 11:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 11:30 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  So it's even better than I thought. At with an average of 19 seconds, in most games you'll see little to no impact in the game.

Exactly! That is what I have been saying in this thread and when it was first discussed months ago.

Anywhere from 0 to 4 possession over the course of an entire 40 minutes. That is what the research shows.

What the number fudgers point to is that this should increase scoring to levels from the good ole days, but the reality is there is only about a 4 point difference window in scoring per team (from 68 ppg to 72 ppg) over the past 20 years. With 4 extra possessions per team and a median points per possession of .997 that would add about 2 points per game to the average ppg--raising it to close to 70 ppg. That would be consistent with the average ppg of teams in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

What were the stats from last year's tournaments to this year's? Simple question.

(06-11-2015 11:27 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 11:23 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Of course there will be extra possessions throughout the game and at the end of games. Each team will be able to hold the ball 5 seconds less.

Oh my god?!

WHO will be "holding the ball?"


Is the team behind going to be up against the shot clock when trailing, or will they take shots well before the shot clock becomes an issue?

Is the team trailing going to foul well before the shot clock becomes an issue?

Two simple answers.

Quote:WHO will be "holding the ball?"

You must be a little bit thick. The rule was put into place because teams were dribbling around the perimeter doing nothing for 25 seconds. Now they will only be able to do that for 20 seconds each possession.

(06-11-2015 11:19 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 11:09 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Who has the number on how often college teams actually even took the 35 second clock down to 5 or less? That will give you your impending impact on the game. Because the best teams usually shoot from 5-15 seconds left. Now coaches will probably adjust and make it something like 3-12 seconds left on the shot clock.

Like I said before. This is a baby step towards 24 seconds. Which I accept. We will see minimal impact from the 30 second clock.

What I'd also like to see is that the ten second backcourt rule doesn't start over with a timeout or tip out of bounds.

And don't make the defense take the ball out when the shot clock expires with the ball in the air. The refs should only blow the whistle when the offense rebounds it.

Average possession length in CBB last year was a little less than 19 seconds.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId...9&period=3

In OT last year, Tulsa's only two FG made in ot were taken after running 32 and 31 seconds off the shot clock.

In regulation, Memphis was down 2 with 58 seconds left. Guess what? 32 seconds into the shot clock Memphis put up a shot.

(06-11-2015 10:46 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Real evidence like your hilarious 33 seconds per possession example,

You mean evidence like that?

Yeah, like above.

Like above?

You're confused champ.

In your first example of "evidence" you showed each possession lasting up to 2 seconds left in the shot clock, and 10 total possessions. In your second example of "evidence" you used Memphis - Kansas, a game that had 16 possessions in the last 3 minutes.

You two are still arguing about this?

(06-11-2015 02:59 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  You two are still arguing about this?

Look at the posts and see who is "arguing."

I feel more like I'm playing whack a mole with all the crazy posts but I've tapped out with him on this.

Good thing is, after the season, there will be a boatload of stats ranging from number of possessions, offensive efficiency and points per game to gnaw on.

(06-11-2015 03:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 02:59 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  You two are still arguing about this?

Look at the posts and see who is "arguing."

I feel more like I'm playing whack a mole with all the crazy posts but I've tapped out with him on this.

Good thing is, after the season, there will be a boatload of stats ranging from number of possessions, offensive efficiency and points per game to gnaw on.

Crazy posts? You said most possessions at the end of games last 33 seconds, resulting in 10 total possessions. Then you cited the Memphis - Kansas game where there were 16. Buddy is confused.

(06-12-2015 08:40 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  i think both sides have made their points clearly. Everyone can look at what's there and see whom they agree with.

I don't think it's necessary to continue. You're unlikely to convince one another.

Why do you perpetuate this nonsense?

There is NOTHING presented by the other person that is clear. He consistently harps on arguing about a HYPOTHETICAL used merely to frame a discussion. I know you are close with him and if you really think he is presenting a "clear point of discussion" then I don't know what to say except that I am flabbergasted.

I tried on three or four occasions to explain that the shot clock won't have much of a bearing on end of game comebacks (the premise that was presented) because the shot clock will rarely be pushed, whether it is because the losing team will be hoisting up shots early into the shot clock or because they losing team will foul the team that is leading well before the shot clock gets to that 30-35.

Instead, there is this constant referral to the Kansas Memphis game in which, my point was actually made, that in late game situations few possessions get beyond the 15 second mark--meaning it wouldn't matter if the shot clock was 30, 35, 45 or 60 because the play was finished by the 15 second mark.

My only reference to the shots taken in the 30 second range was due to the fact it was being challenged with posts like this:

(06-10-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The response I gave was much more intelligent than the drivel that put out there. You think the team that is leading is going to wait until there are 2 seconds left on the shot clock on every possession? You think that the team that is down will allow them to do that? No accounting for turnovers?

Funny.

I then simply showed a couple occasions in which teams that are winning and not fouled and have the opportunity to use the clock do so very late in the clock w/in 5 seconds of it expiring.

I tried to explain that on several occasions and NEVER insisted every game would end like the HYPOTHETICAL (see definition) that was presented.

Of course, that is ignored and responses still come in like this:

(06-11-2015 10:46 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Real evidence like your hilarious 33 seconds per possession example, followed by your Memphis - Kansas example where there were 16 possessions? Refresh my memory, was that the one when you said that we held the ball for 30 seconds most of our possessions and didn't include possessions that were much shorter because of turnovers and fouls?

So, yeah, I make the poor decision of trying to keep explaining my position and each response is followed by a more ridiculous response.

What is more perplexing is now there is this "you both have good points" nonsense that being presented because, in my opinion, this is simply one of the most absurd instances of how Stammers acts towards posters he wants to attack. He has offered nothing of value in the discussion, keeps wanting to argue about details off the topic and answers each response with a re-reference to his previous inane response.

I'm at a loss.

(06-12-2015 09:31 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:40 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  i think both sides have made their points clearly. Everyone can look at what's there and see whom they agree with.

I don't think it's necessary to continue. You're unlikely to convince one another.

Why do you perpetuate this nonsense?

There is NOTHING presented by the other person that is clear. He consistently harps on arguing about a HYPOTHETICAL used merely to frame a discussion. I know you are close with him and if you really think he is presenting a "clear point of discussion" then I don't know what to say except that I am flabbergasted.

I tried on three or four occasions to explain that the shot clock won't have much of a bearing on end of game comebacks (the premise that was presented) because the shot clock will rarely be pushed, whether it is because the losing team will be hoisting up shots early into the shot clock or because they losing team will foul the team that is leading well before the shot clock gets to that 30-35.

Instead, there is this constant referral to the Kansas Memphis game in which, my point was actually made, that in late game situations few possessions get beyond the 15 second mark--meaning it wouldn't matter if the shot clock was 30, 35, 45 or 60 because the play was finished by the 15 second mark.

My only reference to the shots taken in the 30 second range was due to the fact it was being challenged with posts like this:

(06-10-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The response I gave was much more intelligent than the drivel that put out there. You think the team that is leading is going to wait until there are 2 seconds left on the shot clock on every possession? You think that the team that is down will allow them to do that? No accounting for turnovers?

Funny.

I then simply showed a couple occasions in which teams that are winning and not fouled and have the opportunity to use the clock do so very late in the clock w/in 5 seconds of it expiring.

I tried to explain that on several occasions and NEVER insisted every game would end like the HYPOTHETICAL (see definition) that was presented.

Of course, that is ignored and responses still come in like this:

(06-11-2015 10:46 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Real evidence like your hilarious 33 seconds per possession example, followed by your Memphis - Kansas example where there were 16 possessions? Refresh my memory, was that the one when you said that we held the ball for 30 seconds most of our possessions and didn't include possessions that were much shorter because of turnovers and fouls?

So, yeah, I make the poor decision of trying to keep explaining my position and each response is followed by an more absurd response.

What is more perplexing is now there is this "you both have good points" nonsense that being presented because, in my opinion, this is simply one of the most absurd instances of how Stammers acts towards posters he wants to attack. He has offered nothing of value in the discussion, keeps wanting to argue about details off the topic and answers each response with a re-reference to his previous inane response.

I'm at a loss.

(06-12-2015 09:31 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:40 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  i think both sides have made their points clearly. Everyone can look at what's there and see whom they agree with.

I don't think it's necessary to continue. You're unlikely to convince one another.

Why do you perpetuate this nonsense?

There is NOTHING presented by the other person that is clear. He consistently harps on arguing about a HYPOTHETICAL used merely to frame a discussion. I know you are close with him and if you really think he is presenting a "clear point of discussion" then I don't know what to say except that I am flabbergasted.

I tried on three or four occasions to explain that the shot clock won't have much of a bearing on end of game comebacks (the premise that was presented) because the shot clock will rarely be pushed, whether it is because the losing team will be hoisting up shots early into the shot clock or because they losing team will foul the team that is leading well before the shot clock gets to that 30-35.

Instead, there is this constant referral to the Kansas Memphis game in which, my point was actually made, that in late game situations few possessions get beyond the 15 second mark--meaning it wouldn't matter if the shot clock was 30, 35, 45 or 60 because the play was finished by the 15 second mark.

My only reference to the shots taken in the 30 second range was due to the fact it was being challenged with posts like this:

(06-10-2015 11:32 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The response I gave was much more intelligent than the drivel that put out there. You think the team that is leading is going to wait until there are 2 seconds left on the shot clock on every possession? You think that the team that is down will allow them to do that? No accounting for turnovers?

Funny.

I then simply showed a couple occasions in which teams that are winning and not fouled and have the opportunity to use the clock do so very late in the clock w/in 5 seconds of it expiring.

I tried to explain that on several occasions and NEVER insisted every game would end like the HYPOTHETICAL (see definition) that was presented.

Of course, that is ignored and responses still come in like this:

(06-11-2015 10:46 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Real evidence like your hilarious 33 seconds per possession example, followed by your Memphis - Kansas example where there were 16 possessions? Refresh my memory, was that the one when you said that we held the ball for 30 seconds most of our possessions and didn't include possessions that were much shorter because of turnovers and fouls?

So, yeah, I make the poor decision of trying to keep explaining my position and each response is followed by a more ridiculous response.

What is more perplexing is now there is this "you both have good points" nonsense that being presented because, in my opinion, this is simply one of the most absurd instances of how Stammers acts towards posters he wants to attack. He has offered nothing of value in the discussion, keeps wanting to argue about details off the topic and answers each response with a re-reference to his previous inane response.

I'm at a loss.

Quote: explaining my position

Quote:posters he wants to attack

It's always the same story with you. When you post stuff that doesn't make sense and it gets refuted, you claim you are being attacked.

Your scenario A and B didn't remotely make sense, your Memphis - Kansas example made no sense, and you STILL haven't come up with the stats to compare last year and this year.

You haven't explained anything.

From JUNE 10th

(06-10-2015 10:26 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Simply put, the numbers show a very small increase in number of possessions per game...on the level of 2 to 4, which is hardly a deal at all.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../70673490/

The early returns show the potential for a few more possessions per game, but nothing substantial that signals a fundamental change in the game. Entering Monday each team in the CBI, which holds its championship on Monday night, and the NIT and CIT, which resume Tuesday, has averaged four more points and 3.5 more possessions per game than it did during the regular season, according to possession data from KenPom.com. That would make the game as fast as it has been since 2002-03.

(06-11-2015 11:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  With 4 extra possessions per team and a median points per possession of .997 that would add about 4 points per game to the average ppg--raising it to close to 72 ppg. That would be consistent with the average ppg of teams in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

So, AGAIN, at 3.5 additional possessions over a 40 minute game, that would be an addition 1.75 possessions per half, or .875 possessions every 10 minutes. Hardly enough of a difference to achieve this premise:

(06-09-2015 08:06 AM)Stammers Wrote:  It will also give teams that are down, more opportunities to come back.

(06-12-2015 10:21 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  From JUNE 10th

(06-10-2015 10:26 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Simply put, the numbers show a very small increase in number of possessions per game...on the level of 2 to 4, which is hardly a deal at all.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../70673490/

The early returns show the potential for a few more possessions per game, but nothing substantial that signals a fundamental change in the game. Entering Monday each team in the CBI, which holds its championship on Monday night, and the NIT and CIT, which resume Tuesday, has averaged four more points and 3.5 more possessions per game than it did during the regular season, according to possession data from KenPom.com. That would make the game as fast as it has been since 2002-03.

(06-11-2015 11:40 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  With 4 extra possessions per team and a median points per possession of .997 that would add about 4 points per game to the average ppg--raising it to close to 72 ppg. That would be consistent with the average ppg of teams in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

So, AGAIN, at 3.5 additional possessions over a 40 minute game, that would be an addition 1.75 possessions per half, or .875 possessions every 10 minutes. Hardly enough of a difference to achieve this premise:

(06-09-2015 08:06 AM)Stammers Wrote:  It will also give teams that are down, more opportunities to come back.

Kenpom also said...

Quote:Adjusting for the matchups and expected points in each game, scoring in the smaller tournaments has been about 5.6 PPG more than the NCAA tournament. This is 2.4 PPG higher than the typical difference in these events. That's not something that will transform the game, but if you assume that boost applies to the entire 2015-16 season, it would take the sport to scoring levels not seen since 2003. (That statement excludes last season, when scoring increased dramatically, partly because a bunch of fouls were called.)

He doesn't seem to have a consensus on this. He claims that scoring should go up 7% per game. There were 134.46 points scored in the average NCAA game. That would increase scoring to 143.87; which is a 9.4 point per game average. If teams are scoring 4.7 more points per game, based on the median points per possession of .997, that would mean that each team would have 5 more possessions per game.

Also, he doesn't predict the reduction in shooting percentage and scoring efficiency, but he does claim that teams aren't going to shoot as well and turn the ball over more, which makes sense.

If scoring is going to go up 7% with the same median points per possession, that already adds up to 5 more possessions per team, per game; hardly an insignificant number. If teams don't shoot as well and turn the ball over more, that number has to go up.

5 possessions per game is significant, and 5 less seconds to hold the ball on both sides will be significant.

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

23) Long back-and-forth exchanges of off-topic insults and posturing will not be tolerated. On-topic back-and-forth is accepted and encouraged, as long as it's civil. Once it veers off-topic, it's time to take it to PMs or use the ignore feature. Such exchanges will be deleted or split and moved to the "Smack" forum.

Saluki appears to me to be on topic. Stammers as well. Both discussing new shot clock rule. But one is much more civil than the other that's for sure.

Neither really appears to be in violation of this rule based on how it reads however.

(06-12-2015 11:09 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

Quote: What is more perplexing is now there is this "you both have good points" nonsense that being presented because, in my opinion, this is simply one of the most absurd instances of how Stammers acts towards posters he wants to attack. He has offered nothing of value in the discussion, keeps wanting to argue about details off the topic and answers each response with a re-reference to his previous inane response.

Nonsense
Absurd
Attack
Nothing of value
Argue
Inane

Didn't have to look far. This is from one post.

(06-12-2015 11:09 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

I don't necessarily agree with Pomeroy, but I am quoting him the same as Saluki . Kenpom says scoring will go up 7%. That would compute to 4.7 points per team. With a median of .997 points per possession that adds up to 5 more possessions per team. This contradicts his own data. He also acknowledges that shooting percentages will go down and turnovers will go up; but cites the .997 figure.

(06-12-2015 11:24 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 11:09 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

I don't necessarily agree with Pomeroy, but I am quoting him the same as Saluki . Kenpom says scoring will go up 7%. That would compute to 4.7 points per team. With a median of .997 points per possession that adds up to 5 more possessions per team. This contradicts his own data. He also acknowledges that shooting percentages will go down and turnovers will go up; but cites the .997 figure.

but you don't have to keep calling him thick, ignorant, fantasy etc.

You constantly do that when someone disagrees with you. Despite how many facts and figures you throw out. You don't have to stoop to that. Just stand by your numbers and point of view.

(06-12-2015 11:24 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 11:09 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

I don't necessarily agree with Pomeroy, but I am quoting him the same as Saluki . Kenpom says scoring will go up 7%. That would compute to 4.7 points per team. With a median of .997 points per possession that adds up to 5 more possessions per team. This contradicts his own data. He also acknowledges that shooting percentages will go down and turnovers will go up; but cites the .997 figure.

The problem is that you don't agree with anyone ever. You fight everyone on this board. But I guess everyone is always wrong & poor stammy is always right. There are many times that I read what you have to say and you are 100% correct. But it's your attitude and the way you treat folks when you communicate that's the turn off. I know a lot is lost in translation on forums like this, but you communicate your disdain for almost everyone very well. The multiple times you have been banned haven't been enough to chase you from your contentious ways. But hey, everyone is always wrong & stammy is always right.

(06-12-2015 11:36 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 11:24 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 11:09 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 10:47 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  Since this has turned into a two-way conversation, I'm going to suggest you both take it to PMs, or better yet, put one another on ignore. For all of our sake.

This board is, of course, a forum for discussion among a group-- not two way arguing between individuals. See AUP #23.

Why does it have to be all our sake?

One guy presents facts and offers his opinion rationally without personal attacks.

One guy uses language like: My views are intelligent and yours are drivel. You're views are hilarious and fantasy. You are thick.

I don't see saluki constantly following anyone down all over this forum to degrade and antagonize them.

This is a one way street.

I don't necessarily agree with Pomeroy, but I am quoting him the same as Saluki . Kenpom says scoring will go up 7%. That would compute to 4.7 points per team. With a median of .997 points per possession that adds up to 5 more possessions per team. This contradicts his own data. He also acknowledges that shooting percentages will go down and turnovers will go up; but cites the .997 figure.

The problem is that you don't agree with anyone ever. You fight everyone on this board. But I guess everyone is always wrong & poor stammy is always right. There are many times that I read what you have to say and you are 100% correct. But it's your attitude and the way you treat folks when you communicate that's the turn off. I know a lot is lost in translation on forums like this, but you communicate your disdain for almost everyone very well. The multiple times you have been banned haven't been enough to chase you from your contentious ways. But hey, everyone is always wrong & stammy is always right.

You statement is factually incorrect. Stammers has agreed with me in past. I welcome and value his posts on the occasions we disagree.