What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Shot Clock - Reducing to 24 Seconds

Should the NCAA Reduce the Shot Clock to 24 Seconds?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 45.6%
  • No

    Votes: 31 54.4%

  • Total voters
    57
I like the 30 second idea. It would give coaches (and teams) a chance to reset if their initial play didn't work; this also gives coaches a little extra time to do what they do.

24 seconds is too short .... it's too nba'ish. Few pro teams run any kind of press unless it's late in the game. Subtract the 10 second back court requirement and the short clock would leave a team with 10 - 12 seconds to run a play. That increases to 18 - 20 (roughly) with a 30 second clock. The kids learn to advance the ball, set and run a play, and then reset, adjust, and run something else in an effort to score. Makes more sense...
 
This is a great thread ... it's why AB is the best basketball forum in the Buff universe (and in contention for the Pac 12 crown IMO).

Lots of well-informed opinions ... even those I disagree with. :smile2:
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating parity. I prefer a survival of the fittest approach. But I also know that in a world driven by advertising revenue, more teams in contention equals more ticket sales and more viewers.

As for the officiating argument, I agree to an extent, but I also think that defensive approach is more effective against younger, more mistake-prone players. There's also a lack of quality bigs to counter defensive pressure. Any kid who's 6'10" or taller and can run and jump is in the NBA before they have the opportunity to develop their game. That lack of quality post play certainly impacts scoring.

It's funny that I seem to be negative about parity, but you won't find a bigger advocate for parity than me. I want more parity than there already is.
 
It's funny that I seem to be negative about parity, but you won't find a bigger advocate for parity than me. I want more parity than there already is.

If teams get there the right way- recruiting solid players and developing them, teaching fundamentals, etc.- then yeah, I like having a lot of really good basketball schools. My problem is that the powers that be tend to try to create parity through exactly the kinds of things you're talking about, like officiating games differently, favoring teams that neutralize talent instead of those that develop it, and sticking with a longer shot clock to slow the pace of games.
 
NO! Just about any rule that would make the college game more like the NBA I am against. Firmly against.
 
NO! Just about any rule that would make the college game more like the NBA I am against. Firmly against.
Are you saying you are ok with the officiating in college? Just wondering because one of the biggest complainrs about the college game, and it's a valid one, is that the refs aren't properly enforcing hand checking rules.
 
Are you saying you are ok with the officiating in college? Just wondering because one of the biggest complainrs about the college game, and it's a valid one, is that the refs aren't properly enforcing hand checking rules.

Absolutely not. The officiating is horrible but that is not the fault of the rules. I think the officiating in the NBA is horrible too. Should the NBA get rid of the traveling rule because the refs let NBA'ers step 5 times without dribbling? No. They need to enforce the damn rules!

You don't change the rules because the refs are idiots. The powers (conf. commissioners, ncaa, etc) need to come down on the refs when they are not calling the game as it should be called. that hand check rule is just as controversial as the charging/blocking rules. They are so subjective and often called wrong.

It's a very hard game to officiate I'm sure. I wouldn't want to do it (but I do anyways from the bleachers!) But that is what they get paid for, to enforce the rules of the game to the best of their ability.
 
Absolutely not. The officiating is horrible but that is not the fault of the rules. I think the officiating in the NBA is horrible too. Should the NBA get rid of the traveling rule because the refs let NBA'ers step 5 times without dribbling? No. They need to enforce the damn rules!

You don't change the rules because the refs are idiots. The powers (conf. commissioners, ncaa, etc) need to come down on the refs when they are not calling the game as it should be called. that hand check rule is just as controversial as the charging/blocking rules. They are so subjective and often called wrong.

It's a very hard game to officiate I'm sure. I wouldn't want to do it (but I do anyways from the bleachers!) But that is what they get paid for, to enforce the rules of the game to the best of their ability.

Really the only way to change the way teams play is for refs to start whistling everything. Does that mean we're going to see games where there are 50 fouls called. Probably, but they need to change it somehow.
 
24 seconds shot clock. But they also have to do away with possession arrow rules. It should be a jump ball if it is a tie up.
 
24 seconds shot clock. But they also have to do away with possession arrow rules. It should be a jump ball if it is a tie up.

I don't want to go back to the jump ball on every tie-up. It would slow the game too much. Inside the last 2 minutes of the game is, I think, what Vitale has lobbied for to go back to jump balls. I don't know. It wouldn't seem fair to me if my team played great defense in the last minute and tied up the ball with a couple seconds on the shot clock only to lose the possession because the other squad had some Ralph Sampson-like freak of nature to do the jump ball.
 
I don't want to go back to the jump ball on every tie-up. It would slow the game too much. Inside the last 2 minutes of the game is, I think, what Vitale has lobbied for to go back to jump balls. I don't know. It wouldn't seem fair to me if my team played great defense in the last minute and tied up the ball with a couple seconds on the shot clock only to lose the possession because the other squad had some Ralph Sampson-like freak of nature to do the jump ball.
If you follow NBA rules, the players involved with the tie-up would jump, so coaches can't pick like they do to open the game.
 
Really the only way to change the way teams play is for refs to start whistling everything. Does that mean we're going to see games where there are 50 fouls called. Probably, but they need to change it somehow.

I agree but the 50 fouls a game would only happen for a very short period of time before the players adjusted to it. They would have to or they would be sitting on the bench before half time.

When you have rules that the refs only call when they feel like it, that is when, at the minimum, they open themselves up to criticism and at worst they can influence the games to whichever team they want to.

I love college basketball but the refereeing is infuriating most of the time due to their lackadaisical effort in enforcing the rules.
 
If you follow NBA rules, the players involved with the tie-up would jump, so coaches can't pick like they do to open the game.

Even so. I wouldn't want to see a guy like Ski tie up a guy like Noel and have it turn into a bail out.
 
Officials are so bad at throwing the ball up it really turns into a random unfair situation. A lot of times players end up hitting it on its way up.
 
Absolutely not. The officiating is horrible but that is not the fault of the rules. I think the officiating in the NBA is horrible too. Should the NBA get rid of the traveling rule because the refs let NBA'ers step 5 times without dribbling? No. They need to enforce the damn rules!

You don't change the rules because the refs are idiots. The powers (conf. commissioners, ncaa, etc) need to come down on the refs when they are not calling the game as it should be called. that hand check rule is just as controversial as the charging/blocking rules. They are so subjective and often called wrong.

It's a very hard game to officiate I'm sure. I wouldn't want to do it (but I do anyways from the bleachers!) But that is what they get paid for, to enforce the rules of the game to the best of their ability.

Agree with Buff 190 on both his post.

First I don't want CBB to try to be the NBA. Over the years I have found myself much less interested in the NBA, it just bores me with run it up and chiuck it most of the season then in the playoffs it becomes wrestle and grab to force the opponent to toss up some crap at the end of the shot clock.

Officiating is an issue, maybe the issue, but it isn't because of the clock rules it is how the games are called.

I also agree with figuring out a way to deal with the one and done guys. Getting an agreement with the NBA that allows a kid to go D-league directly out of HS or requires at least 3 years would result in a much better college game and improve the NBA game by giving players a chance to develop their fundamentals before going to the league.

There are some differences but the system works fairly well for hockey, both college and the NHL.
 


Anybody who voted "yes" want to change their vote now? Dumbasses should have waited to see what Tad had to say on the matter, shouldn't you?
 
Anybody who voted "yes" want to change their vote now? Dumbasses should have waited to see what Tad had to say on the matter, shouldn't you?
I personally think Tad's answer was simplified without much background. I want a full explanation before that statement convinces me. Unlikely to do so, but I still would like a better explanation of his reasoning.
 
I personally think Tad's answer was simplified without much background. I want a full explanation before that statement convinces me. Unlikely to do so, but I still would like a better explanation of his reasoning.

Agreed, with Tad's teams defensive intensity and the concept of playing an up-tempo style on offense nobody would benefit more from a shortened clock than Tad.
 
Agreed, with Tad's teams defensive intensity and the concept of playing an up-tempo style on offense nobody would benefit more from a shortened clock than Tad.

I think he's reacting as a fan of the college game rather than as a coach in his current situation. So many upsets that have defined the sport (e.g., NC State over Houston & Villanova over Georgetown, among many others) would never have happened if there had been a 30 second shot clock for those games. Tad is absolutely right that this rule change would reduce parity. It would be much more about talent and much less about coaches defining the sport.
 
Back
Top