Youth players internationally are able to manage just fine. It encourages quicker decision making and better basketball.
I think it would be a huge benefit for the quality of play, even if there’s a transition.
3 Likes
Do you really think it would improve the quality of play when Tray or TWill or Brandon Johns or Tschetter catches the ball with 5 seconds left and has to make a play since they won’t have enough time to pass it to someone else? Just about every pro can get a reasonable look in that scenario. There are a lot of college basketball players who will throw up an extremely low quality shot or just turn it over.
I’m skeptical that it would improve the product. I think it would make it worse. There aren’t many CBB players who can get a bucket on their own outside the framework of an offense. In fact, Michigan might only have like 1.5 players on the court this year who could do anything with the basketball after a play breaks down in a late clock scenario. But if the goal is just to increase possessions and scoring rather than improve the quality of shots then it would achieve that.
3 Likes
Those youth players internationally grow up with a shot clock, right? Going from HS and AAU with no clock to 24 is a huge adjustment. Not saying it wouldn’t be interesting, but it is low on my personal list of changes I would make.
1 Like
Some states are already getting shot clocks. We have it in Georgia
Playing without a shot clock in high school is even more absurd.
I know that EYBL at least has a shot clock. Many states are getting there too.
3 Likes
I think the focus would be on running quicker offense and wasting less time.
Focusing on individual shot creation is missing the point IMO. FIBA basketball is quick and works with the shorter shot clock despite the fact that everyone accepts there’s far less emphasis on one on one shot creation.
I think you’d just see more jack@ss coaches throw junk presses out that kill 8-10 seconds and result in halfcourt offenses not even existing
4 Likes
Yeah, teams would have to adjust to presses.
You also wouldn’t see people deliberately walking the ball up, slowing down games to 60 possessions, going out of their way to stall before running offense, etc.
The shift to 30 clearly helped IMO. Good read here:
1 Like
“But I’d rather watch bad players dribble the clock out because it’s all they can do” is a weird argument to make as a steward of basketball
If they can’t play the game, then…I don’t know man
1 Like
1 Like
They are definitely difficult buy games. Pember is a beast for UNC Asheville and YSU has a good transfer class and runs really good offense.
3 Likes
It might also be a death blow to Wisconsin basketball. Bringing us one step closer to harmony on Earth.
4 Likes
Let’s review a bit of data about the shot clock and scoring.
Total points scored in the NCAA championship game from 1970-1979 were 1507 or 84 points per team. From 2010-2019 total points scored were 1333 or 74 points per team.
The idea that a shot clock results in more scoring may be flawed.
2 Likes
What about the 30years you omitted 
2 Likes
Or what about judging scoring in a sport based on the national title game only? 
3 Likes
That 53-41 title game in 2011 is really bringing down the 10s’ average.
3 Likes
Oh I missed “championship game” part
Data WAS used though
That game was so bad. Has to be one of the worst championship games ever.
2 Likes
Feel free to plot that out. Would be interesting. I have always thought that the assumption that a shot clock would increase scoring was flawed. I just took a decade without the shot clock and compared it to the last full decade with the shot clock (given no title game in 2020 I used a 9 year timeframe). Interesting that there is a 10 point difference favoring the no shot clock decade (9 years, I know). Why might that be? Perhaps less chucking up shots simply because the clock is running down??. I’m not claiming that my “study” is statistically valid just an interesting hypothesis.