White Pelican Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I must admit I forgot about it for the first five minutes or so. Both teams just seemed to be moving the ball quickly. Did anyone think it made a difference in the final score? We were known for many years for having a plodding grinding offense that I think wore defenses down. But today's kids (and fans too) like to see some push and razzle-dazzle. So is a 30 second clock a good thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Felt like we saw a lot more possessions make it to the last 10 seconds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zink Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Yesterday's avg possession was 3.35sec shorter than our season average last year. (84 possessions/team vs 68 possessions/team; 14.29sec vs 17.64sec). Don't know how much of that change was caused by the shot clock vs other possible influences (turnovers, change in strategy, etc.), but it's interesting nonetheless. Last year Northwestern State played at the fastest pace, with 78.9 possessions/game for a point of reference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I thought I would have been bothered by the 30 second clock but honestly once the game began I never gave it another thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Crews is against it. He thinks it will actually lead to worse offense and more bad shots. I agree with him. I don't like what is really motivating the power conferences to push this idea. They say it is to make the game better, but I think that is nonsense. You see folks like Coach K among the most vocal pushing this because they don't like getting upset by teams like Mercer in the Big Dance. They feel like more possessions and a quicker game will give the "elite" programs even more of an advantage over smaller programs. Just another attempt to try to stack the deck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Crews is against it. He thinks it will actually lead to worse offense and more bad shots. I agree with him. I don't like what is really motivating the power conferences to push this idea. They say it is to make the game better, but I think that is nonsense. You see folks like Coach K among the most vocal pushing this because they don't like getting upset by teams like Mercer in the Big Dance. They feel like more possessions and a quicker game will give the "elite" programs even more of an advantage over smaller programs. Just another attempt to try to stack the deck. That's absolutely right and let's face it, many SLU teams have made it a priority to slow it down and work for a good shot. I don't think this would be a good thing for the Bills, at least this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 30 seconds would be fine. Some coaches like Shaka want 24 like the NBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No in thunder to 30 second clock!! I oppose the change. It will lead to more and more NBA style shoot em up. Actually it would favor the Dukes of the world, who have the NBA-types who can create shots at any time--whether or not it's a good shot! Teams with zero NBA talent (including many good teams) would be hurt by the new rule. One might argue that a team like SLU last year might benefit, since it would force more turnovers or bad shots. But turn that around and recall how exposed we were at the end of the year, unable to score consistently even with the 35 seconds. 30 would have accentuated that even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No charges called and a thrirty second clock means a bunch of one on one NBA style bullcrap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No charges called and a thrirty second clock means a bunch of one on one NBA style bullcrap +1 Believe Charlie Spoonhour (45 seconds during his time at SLU) said that anything less than 40 seconds would take rational thought out of the game. IMO, 35 seconds is short enough. And yes, the one and done types, the upperclassmen and the Dukes and Kentuckys wouldn't be negatively affected. David and Goliath. The Goliaths (Duke, Kentucky, etc.) would increase their odds of winning but the number of Davids and parity among college basketball would suffer. If say emphatically: NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 While the 30 second clock did not bother me I am not sure I like it. A thought that crossed my mind is that for a team that plays tough defense would benefit from a 30 second clock - it would force the other team to take less productive shots knowing they have less time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 While the 30 second clock did not bother me I am not sure I like it. A thought that crossed my mind is that for a team that plays tough defense would benefit from a 30 second clock - it would force the other team to take less productive shots knowing they have less time. Yes. And teams like VCU which press and make you spend 6 to 9 seconds getting the ball over the halfcourt line then leave you with a short amount of time left to regroup and run your offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 While the 30 second clock did not bother me I am not sure I like it. A thought that crossed my mind is that for a team that plays tough defense would benefit from a 30 second clock - it would force the other team to take less productive shots knowing they have less time. Or another way of looking at is that teams that don't enjoy playing defense now won't have to do it for as long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Or another way of looking at is that teams that don't enjoy playing defense now won't have to do it for as long. At the same time, teams that make defense their identity can defend for less time. Trying that optimism thing about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills By 40 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Crews is against it. He thinks it will actually lead to worse offense and more bad shots. I agree with him. I don't like what is really motivating the power conferences to push this idea. They say it is to make the game better, but I think that is nonsense. You see folks like Coach K among the most vocal pushing this because they don't like getting upset by teams like Mercer in the Big Dance. They feel like more possessions and a quicker game will give the "elite" programs even more of an advantage over smaller programs. Just another attempt to try to stack the deck. That's absolutely right and let's face it, many SLU teams have made it a priority to slow it down and work for a good shot. I don't think this would be a good thing for the Bills, at least this year. Coming out of hibernation to express my hatred for the shortened shot clock. My favorite part of basketball is true, sound, fundamental play and this is just another step towards the extermination of such a style of basketball. Hate to see it moving towards this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Coming out of hibernation to express my hatred for the shortened shot clock. My favorite part of basketball is true, sound, fundamental play and this is just another step towards the extermination of such a style of basketball. Hate to see it moving towards this. This is based on nothing. Teams run misdirection for most of the shot clock. They don't run their "fundamental" offense until late in the clock. This just speeds up that process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Don't the women already use a 30-second possession clock? And don't many people consider the women's game to be more fundamentally sound — whatever that really means — than the men's game? I don't see why a five-second reduction in the possession clock will abolish the game's fundamental skills. Even so, I agree with those that say they don't prefer it. Heck, I wish they'd go back to the 45-second clock and abolish the double bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 This is based on nothing. Teams run misdirection for most of the shot clock. They don't run their "fundamental" offense until late in the clock. This just speeds up that process. +1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Don't the women already use a 30-second possession clock? And don't many people consider the women's game to be more fundamentally sound whatever that really means than the men's game? I don't see why a five-second reduction in the possession clock will abolish the game's fundamental skills. Even so, I agree with those that say they don't prefer it. Heck, I wish they'd go back to the 45-second clock and abolish the double bonus. The women don't have 10 second half court rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Is there a more overrated issue in sports? In general I am against shortening it too, but the last 5 or 10 seconds on the shot clock is going to be the same regardless. The only question is how long it takes to get to that point in the possession. 45 seconds vs. 30 (or 35 vs. 24) definitely makes a difference. I don't think knocking 5 seconds off is worth getting worked up over either way, and I don't see college ball going to 24 seconds any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The women don't have 10 second half court rule I think that changed last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 At the same time, teams that make defense their identity can defend for less time. Trying that optimism thing about it... I believe that was the point of my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 -my take is the rules in the book need to be called before experimenting with new ones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.