ESPN-rules commitee boss shot is likely going from 35 to 30.

[FrancoPizza]

30 is still too long. Go to 27 if 24 is too short. also move that stupid 3 point line back to the point that it actually takes real skill to hit one

Hopefully the 3 point line gets moved back in a year or two to FIBA or NBA distance... I think it moved 6 inches the first time? It sounds like they want to experiment before they feel comfortable making permanent changes. Rule changes move slower than a new FDA drug coming to the market.

But whenever they do move it back, the biggest benefit is not increasing the difficulty of that shot but instead opening up the mid-range game.

 

[reedny]

We're going to get blown out now! Teams always score on us when the shot clock gets below 5 seconds. I mean it's like 75% chance they are scoring. Well now that situation will happen all the more frequently every game.

Or maybe less frequently b/c they have 14% less time to organize and get off a shot, and we have 14% less time to play D.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Hopefully the 3 point line gets moved back in a year or two to FIBA or NBA distance... I think it moved 6 inches the first time? It sounds like they want to experiment before they feel comfortable making permanent changes. Rule changes move slower than a new FDA drug coming to the market.

But whenever they do move it back, the biggest benefit is not increasing the difficulty of that shot but instead opening up the mid-range game.

The NBA for a short time in the mid 90'(94-97)s shortened the three point line and the result was an immediate increase in more three point shots. In 97-98 the moved the line back to it's original distance and immediately threes decreased, but this doesn't tell the whole story. In 96-97 five players made over 200 threes. This year with the line 21 inches further out 5 guys still made over 200 threes.

You can move the three point line back and you will see an initial decrease in threes made and attempted, but players will adjust to the line, just like they did in the NBA. The mid range shot will remain an inefficient shot as long as there is a three pointer. Even the best shooters only currently make around 40% of 15-18 footers. So even if someone shoots 30% from three, that player will be more efficient than your typical mid-range shooter.

The best reason for moving back the line is to increase spacing and free up driving/cutting lanes.

 

[Hoo's That]

People can disagree. I'm not convinced that reducing the shot clock to :30 secs is going to have the desired effect. We may just end up with more missed shots and a few additional empty possessions per team each game.

IMO Eliminate the physical play if you want to do something that is more likely to improve offense.

 

[pearl31]

Eliminate things like a "pack line" perpetually using the contact of hips/shoulders/chests to play defense.

 

[PhatOrange]

stop all the GD hand checking

 

[73CAV]

Personally, I feel that this change is not going to have the desired effect. It will increase the emphasis by some coaches on defense. If a team can create a shot clock violation at 35 seconds, what can they accomplish if the opponent only has 30? There will always be teams that simply dribble the ball around the perimeter until 10 seconds are left on the clock before they initiate any semblance of an offense. And those same teams will continue to be marginalized. I expect more bad attempts and more clock violations, and I imagine scoring will decline.

 

[CU44SE]

30 seconds is still too long in my opinion, idk if 24 seconds is the right decision either. I think a happy medium would be 27, split the difference. FIBA and NBA both have 24 second shot clocks and women's game has 30 second shot clocks, absolutely absurd that mens basketball is 35 seconds currently.

 

[Millhouse]

This a thousand times.

if they're just going to miss the shot, I'd still rather them waste 5 seconds less to do it.

 

[Macky44]

I like that the college game has more time to shoot, but i believe this can only help Syracuse more because the zone will make it difficult to get an offense set and a good shot off in 30 or less seconds.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Should be 20 seconds on offensive rebound

 

[Hoo's That]

Should be 20 seconds on offensive rebound

Agree. I'd like to see a shorter shot clock after an offensive rebound regardless of what decision they make about changing the present 35 seconds.

 

[pfister1]

I would love to see a stat that showed the percentage of possessions that were 30+ seconds without a shot being taken?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

30 second click, needs to run as soon as offense gets ball out of basket.

No more 5 second call on in bounds.

No more restarting 10 second count when TO called in backcourt.

No TOs granted during live balls.

 

[MSOrange]

30 second click, needs to run as soon as offense gets ball out of basket.

No more 5 second call on in bounds.

No more restarting 10 second count when TO called in backcourt.

No TOs granted during live balls.

I agree with #3 for sure. The other ideas are interesting but I'd have to think about some more.

 

[pfister1]

30 second click, needs to run as soon as offense gets ball out of basket.

No more 5 second call on in bounds.

No more restarting 10 second count when TO called in backcourt.

No TOs granted during live balls.

More offense may not be the reason you are suggesting it, but #3 rewards the defense, it isn't going to improve offense any.

Are you talking about bench timeouts, or even the player in possession of the ball can't get a TO? After a 10 point run coach would have to wait for a foul or turnover to get a TO?

 

[Knicks411]

More offense may not be the reason you are suggesting it, but #3 rewards the defense, it isn't going to improve offense any.

Are you talking about bench timeouts, or even the player in possession of the ball can't get a TO? After a 10 point run coach would have to wait for a foul or turnover to get a TO?

FIBA rule is you can only call timeouts at deadballs; though I think you can score one directly after a basket by the other team.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The NBA for a short time in the mid 90'(94-97)s shortened the three point line and the result was an immediate increase in more three point shots. In 97-98 the moved the line back to it's original distance and immediately threes decreased, but this doesn't tell the whole story. In 96-97 five players made over 200 threes. This year with the line 21 inches further out 5 guys still made over 200 threes.

You can move the three point line back and you will see an initial decrease in threes made and attempted, but players will adjust to the line, just like they did in the NBA. The mid range shot will remain an inefficient shot as long as there is a three pointer. Even the best shooters only currently make around 40% of 15-18 footers. So even if someone shoots 30% from three, that player will be more efficient than your typical mid-range shooter.

The best reason for moving back the line is to increase spacing and free up driving/cutting lanes.

It will limit who shoots threes. I dont suspect the number of threes will necessarily change that much, however I believe fewer shooters will be taking more shots. And those shooters will tend to be the better shooters.

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

After seeing college football teams put the pedal to the metal with spread offenses, often initiated by small schools with lesser talent... I have no doubt this will lead to a much better product.

 

[OrangeMuskyFish]

... perhaps I should say be more successful in increasing the dynamics and scoring of the current product... "better" might be a bit too general and optimistic

 

[Orangezoo]

I think the reduced shot clock should at a minimum reduce the amount of physical play in the half court due to sheer lack of time and pace of play. With that said they have to stop letting defenders have their hands all over the ball carriers or the cutters when they are pressing ( Louisville a perfect example.. Nova another etc). I also think they should adopt the half court side out rule that the NBA has for the end of games. There is just too much physicality inbounding the ball late in games that goes un noticed ( like Trevor vs Nova). For those pivotal situations, shrink the space the officials need to be watching to help them get it right more frequently. And finally - move to a 6 foul DQ so we see less of the shady foul figures like we saw in Wisky vs Duke as well some of our past games where it appears the officials are playing catchup to add fouls to the other team when their opponent has a star nailed with 2 early.

 

[TinyManInside]

The boss of the NCAA rules committee was shot with an anti-aging gun, turning him from a 35 year old to a 30 year old?

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The boss of the NCAA rules committee was shot with an anti-aging gun, turning him from a 35 year old to a 30 year old?

Apparently he was also shot with an anti logic device. This quote just makes no sense to me:

Byrd said he was more in favor of keeping the shot clock at 35 seconds but added that in college basketball, there is a tendency to waste 15 seconds before there is an effort to score.

"There's a lot of inactivity in some coaches' approach to offense," he said. "I do think the shot clock would help with that. There would be more flow."

OK. So he says he prefers the clock to remain at 35 seconds, and then lists why it would be better to reduce it to 30 seconds . Is he saying he prefers a game where the coach's waste time and there is less flow? If so...he should be in favor or raising the time to 45

 

[Cusefan0307]

If the shot clock is such a problem, why did teams average more points per game when the clock was at 45 seconds, or when there was no clock?

This is like putting a band aid on a broken bone. They are not even addressing the problem, which is too much physical play/handchecking, and incompetent officiating.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Should be 20 seconds on offensive rebound

I'm not sure we want to overburden shot clock operators with such nuances... some of those blokes look like they wandered out of Morgan's at 2am.