The NCAA will implement a couple of expiramental rule changes during this season's NIT to study their effect on the game.
• 30-second shot clock (instead of the current 35)
• 4 foot restricted area arc under the basket (instead of the current 3 foot)
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ore_sports
Scoring has gone down every year in college basketball. A 30 sec shot clock might increase scoring due to more possessions.
I have been wishing for a 30 second shot clock for years. I also want the ten second count to not reset. Those two things would really help the flow of the game in my opinion.
I'm all for a shorter shot clock. I already know I won't be a fan of a 4ft restricted arc.
And the 35 second shot clock was supposed to increase scoring compared to the 45.
(02-06-2015 04:10 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]I have been wishing for a 30 second shot clock for years. I also want the ten second count to not reset. Those two things would really help the flow of the game in my opinion.
What would be the objection to removing the 10 second (half court) line altogether and just have a 30 or 35 second clock on every possession? If I recall correctly, the international rules don't call for that midcourt line at all.
I'm pretty sure international basketball has an 8 second half court violation. Women's NCAA basketball doesn't last time I checked, but I think they are adding it.
(02-06-2015 06:02 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2015 04:10 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]I have been wishing for a 30 second shot clock for years. I also want the ten second count to not reset. Those two things would really help the flow of the game in my opinion.
What would be the objection to removing the 10 second (half court) line altogether and just have a 30 or 35 second clock on every possession? If I recall correctly, the international rules don't call for that midcourt line at all.
It takes out the literal four corners offense. It needs to be there, and it needs to be enforced at 25 seconds regardless of whether a timeout was called or not
I would prefer going back to the 45 second shot clock, but that is me.
I like it.
A shorter clock creates more urgency, and more possessions. I don't know how I feel about expanding the restricted zone, though.
(02-06-2015 06:24 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]I would prefer going back to the 45 second shot clock, but that is me.
Why?
Because you can work on a better open shot than at 35 seconds & still not be able to stall.
Rushing up more shots may lead to decreased shooting percentages and not really get the desired results.
(02-06-2015 08:38 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]Because you can work on a better open shot than at 35 seconds & still not be able to stall.
You must have loved Mike Davis ball.
(02-06-2015 09:30 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2015 08:38 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]Because you can work on a better open shot than at 35 seconds & still not be able to stall.
You must have loved Mike Davis ball.
Seriously. 30 of seconds is plenty of time to find a good shot.
(02-06-2015 09:30 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2015 08:38 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]Because you can work on a better open shot than at 35 seconds & still not be able to stall.
You must have loved Mike Davis ball.
AJ's last 2 years were pretty good.
(02-06-2015 06:54 PM)Hopeful Wrote: [ -> ]I like it.
A shorter clock creates more urgency, and more possessions. I don't know how I feel about expanding the restricted zone, though.
And most likely more turnovers and sloppy play. Leave the clock alone. Moving the 3pt line back further(NBA) range might help. Too many bad shots being attempted. The goal use to be of working for the best percentage shot, not throwing up a lot of shots from an area that at 35% would be considered great. It was put in to open up things down low. Not saying get rid of it just make it where not every player feels that is their best shot. MB you are the researcher. Go back to 86 ( I think the year the 3pt line was added). Chart the average scores from then to now. The clock was added later which we can also track. Hell I will make it easier for you, just track UAB's games. I just don't seem to see as many mid range shots in college basketball anymore. I like the 3pt shot but cant stand when a bigger guy with a mismatch down low kicks it out for a long range shot.
(02-07-2015 05:19 PM)randy22263 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2015 06:54 PM)Hopeful Wrote: [ -> ]I like it.
A shorter clock creates more urgency, and more possessions. I don't know how I feel about expanding the restricted zone, though.
And most likely more turnovers and sloppy play. Leave the clock alone. Moving the 3pt line back further(NBA) range might help. Too many bad shots being attempted. The goal use to be of working for the best percentage shot, not throwing up a lot of shots from an area that at 35% would be considered great. It was put in to open up things down low. Not saying get rid of it just make it where not every player feels that is their best shot. MB you are the researcher. Go back to 86 ( I think the year the 3pt line was added). Chart the average scores from then to now. The clock was added later which we can also track. Hell I will make it easier for you, just track UAB's games. I just don't seem to see as many mid range shots in college basketball anymore. I like the 3pt shot but cant stand when a bigger guy with a mismatch down low kicks it out for a long range shot.
Sorry, I don't do contract work for free. Unless I like the person.