Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Thoughts on the new 30 second shot clock test?

absinthe

absinthe

Ambitious but rubbish.
Club Member
Junta Member
So with the CBI and NIT both testing a 30 second shot clock we have some decent data from the first few games of those tourneys, this is all from nropp:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>New Shot Clock Experiment through 50 games...

:35 Shot Clock Average: 133 Total Points
:30 Shot Clock Average: 145 Total Points</p>&mdash; nropp (@nropp) <a href="https://twitter.com/nropp/status/580053951464091648">March 23, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>New Shot Clock Experiment through 50 games...

:35 Shot Clock Average: 64.8 possessions
:30 Shot Clock Average: 68.1 possessions</p>&mdash; nropp (@nropp) <a href="https://twitter.com/nropp/status/580053784467873792">March 23, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>New Shot Clock Experiment through 50 games...

:35 Shot Clock Average: 1.02 Efficiency
:30 Shot Clock Average: 1.07 Efficiency</p>&mdash; nropp (@nropp) <a href="https://twitter.com/nropp/status/580054188568219648">March 23, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


I am in favor based on my brief exposure.
 
I'm not a big fan of the NBA 24 second shot clock but I thought the 30 second was a nice compromise. I would just hope it stays there if they change it.
 
International and NBA go 24 seconds...I think NCAA should follow suit....anything to pick up the speed of the game
 
I like 25 but, if some think that is too drastic, how bout say 27 or 28? Kinda a weird number I know.
 
Loved it and makes the full court press even more effective. Cuts down the time for set offense. If we want 40 min of hell, it helps
 
I'm hugely in favor.

In fact, it should be at 24 seconds like it is for the NBA and International basketball. But I'll take 30 as a step in the right direction. 35 seconds is ridiculous for an offensive possession.

Faster basketball is more entertaining basketball.
 
Being the young buck that I am, I had no clue how recent the shot clock was at the college level. Baffles me that it took so long to get it into the rules in the first place, more baffled that it was originally a 45 second clock.
 
'Tini said:
Being the young buck that I am, I had no clue how recent the shot clock was at the college level. Baffles me that it took so long to get it into the rules in the first place, more baffled that it was originally a 45 second clock.
Click to expand...
Better than when there wasn't one lol. 4 corners time once we get 20 points.
 
Anything to give the Buffs a greater sense of urgency and get them moving the ball around a bit better, I am for.
 
BuffLuKe said:
Better than when there wasn't one lol. 4 corners time once we get 20 points.
Click to expand...
I don't remember what I was watching, it was a while ago, but it was talking about baskebtall in the 30's where games would be 10-9 or something like that. Would be torture watching people pass the ball for 40 minutes
 
Seems like, without it, teams dribble the ball around doing nothing for 5 to 10 seconds anyway. The shot clock will eliminate that.
 
Scotch said:
Full court press is where I notice it the most. I like it at 30 seconds.
Click to expand...
Did you see more press? The only game I watched with the 30 was CU'S against GW and didn't notice more pressing there.
I'd like to see more full court D in the college game. If it comes as a result of a shorter clock that's fine. I don't want it to go below 30 though, I like watching "set play offense"
 
hokiehead said:
Did you see more press? The only game I watched with the 30 was CU'S against GW and didn't notice more pressing there.
I'd like to see more full court D in the college game. If it comes as a result of a shorter clock that's fine. I don't want it to go below 30 though, I like watching "set play offense"
Click to expand...

No, didn't seem to be more of it, just more noticeable in how much time was left after breaking the press. Definitely changes that part of the game, and gives teams more incentive to do it.
 
Scotch said:
No, didn't seem to be more of it, just more noticeable in how much time was left after breaking the press. Definitely changes that part of the game, and gives teams more incentive to do it.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. There was not more of it during these games, but made it more effective in my opinion.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
Completely agree. There was not more of it during these games, but made it more effective in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Big difference if a team is breaking a trap just over half court with 22 seconds left on the shot clock versus 27 seconds. Even better is NBA and International where it would be down to 16 seconds at that point.
 
the more i think about it the more I'd like to see the game go to a 24 second shot clock.
 
absinthe said:
the more i think about it the more I'd like to see the game go to a 24 second shot clock.
Click to expand...

trying to think of teams that would be hurt the most (i.e. those that depend on "set play" offenses). The Ivy guys and teams like Holy Cross for sure. A lot of B1G teams, notably Michigan State, wouldn't like it. Krzyzewski would bitch but I suspect Duke would adjust pretty quickly. (hmmm, I suspect I just made a strong case for the 24 second clock in the minds of a lot of Allbuffers)

besides a hit against those offenses, I think teams with short benches would suffer, assuming that the increased up and down the court action wears out the starters quicker. injuries would be even more costly as this isn't the NBA where the team can sign a dude to a 10 day contract.

I'm sure it would make a faster game with more scoring though.

I still think the best rule change would be to call more intentional fouls during the last 90 seconds.
 
This and other proposed rules are designed to favor the more skilled and athletic teams. NCAA has a similar problem as the NBA did during the "Bad Boys" / "Jordan Rules" era. Fortunately, there's a blueprint for fixing this that worked.
 
hokiehead said:
trying to think of teams that would be hurt the most (i.e. those that depend on "set play" offenses). The Ivy guys and teams like Holy Cross for sure. A lot of B1G teams, notably Michigan State, wouldn't like it. Krzyzewski would bitch but I suspect Duke would adjust pretty quickly. (hmmm, I suspect I just made a strong case for the 24 second clock in the minds of a lot of Allbuffers)

besides a hit against those offenses, I think teams with short benches would suffer, assuming that the increased up and down the court action wears out the starters quicker. injuries would be even more costly as this isn't the NBA where the team can sign a dude to a 10 day contract.

I'm sure it would make a faster game with more scoring though.

I still think the best rule change would be to call more intentional fouls during the last 90 seconds.
Click to expand...

It would probably favor the teams with more raw talent. Less talented teams can try to "shorten the game" by burning clock and reducing the number of possessions so you would likely see fewer upsets by schools like the Ivy's.

Is that a bad thing? Depends on if you are a fan of a more highly talented team or one of the underdogs.
 
Related:

[tweet]599268129269817344[/tweet]

[tweet]599269421895520257[/tweet]

All of these things are great. I know [MENTION=945]RumblinBuff[/MENTION] and I have been suggesting moving the restricted arc out for years. Such an obvious solution, at least to me.
 
Love the proposals.

Not sure they're good for CU until we start recruiting blue chip athletes, but while competitiveness may be hurt with rules that favor the most athletic team it's a price I'm willing to pay to see a more entertaining brand of basketball at the college level.
 
Are they going to propose the strict enforcement of defensive rules every year? Until they stay grading refs, this won't be consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top