Easiest scores to find.
But you would think that the title game would have the best teams and the best teams would be able to score more with a shot clock if you think a shot clock helps scoring.
Or the title games have the best defenses & most pressure resulting in fewer points? Comparing 9 games in each period out of a sample of thousands is not particularly close to statistically relevant.
Of course.
Would love to see a more sophisticated analysis of scoring pre and post shot clock
Kansas starting to get a little confident in landing Dylan Harper
1 Like
10 years prior to instituting the 45 second clock, teams averaged 76 ppg (for decades, the average looks to have been 75-77 ppg).
In the 5 years prior to the 45 second clock being instituted, that average had fallen to 68.8 ppg, a drop of 8 points per game.
In the 5 years following the shot clockās implementation, scoring rose from that 68.8 ppg average to 73.6 ppg - almost 5 points per game, a solid leap.
In 1993/1994 it was dropped from 45 seconds to 35 seconds with negligible change to overall scoring.
In 2015/2016 it was reduced to 30 seconds. The 5 years prior to that, scoring had dipped to 66.6, and had actually consistently been below 70 for a decade.
After the drop to 30 seconds, scoring rose from 66.6 to 72.8 ppg - about 6 points per game. (again, 5 year samples on either side here)
One thing I do notice - and I canāt tell if itās coincidence or not, is that when the shot clock moved from 45 to 35 seconds, FG% dropped from 47%/48% to 43%. HOWEVER, this was also 5 years after the adoption of a 3-point line, and attempts were growing. You could say that the shot clock caused worse shooting, or you could say that players who hadnāt grown up with a 3 point line were suddenly taking long range shots they couldnāt make (probably the latter!)
When the clock was cut from 35/30 seconds there was essentially no change in shooting accuracy, and turnovers actually DROPPED by 2 per game.
I am not a data scientist.
I do however feel relatively confident that reducing the clock increases scoring, until years pass and A-Hole coaches figure out a way to make the game miserable again. I can also say with some confidence that reducing the clock does not reduce shooting accuracy or turnover rate to any measurable extent.
A random learning in this data spelunking on BR is that the adoption of the three point actually seems to have made offense WORSE for 5-7 years (but obviously no longer).
As a matter of fact - college basketball has never had more accurate shooting (using TS here, not pure FG%) or fewer turnovers than it does at this very moment.
(These stats are not title games, they are every D1 game from the season)
9 Likes
Of course they are. Thats what the biggest bag game in college hoops will do for you.
Idk, Iāve always loved the longer clock.
1 Like
Me too.
People say they love college basketball much more than the NBA. Then they turn around and want the college basketball to become the NBA with a 24 second shot clock.
I guess if you like a back and forth 3 point contest the NBA is for you. If you enjoy watching a team come into Crisler and run the Princeton offense now and then, well we should support the things that make college basketball the better product.
1 Like
? Isnāt that what they already did? They always played the Gavitt pretty early. Or do they mean literally open the season with that instead of the tune up games?
really hope that the BIG10 (and other power conferences, I suppose) will rationalize their scheduling so itās a couple regional tomato cans, MLE, a challenge or two, and then 26 conference games. The games against Austin Peay and West Texas A&M are just awful and inexcusable. (Blanket support for playing HBCUs, however in lieu of a MAC, I guess.)
I believe they are talking about the actual season opener. Not the next week.
2 Likes
I think I prefer one or two runway games before the real thing. OTOH it would make for interesting offseason content/discussion.
2 Likes
Thereās generally a ton of frustration with how tame the opening night of CBB is, especially with the Champions Classic being moved off of that opening night.
I go back and forth. I donāt mind the huge slate of mediocre games that then leads into Feast Week over a couple of days, but having the start of the season be more of an event might help more casual fans get into the sport.
For whatever reason though, I feel like Gavitt Games matchups havenāt had anywhere near the juice of Big Ten/ACC games in the past.
2 Likes
Iāve always just wanted an opening night thatās invite only and goes to the same four teams from the previous yearās Final Four
2 Likes
Need super cups. Tournament champs against regular season champs. NCAA champs against NIT champs.
7 Likes
I thought you were making a Champions Classic joke, but this idea is basically a better version of the Champions classic so Iām down
1 Like
My champions classic joke thatās also not really a joke is that it should be the four most recent national champions and not the same four blue bloods every year.
Give me UConn, Kansas, Baylor, Virginia next season. Make teams win to stay in
2 Likes
I think they need to bring back the Great Eight that was played for a short time.
Eg this year you could do
UConn-SDSU
FAU-Miami
KState-Gonzaga
Texas-Creighton
2 Likes
Bring back the Great Alaska Shootout and have it start the season! Perfect opportunity for the B1G to finally expand the conference footprint into the last frontier.
3 Likes