Games like today are why college hoops has to reduce the shot clock

[Alsacs]

Clemson had no interest playing basketball in the 2nd half. There offense was to burn 25 seconds every possession and then chuck it up and either make it or rebound and kill more clock.
Give Clemson credit for their 39 points in the first half but they played stall ball for an entire half. It just kills the game. Reduce the shot clock to 24 or 30 as 35 seconds is too long.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Why, so we can miss more shots than we already did today?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Why, so we can miss more shots than we already did today?

I'll take it.

 

[Eric15]

Clemson had no interest playing basketball in the 2nd half.

We had no interest in playing basketball in the first half, so it more or less evens out.

(I'd be fine with a 30 second shot clock)

 

[Alsacs]

We had no interest in playing basketball in the first half, so it more or less evens out.

(I'd be fine with a 30 second shot clock)

I disagree we played poorly in the first half. Clemson in the 2nd half took advantage of the 35 second shot clock. Now they deserved to do so because they played well in the first half. However, all they did was dribble 20-25 seconds every possession and completely ran the clock down and shortened the game. What they did was smart but it just makes me want to see the shot clock reduced.

 

[Madbiker]

I agree about the clock but it would have made no difference today. They beat us in every phase of the game.

 

[GardenOrange]

I disagree we played poorly in the first half. Clemson in the 2nd half took advantage of the 35 second shot clock. Now they deserved to do so because they played well in the first half. However, all they did was dribble 20-25 seconds every possession and completely ran the clock down and shortened the game. What they did was smart but it just makes me want to see the shot clock reduced.

I would say the onus is on Cuse to take them out of the stall offense by applying pressure defense. We did this eventually but it is not a shot clock issue in my opinion. We have to have the ability to play multiple defenses depending on the situation/score. Just playing 2-3 or full court press is not enough. We did show some pressure zone, but it was like a last-ditch desperation move. We should throw that defense at teams 5-6 times in the first half of games.

 

[Jasoncuse]

This change is not something that would help SU. We've had such bad offensive teams the past few years that it would only speed up the ugliness.

 

[CusefanATL]

Clemson had no interest playing basketball in the 2nd half. There offense was to burn 25 seconds every possession and then chuck it up and either make it or rebound and kill more clock.

Easy to do vs the zone. Don't like it, put some pressure on them.

 

[CusefanATL]

This change is not something that would help SU. We've had such bad offensive teams the past few years that it would only speed up the ugliness.

Chopping the shot clock would absolutely help a 2-3 zone team.

 

[obliterata]

I don't like the shot clock, never did, I think it hurts the game and should be eliminated. Instead I'd decrease the square footage of the offensive area by putting a line on the floor 39 feet or thereabouts from the baseline. A smaller area would make it harder to play at a slow pace.

I might move the baseline back to be equal with the stanchion. This would create more room behind the basket which I believe would lead to more scoring. If this was done I'd change the 39-foot line to about 33.

The 39 and 33 may have to be adjusted, I'm just guesstimating sensible distances.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Shot clock eliminated ?


Okaaaaay

 

[obliterata]

Yes, eliminated. A smaller offensive area would put pressure on a team trying to stall. The defense would not have to go as far to cover the court, double team, get in passing lanes, etc and the offense couldn't have players out by midcourt because anything beyond the 39-foot line would be in the backcourt and a turnover.

 

[44cuse]

Clemson had no interest playing basketball in the 2nd half. There offense was to burn 25 seconds every possession and then chuck it up and either make it or rebound and kill more clock. Give Clemson credit for their 39 points in the first half but they played stall ball for an entire half. It just kills the game. Reduce the shot clock to 24 or 30 as 35 seconds is too long.

You're serious? Have you watched a SYR game in the last 20 yrs? That's EXACTLY what JB would have done.

I swear, this board is ridiculous. JB plays stall ball and he is a mathematical genius because he can count possessions. We suck in the 1H and someone does it to us...then it's "change the shot clock."

44cuse

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Yes, eliminated. A smaller offensive area would put pressure on a team trying to stall. The defense would not have to go as far to cover the court, double team, get in passing lanes, etc and the offense couldn't have players out by midcourt because anything beyond the 39-foot line would be in the backcourt and a turnover.

Or you could just slick up the ball with vats of vaseline which would make it hard for the offense to maintain possession without turning it over.

 

[doc05]

You're serious? Have you watched a SYR game in the last 20 yrs? That's EXACTLY what JB would have done.

I swear, this board is ridiculous. JB plays stall ball and he is a mathematical genius because he can count possessions. We suck in the 1H and someone does it to us...then it's "change the shot clock."

44cuse

THIS!!

 

[Alsacs]

You're serious? Have you watched a SYR game in the last 20 yrs? That's EXACTLY what JB would have done.

I swear, this board is ridiculous. JB plays stall ball and he is a mathematical genius because he can count possessions. We suck in the 1H and someone does it to us...then it's "change the shot clock."

44cuse

No I have never watched an SU game. What. JB plays stallball with 5 minutes left to shorten the game. He wouldn't do it for an entire half which Clemson did.

I mean seriously do you read this board. I have been advocating the shot clock be reduced for the past 2 years. Good god I am not reacting to one game. However, Clemson did run the stall for an entire half and I freaking said they played well in the first half so they had a right.

 

[adk(roc)CUSE]

You're serious? Have you watched a SYR game in the last 20 yrs? That's EXACTLY what JB would have done.

I swear, this board is ridiculous. JB plays stall ball and he is a mathematical genius because he can count possessions. We suck in the 1H and someone does it to us...then it's "change the shot clock."

44cuse

I think you completely misinterpreted the point of his post.

College hoops has become such a slow down ugly form of basketball. I also think they should reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds.

 

[RF2044]

This change is not something that would help SU. We've had such bad offensive teams the past few years that it would only speed up the ugliness.

It absolutely is something that would help SU. We play a defense that teams strategize against to kill clock and shorten the game. They wouldn't be able to do that as readily with a 30 second shot clock.

 

[44cuse]

I think you completely misinterpreted the point of his post.

College hoops has become such a slow down ugly form of basketball. I also think they should reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds.

Perhaps I did, but I don't think that changes the point. College Basketball is pretty awful, I would (and have said so multiple times) agree. And the shot clock would help there. But speeding up the game is not the only answer. And, JB is the king of reducing possessions. Alsacs in particular may not be one of those one of those folks, but that argument has been made by this group in JB's defense since before this board was around.

44cuse

 

[44cuse]

No I have never watched an SU game. What. JB plays stallball with 5 minutes left to shorten the game. He wouldn't do it for an entire half which Clemson did.

I mean seriously do you read this board. I have been advocating the shot clock be reduced for the past 2 years. Good god I am not reacting to one game. However, Clemson did run the stall for an entire half and I freaking said they played well in the first half so they had a right.

Sorry, I lumped you in with the rest of the dolts that come out of the woodwork and are hypocritical about something SU does when it happens TO SU.

No, I don't read every one of your posts and no I did not associate you with a multi-yr campaign against the shot clock. If that;s the case, good...you are right. The only place I would disagree is that I don't think JB slows the game down with at the 5 minute mark. But i know that wasn't your point.

44cuse

 

[reedny]

I disagree we played poorly in the first half. Clemson in the 2nd half took advantage of the 35 second shot clock. Now they deserved to do so because they played well in the first half. However, all they did was dribble 20-25 seconds every possession and completely ran the clock down and shortened the game. What they did was smart but it just makes me want to see the shot clock reduced.

Teams are going to use the rules to their advantage. In fact, half the teams we play use stall ball -- the ole' 34-Chuck offense. A thirty second SC would reduce the ugliness ... but at the end of the day, we still have to score, get out on their shooters and rebound the basketball.

From an offensive standpoint, we all knew this was coming (and there's more pain on the way). The word is out on TC and better teams are going to face-guard him all day. We didn't do a good job of screening for him and he just couldn't shake his guy. That happens. You have to have someone else to go to ... and we don't (no offense to KJ who played hard).

On a more positive note, you have to love watching Rak play this year -- doubled, tripled, banged, held, hacked, disrespected .. it doesn't matter. Man just goes to work.