JB right college needs a new shot clock: SU in lowest scoring games in 60 years

[Orangeyes]

SWC was on the radio the other day with a great statistical breakdown over the years

Remember when it used to be 100 points for fries, then 75 for Tacos

Next it'll be 60 for a donut

I don't watch as much college basketball as I did in the past because it's like watching paint dry.

Another factor is conference change, the games have lost their meaning.

The other day while watching the end of the St. John's-Creighton game they showed the Big East standings.

I kept looking for Louisville saying to myself, are they in a different division as the two above. Then it finally dawned on me that the Cards are in the AAC for one year, duh and ugh.

Slow jam: The Syracuse Orange has won more low-scoring games than any time in last 60 years

 

[Pat Kelly]

SWC was on the radio the other day with a great statistical breakdown over the years

Slow jam: The Syracuse Orange has won more low-scoring games than any time in last 60 years

I can't stand the NBA as it is, so can we please not change college basketball to make it more like that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think a 30 second shot clock would be a great thing.

 

[Orangeyes]

Boeheim: It's a great thing. The best thing is the new charge rule, because if you've noticed, people are not trying to take charges. I'd like to see a 24-second shot clock. Twenty-four seconds is enough time to get a good shot, but I don't think they'll go for that.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...m-syracuse-duke-north-carolina/#ixzz2t2I4P6AG

"We've talked about a shot-clock for a long time,'' Boeheim said. "Thirty (seconds) would be OK; 24 would be a lot better.''
From the PS story

 

[orangefan13]

just a observation, shortening the shot clock would shorten the air out the ball late in games. I am all for shortening the clock a few seconds though.

 

[Fly Rodder]

SU is just as responsible this year. Ennis runs a very methodical offense and eats up a lot of clock. It's not just the SU opponents burning clock. SU doesn't stand around the arc and pass the ball around, but they're running and gunning either.

 

[orangeinohio]

Is this just an ACC issue or in all conferences?

 

[dasher]

Boeheim: It's a great thing. The best thing is the new charge rule, because if you've noticed, people are not trying to take charges. I'd like to see a 24-second shot clock. Twenty-four seconds is enough time to get a good shot, but I don't think they'll go for that.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...m-syracuse-duke-north-carolina/#ixzz2t2I4P6AG

"We've talked about a shot-clock for a long time,'' Boeheim said. "Thirty (seconds) would be OK; 24 would be a lot better.''
From the PS story

self serving from jb. It takes more time to beat a zone. 24 second shot clock would bring less scoring in the college game. The players just aren't good enough to get and make shots. There was more scoring without any shot clock. 35 is just fine. If someone doesn't love the college game as it is, don't change it for them. That idea hasn't worked for hockey.

 

[Pat Kelly]

self serving from jb. It takes more time to beat a zone. 24 second shot clock would bring less scoring in the college game. The players just aren't good enough to get and make shots. There was more scoring without any shot clock. 35 is just fine. If someone doesn't love the college game as it is, don't change it for them. That idea hasn't worked for hockey.

Good point

 

[two3zone]

Teams can't find a good shot with the current shot clock against the zone. He is being greedy because he knows nobody would score at all against a zone with only 24 to shoot. If they do 24 seconds I'll bet there is a defensive 3 second rule added at the same time.

We would dominate with a shorter clock even more than we've been dominating.

 

[moqui]

the reason basketball scoring is down is because talent is so diffuse. The best players used to go to a relatively small number of schools and stay for several years. The very best still go to a small number of schools, but they leave early, and the second level talent is more widely distributed. You end up with a lot of teams who only have one or two guys who can make shots, and that makes them easy to defend. Except on those nights when someone gets hot, most games are grinders and a lot of them are pure rock fights.

 

[PoppyHart]

I think this is one of those inverted U curve situations that Gladwell discusses in David and Goliath. I think the quality of play would increase at 30 vs. 35, but deteriorate at 24 vs. 35. Scoring would likely increase given the sheer number of possessions, but turnovers would rise and fg%s etc.. would fall in my view, creating a sloppier product.

 

[Mano22]

Completely agree with JB on this one. When teams just pass it around the arc for 15 seconds before running their offense it is (a) not in the spirit of the game and (b) just brutal to watch. I get why they do it. If you are a big underdog you want the game to be as short as possible, and doing this effectively cuts 5-10 mins out of the game. It is currently legal to do this, but it should not be. I would prefer even bad/rushed offense to no offense at all, which in a lot of these games is what we get.

 

[FreeFries100]

SWC was on the radio the other day with a great statistical breakdown over the years

Remember when it used to be 100 points for fries, then 75 for Tacos

Next it'll be 60 for a donut

I don't watch as much college basketball as I did in the past because it's like watching paint dry.

Another factor is conference change, the games have lost their meaning.

The other day while watching the end of the St. John's-Creighton game they showed the Big East standings.

I kept looking for Louisville saying to myself, are they in a different division as the two above. Then it finally dawned on me that the Cards are in the AAC for one year, duh and ugh.

Slow jam: The Syracuse Orange has won more low-scoring games than any time in last 60 years

Oh ya, I remember when 100 pts got you free Micky D fries...

 

[Millhouse]

self serving from jb. It takes more time to beat a zone. 24 second shot clock would bring less scoring in the college game. The players just aren't good enough to get and make shots. There was more scoring without any shot clock. 35 is just fine. If someone doesn't love the college game as it is, don't change it for them. That idea hasn't worked for hockey.

it would bring down shooting % but it wouldn't bring down scoring. the increased number of shots would swamp the difficulty of the shots, I think

part of the reason boeheim takes the air out of the ball at the end of a game is because the difference between a good shot and a bad shot isn't that great.

i think it's self serving for boeheim not because of the zone, but because Syracuse is always great.

teams that are better per possession on both ends want more possessions. amplifies their advantage.

 

[upperdeck]

its hard to say teams would score less when they spend 15-20 not attacking the zone at all. shorter clock means you have to attack, more mistakes , more run outs, more scoring on FB.. just because we dont attack as fast doesnt mean we arent moving the ball, running cuts/screens trying to get open. other than the end of the game we dont tend to waste half the shot clock like teams do against us.

 

[Garbs]

Teams can't find a good shot with the current shot clock against the zone. He is being greedy because he knows nobody would score at all against a zone with only 24 to shoot. If they do 24 seconds I'll bet there is a defensive 3 second rule added at the same time.

We would dominate with a shorter clock even more than we've been dominating.

I don't agree with this, like others have said, teams don't attack until there are less than 24 seconds on the clock anyway

 

[BuffOrange]

i think it's self serving for boeheim not because of the zone, but because Syracuse is always great.

teams that are better per possession on both ends want more possessions. amplifies their advantage.

This. Every coach with better players than most of their opponents would be in favor of this.

 

[shandeezy7]

self serving from jb. It takes more time to beat a zone. 24 second shot clock would bring less scoring in the college game. The players just aren't good enough to get and make shots. There was more scoring without any shot clock. 35 is just fine. If someone doesn't love the college game as it is, don't change it for them. That idea hasn't worked for hockey.

I think 24 seconds is excessive, but a 30 second shot clock would improve scoring imo. That extra 5 seconds isn't helping teams attack the zone, or any other defense for that matter. It's just helping them stall the ball up top, especially in end of game situations. 30 second shot clock would force teams to push it up court a little quicker and get into their offense faster. That could be only beneficial I'd think.

 

[two3zone]

I don't agree with this, like others have said, teams don't attack until there are less than 24 seconds on the clock anyway

Teams that play against us don't attack because they have trouble finding seams against us, passing the ball around until they find the exact moment of one of our men being out of position. If we're forcing shot clock violations with a 35 second clock, we'll probably be forcing either more of them or teams will be taking many more I'll advised shots. Zone offenses take time to develop in the half court. A shorter clock does an offense no favors against a zone defense.

 

[NKR1978]

I think 24 seconds is excessive, but a 30 second shot clock would improve scoring imo. That extra 5 seconds isn't helping teams attack the zone, or any other defense for that matter. It's just helping them stall the ball up top, especially in end of game situations. 30 second shot clock would force teams to push it up court a little quicker and get into their offense faster. That could be only beneficial I'd think.

My ideal would be 30 seconds for the first shot of a possession but only 24 after a miss.

Bilas has a great point that men's college basketball is the slowest high level basketball in the world. Everyone else plays with a shorter clock. The women can manage with 30. No reason the men can't.

 

[Libero2]

SU is just as responsible this year. Ennis runs a very methodical offense and eats up a lot of clock. It's not just the SU opponents burning clock. SU doesn't stand around the arc and pass the ball around, but they're running and gunning either.

I think JB is doing it purposefully. He knows our defense is too damn good for opposing teams to score 65 on us. So if we limit the game to 60 possessions, we are going to win a whole heck of a lot more than we lose.

 

[orangehipfan]

the first Miami game this year was very low scoring. as much on SU as Miami. most of our offensive possessions were very long as well as for Miami. each team has many options to speed up play (full court press, half court traps etc) if they choose. I remember games with no shot clock or 3 point line where typical scores were much higher. shooting was much more a priority and without researching, many players seemed to have mid range games where today it seems most either dunk or shoot 3's (cj is an exception). not sure a shorter clock would change the game much if put to 30 seconds. 24 would really be bad for college hoops in my opinion.