30 second shot clock could be coming

[BMoreX]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/9200477/poll-results-favor-earlier-start-shorter-shot-clock-college-basketball



At a May 2 meeting, the NCAA Board of Directors will vote on moving up the start of practice by two to three weeks (would be Sept. 27 or Oct. 4 this season). And the following week in Indianapolis, the men's basketball rules committee will vote on moving the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds.

After taking an informal poll of 37 Division I coaches Monday morning, the consensus among that community seems to be "yes" for both.

[GoMuskies]

Three more weeks of practice? Is the season going to start sooner?

[xubrew]

Three more weeks of practice? Is the season going to start sooner?

Probably not. It will most likely remain the second friday in November. The women can start practice 40 days before their first game. This would pretty much just be matching that.

[GoMuskies]

That sucks for the players.

[xubrew]

Yeah. Well, instead of "voluntary workouts" they'll have mandatory practice. They probably won't notice the difference.

[D-West & PO-Z]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the shot clock 30 sec.

[paulxu]

Since (I think) minor league/college baseball and college football essentially play the same game as the pro's, I would be in favor of the pro shot clock for college and moving the three point line back so the games are essentially the same. The only thing left would be the 48 minutes vs. 40. Heck, that would be nice too.

[DC Muskie]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the shot clock 30 sec.

Disagree. 30 second shot clock isn't going to make players better shooters.

[coasterville95]

I had heard rumbling about shortening the shot clock during March Madness, so that doesn't come as a total shock. Pros play a 24 second clock I beleive, with 10 seconds to get it over the time line that would really change the game. Essentially no time to really setup plays, or pass the ball around repetedly looking for the best shot. Quicken the pace of the game, which can't be a bad thing, particularly after seeing game scoring regress into the 50's for final scores. I'm not as sold on the 8 extra minutes, particulalry after this past season. We throught they were struggling to get through 40? Wait, I'm a fan paying ticket prices, give me the extra 8 minutes a game!

I'm sure the extra week or two of practice is just finally legalizing what had been happening with "voluntaries" and isnt there something about a coach can meet with up to 4 players (reasoning being 5 makes a team) in the off-season. Why am I envisioning a carefully drawn up schedule so that the rights combinations of 4 just happen to show up every 30-45 minutes.

[X-band '01]

I thought it was 8 seconds to get it over midcourt in the NBA now.

[drudy23]

I'm not sold this will pretty up the game. You have to realize that the 24 second shot clock works in the NBA because 80% of the players on the floor have the ability to create a decent shot in a very short amount of time. This level of athleticism and overall basketball skill is not present in most college players (those going to the NBA are the ones that can do this).

So, if you're sick of fade-away threes, high picks for the point guard leading to a jumper, or general misrepresentation of an offense, expect much more of it with 5 fewer seconds.

The only saving grace is if more teams just decide to run a consistent up-tempo game.

[xubrew]

I could live with it at 30 secs, but I actually like it the way that it is.

Teams should not be able to just completely stall the game as some of them did in the pre-shotclock era, but there is something about being able to control the tempo of the game. I think the 35 second clock allows for a variety of styles and strategies, and actually makes things interesting when someone like Wisconsin plays a team like Indiana.

Women's basketball is 30 seconds with no ten second violation. It works fine. But, I kind of like the 35 secs with ten seconds to get it over better.

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sold this will pretty up the game. You have to realize that the 24 second shot clock works in the NBA because 80% of the players on the floor have the ability to create a decent shot in a very short amount of time. This level of athleticism and overall basketball skill is not present in most college players (those going to the NBA are the ones that can do this).

So, if you're sick of fade-away threes, high picks for the point guard leading to a jumper, or general misrepresentation of an offense, expect much more of it with 5 fewer seconds.

The only saving grace is if more teams just decide to run a consistent up-tempo game.

Exactly.

30 second shot clock will result in a lot of rushed shots that look turrrible.

[paulxu]

Well hell...let's just shorten the basepaths in college baseball to 80 feet then.

At least put the 3 pt line out to the pro depth. It's the minor leagues afterall.

[xubrew]

Well hell...let's just shorten the basepaths in college baseball to 80 feet then

How about letting them use aluminum bats and have larger roster sizes??

I actually think college baseball and pro baseball are quite different, and not necessarily in a good way. The reason there are so many summer leagues is because college baseball players need to learn the pro style of play.

If I understand it, the shotclock first came into existence in the old ABA, and it was created to force a certain type of game. It was more of a gimmick than anything else. If you shorten the shotclock too much, you force everyone to play the same. I don't see that as a good thing. I don't want teams to be able to stall a game. There needs to be some tempo. But, to force everyone to play uptempo isn't good either.

[GoMuskies]

Those aluminum bats are no good anymore. HRs in college baseball are not particularly frequent these days.

[paulxu]

I don't have a problem with larger rosters...let more kids play.
Do away with the aluminum bats. Heck, the DH probably started in college. Do away with that too in the AL.

[DC Muskie]

Do away with that too in the AL.

You better get ready for the NL to adopt the DH. Inter-league games everyday and pitchers apparently made of glass means more hitters.

Oh that and the Players Association can add another 15 jobs that will pay about $7 million a year will be an even bigger factor.

[xubrew]

We're getting off topic, but a year or so ago MLB actually offered to supply all colleges with wooden bats. They were offering to pay for the equipment themselves. Somehow, this did not go through, and I can only assume that for whatever reason the colleges didn't want to.


I like that the college basketball games allows for a variety of different styles and strategies. The NBA really doesn't. The emphasis is almost entirely on athleticism. It's not like there is no athleticism in college basketball, but there is room for so much more and I think it's a much better game. I really don't want to see it do the things the NBA is doing.

Baseball, on the other hand, the aluminum has to go.

[blueblob06]

I love college basketball the way it is; I'm happy leaving everything as is.

As for the 3-pt line, it's been moved back some in the last few years and I don't see why it should be as far back as the NBA. They aren't pro basketball players, leave it where it is.

[xubrew]

There are definitely things I would change....

-Going to the monitor ten times a game for ten minutes has got to stop. My thing is that the standard should be "conclusive evidence." (Right now, it actually isn't). We all know what the word "CONCLUSIVE" means. If it takes you more than ninety seconds to decide a call, then by definition it is not "conclusive" and the original call should stand.

Also, "Flagrant." The word means "obviously or conspiculously bad." "OBVIOUS and CONSPICUOUS." If it takes you five minutes to decide if something is flagrant, then it is hardly obvious or conspicuous. Just let the original call stand, and get on with the game.


-Something has also got to be done about the fouling at the end of games. It's ridiculous. It's boring basketball. It's bad basketball. It causes people to get up and leave, or to change the channel. Unless a game is down to the wire, or such a blowout that it just doesn't matter, we're guaranteed to see an endless parade to the freethrow line. If players are fouling on purpose without even attempting to play defense, then it should be an intentional foul. Hence the word "intentional." People thought the end of the Richmond v Charlotte game was ludicrous because Charlotte threw up a ridiculous shot that had no chance of going in, and was awarded three freethrows. My response to that is that if the defense is allowed to foul without even attempting to play defense, then why isn't the offense allowed to shoot without even attempting to make the shot?? Make the standard that teams must play defense if they're behind instead of sending teams to the line. I think you'd actually find that they'd come back just as often if they attempt to play defense and force turnovers as they do in putting a team on the line over and over and over and over and over again.


-Lastly, there needs to be a standard on the block/charge calls. Or "blarges" as I like to call them. I don't know what, but there needs to be a standard so there is no controversy. Every blarge could literally go either way. If there is a blarge, say it's defensive every time, or say it is offensive every time, or say that it is an alternating possession every time. Do something so that it's not a judgment call. It's such a gray area that it's not fair to say that it is a judgment call. Make it a back and white rule. If it's nto clearly a block or a charge, a blarge is an alternating possession, or an offensive foul, or a defensive foul, or whatever. I kind of like the alternating possession idea, but that's just me. I wouldn't even call it a foul. Just an alternating possession. Maybe then people would stop flopping so much to try and draw charges.


But, of the things I'd like to see changed, the shot clock and three point shot are not among them. I kind of like it where it is.

[Backyard Champ]

Anything to make the college game more like the NBA game is a good thing, IMO.

[nuts4xu]

I am fine with a 30 second clock, but I don't think they can shrink it much more than that. A 24 second clock will be very tough for the lower 100 RPI teams, and these programs that are used to playing Princeton style offenses.

I would love to see the elimination of the alternate possession and go back to jump balls for tie ups. We would see much less of the pile ups than we have now. If a ball is on the floor, a guy dives, and someone from the other team dives on top of the guy, trying to get the tie up. You risk injury, and it just rewards a player for diving head first into a pile of humanity.

[nuts4xu]

You better get ready for the NL to adopt the DH. Inter-league games everyday and pitchers apparently made of glass means more hitters.

Oh that and the Players Association can add another 15 jobs that will pay about $7 million a year will be an even bigger factor.

You can't get rid of it in the AL because of the players union, and they can't continue playing with 2 sets of rules. I never thought I would see the day, but it appears it is only a matter of time before the DH is used in the NL.

If you play inter-league most every single day, like they do now, you have to get both leagues on the same rules. It is ridiculous to play a DH in some games and not others. It was one thing when you only had a DH 2 or 3 times a year for a week or so. Now an NL team would benefit to have a quasi-DH on their roster for games vs the AL. Which is stupid.

[Olsingledigit]

My pet peeve is the five second rule. It was put in when there was no shot clock to alleviate that problem. When the shot clock came in the five second rule was eliminated for a year then brought back. Why? Makes no sense to me to have both.

[xubrew]

I think the court should be 95 feet instead of 94. Don't like that rule. Never have.

[DC Muskie]

You can't get rid of it in the AL because of the players union, and they can't continue playing with 2 sets of rules. I never thought I would see the day, but it appears it is only a matter of time before the DH is used in the NL.

If you play inter-league most every single day, like they do now, you have to get both leagues on the same rules. It is ridiculous to play a DH in some games and not others. It was one thing when you only had a DH 2 or 3 times a year for a week or so. Now an NL team would benefit to have a quasi-DH on their roster for games vs the AL. Which is stupid.

Exactly. I just wish they would go back to playing baseball where pitchers hit.

I grew up as a fan of an AL team, but always preferred the NL. When Denard Span came over to the Nats from the Twins, he couldn't figure out why he was double switched. I still don't think he understands. But that's what makes baseball interesting to me at least.

[RoseyMuskie]

Exactly. I just wish they would go back to playing baseball where pitchers hit.

I grew up as a fan of an AL team, but always preferred the NL. When Denard Span came over to the Nats from the Twins, he couldn't figure out why he was double switched. I still don't think he understands. But that's what makes baseball interesting to me at least.

Count me as one who considerably favors the DH. I don't buy the "strategy" aspect of the pitcher hitting at all. Anyone who follows the game of baseball somewhat closely could make a double switch. It's not strategy. It's common sense.

I'll be the first to admit that come the 6th/7th inning, pitching decisions get dicey, but I would say that happens once every three games or so. Give me the DH where you have to come up with a strategy/scouting report to pitch to a DH. Show me a pitcher who can execute that strategy. Now that's interesting.

Best vs. Best confrontation is interesting. Intetionally walking the 8th hitter with a runner on second and two outs to get to the pitcher, not so much.

There's a reason American League teams have dominated the National League in interleague play.


I agree that college baseball should go to wooden bats. I played club ball at Xavier, and promoted the use of wood with the NCBA (governing body of club baseball). The cost effectiveness is no longer there with aluminum bats as a decent aluminum bat runs around $400. You could buy a supply of nice wooden bats for a season with that. The new BBCOR aluminum bats have no pop as is. It's essentially hitting with wood, with a junky metal feel.


Back to the topic at hand. I could handle 30 seconds, anything lower would promote too much of an NBA style game. And I agree completely that the fouls at the end need to be called "intentional." That's my biggest issue when it comes to basketball.

[Cheesehead]

30 second clock and move 3 pointer back. Also would love to see the GCL adopt the 30 second clock for basketball so I don't have to watch Varsity games with scores in the high 30's and 40's.

[Retire33]

I personally believe the shot clock is not the problem. 35 is plenty fine to let teams run differing styles without truly "stalling" the game.

The biggest problem and difference from the NBA is the amount if contact defenses get away with. NBA has a freedom of movement philosophy that college needs to adopt ASAP. Tired of seeing players ( Redford) continuously bumped, grabbed, held, hip check, etc coming off screens. Teams are rewarded for playing a mix of basketball and football on the hardwood. Scores are in the 50s/60s because the great or even good players are unable to get clean looks in any thing that could resemble an offensive set. Teams have resorted to pick and roll styles of offense as they can score when they get a good one on one matchup.

Lets get back to true offense basketball were defenses need to move feet to be productive not grab a jersey

[DC Muskie]

Count me as one who considerably favors the DH. I don't buy the "strategy" aspect of the pitcher hitting at all. Anyone who follows the game of baseball somewhat closely could make a double switch. It's not strategy. It's common sense.

I'll be the first to admit that come the 6th/7th inning, pitching decisions get dicey, but I would say that happens once every three games or so. Give me the DH where you have to come up with a strategy/scouting report to pitch to a DH. Show me a pitcher who can execute that strategy. Now that's interesting.

Best vs. Best confrontation is interesting. Intetionally walking the 8th hitter with a runner on second and two outs to get to the pitcher, not so much.

There's a reason American League teams have dominated the National League in interleague play.

I don't think you want to get into an argument about this. Especially when you take a gimmick, which the DH is and explain how strategic you need to be and then try to explain something that is real strategy as "common sense" when it comes to the double switch.

There's absolutely nothing interesting about AL baseball. If you allow the pitcher get on, to extend an inning, that's interesting. If the game is close, then pitching matchups are much more interesting. How you fill out your bench and use it is much more interesting in the NL than in the AL. I hate the idea that somehow pitchers aren't supposed to be good hitters.

Oh and anyone who follows the game of baseball somewhat closely knows no one gives a shit about inter league records. The past three World Series champions are from the NL, as well as 4 of the past 5, and 5 of the last 7. They all did this despite the fact that Jim Thome was able to extend his career even though he can no longer extend himself to the ground and pick up a grounder.

Here's my question to you as a supporter of the DH who thinks it's the best vs best matchup.

Name me one top baseball prospect that was projected and brought up specifically to be a designated hitter.

There isn't one, because it's reserved for guys who can't play the field. It's a gimmick. That's the best? Last year Adam Dunn was an All Star reserve as a DH. He ended up batting .202 with 222 strike outs. All Star. Best vs best. Yeah right.

[RoseyMuskie]

I don't think you want to get into an argument about this. Especially when you take a gimmick, which the DH is and explain how strategic you need to be and then try to explain something that is real strategy as "common sense" when it comes to the double switch.

There's absolutely nothing interesting about AL baseball. If you allow the pitcher get on, to extend an inning, that's interesting. If the game is close, then pitching matchups are much more interesting. How you fill out your bench and use it is much more interesting in the NL than in the AL. I hate the idea that somehow pitchers aren't supposed to be good hitters.

Oh and anyone who follows the game of baseball somewhat closely knows no one gives a shit about inter league records. The past three World Series champions are from the NL, as well as 4 of the past 5, and 5 of the last 7. They all did this despite the fact that Jim Thome was able to extend his career even though he can no longer extend himself to the ground and pick up a grounder.

Here's my question to you as a supporter of the DH who thinks it's the best vs best matchup.

Name me one top baseball prospect that was projected and brought up specifically to be a designated hitter.

There isn't one, because it's reserved for guys who can't play the field. It's a gimmick. That's the best? Last year Adam Dunn was an All Star reserve as a DH. He ended up batting .202 with 222 strike outs. All Star. Best vs best. Yeah right.

To each his own. I find a C.C. Sabathia vs. David Ortiz matchup much more fascinating than a Johnny Cueto vs. Yovani Gallardo/AJ Burnett/etc. matchup. C.C.'s pitch selection and strategy is really what fascinates me (as a former pitcher). That, IMO, is baseball at its roots.

And the World Series comeback isn't indicative off the leagues as a whole. That's the best vs. the best. As a WHOLE, with a much bigger sample size (15 seasons worth of games), the American League is superior to the National League, and the ability to pitch consistently to 9 quality hitters rather than 8 plays some sort of factor into that equation. Before you cite the Yankees and Red Sox as a cause of thise, do realize the White Sox, Tigers, Angels, Twins, Athletics, and Mariners ALL have better IL winning percentages than the leading NL team, the Cardinals. The Cardinals have been a much better franchise than many of these teams, but maybe part of this is because the American League consistently plays the toughest competition and knocks each other out, and once a team makes the playoffs (small sample) anything can happen. And count me in as one who supports the best available product possible.

You are right that no player is brought up to play DH. You'd never impress enough scouts. Especially when half the league can't utilize that option. But at the same time, multiple AL and NL teams bring in guys who are butchers in the field purely because they can hit. Mark Trumbo is a recent example. Billy Butler another. The AL simply has a mechanism to cope with these guys. And as a result, the best hitters stray to the AL increasing competition: IE Pujols and Fielder. It makes the AL a better league from a talent standpoint, and it makes pitching/strategy that much more difficult. You have to face a DH 4/5 times a game. As I said, in the NL you might have to make a tough decision once every 2/3 games. Over the course of the season, executing a sound pitching strategy to DHs will come into play much more often than executing NL pitching strategies.

Case in point: A good friend of mine was able to figure out a double switch while recently a Reds/Nats game. SHE's from DC, and didn't hop on the baseball wagon until last season. NL Purists act like this stuff is rocket science. It really isn't.

Could you or I make the double switch from stands or our couch? A lot of the times, yes. Do you or I know the swing tendencies, count patterns, and location strength/weaknesses of each DH? Not quite as well.

Unless we are talking Adam Dunn. Because none of this applies to him. I'm a Sox fan and I'm sick of him. He doesn't even walk anymore - it's HR or K.

[danaandvictory]

You are right that no player is brought up to play DH. You'd never impress enough scouts. Especially when half the league can't utilize that option. But at the same time, multiple AL and NL teams bring in guys who are butchers in the field purely because they can hit. Mark Trumbo is a recent example. Billy Butler another. The AL simply has a mechanism to cope with these guys.

The difference is that in the National League if you want to play a butcher you run the risk of giving away runs in the field. In the AL there is no such penalty. I personally hate the excess of specialization in sports, and I blame football. I think guys ought to be all-around players. In basketball if you want to have a Brad Redford you have to deal with the fact that he can't guard anyone. There should be an incentive for pitchers to learn to hit and run properly and for good hitters to field a position competently.

[RoseyMuskie]

The difference is that in the National League if you want to play a butcher you run the risk of giving away runs in the field. In the AL there is no such penalty. I personally hate the excess of specialization in sports, and I blame football. I think guys ought to be all-around players. In basketball if you want to have a Brad Redford you have to deal with the fact that he can't guard anyone. There should be an incentive for pitchers to learn to hit and run properly and for good hitters to field a position competently.

That's a valid point. There's definitely a trade-off. Although, you still get the Miguel Cabrera's of the world. But he's a unique case.

[PM Thor]

Exactly.

30 second shot clock will result in a lot of rushed shots that look turrrible.

This. You think that college offense looks disjointed now, Let's make it faster! Basically a faster clock will favor the more athletic teams, namely the big schools.

[DC Muskie]

The difference is that in the National League if you want to play a butcher you run the risk of giving away runs in the field. In the AL there is no such penalty. I personally hate the excess of specialization in sports, and I blame football. I think guys ought to be all-around players. In basketball if you want to have a Brad Redford you have to deal with the fact that he can't guard anyone. There should be an incentive for pitchers to learn to hit and run properly and for good hitters to field a position competently.

That's my next argument. There's no penalty for removing a pitcher from an AL game. Case in point, in the Mets/Nats game Gee ran out of gas in the 6th inning, and it had the potential of changing the game since you had to pinch hit for him. Do you switch somebody out, or just that one spot?

What happened was Jayson Werth hit a terrible 3-0 pitch into a double play and killed a rally. But the potential was there for a big inning and the Mets dodged a bullet even though they had to change the make up of their lineup.

[GuyFawkes38]

Steve Kerr went over some good suggestions on Bill Simmons' podcast (most dealing with improving the game flow).

Help the flow by not allowing timeouts by a team after they make a shot. Also, end the annoyanc of coaches calling timeouts right before the under 4's by moving to an NBA system (team timeouts would count as the under 4).

[DC Muskie]

To each his own. I find a C.C. Sabathia vs. David Ortiz matchup much more fascinating than a Johnny Cueto vs. Yovani Gallardo/AJ Burnett/etc. matchup. C.C.'s pitch selection and strategy is really what fascinates me (as a former pitcher). That, IMO, is baseball at its roots.

And the World Series comeback isn't indicative off the leagues as a whole. That's the best vs. the best. As a WHOLE, with a much bigger sample size (15 seasons worth of games), the American League is superior to the National League, and the ability to pitch consistently to 9 quality hitters rather than 8 plays some sort of factor into that equation. Before you cite the Yankees and Red Sox as a cause of thise, do realize the White Sox, Tigers, Angels, Twins, Athletics, and Mariners ALL have better IL winning percentages than the leading NL team, the Cardinals. The Cardinals have been a much better franchise than many of these teams, but maybe part of this is because the American League consistently plays the toughest competition and knocks each other out, and once a team makes the playoffs (small sample) anything can happen. And count me in as one who supports the best available product possible.

You are right that no player is brought up to play DH. You'd never impress enough scouts. Especially when half the league can't utilize that option. But at the same time, multiple AL and NL teams bring in guys who are butchers in the field purely because they can hit. Mark Trumbo is a recent example. Billy Butler another. The AL simply has a mechanism to cope with these guys. And as a result, the best hitters stray to the AL increasing competition: IE Pujols and Fielder. It makes the AL a better league from a talent standpoint, and it makes pitching/strategy that much more difficult. You have to face a DH 4/5 times a game. As I said, in the NL you might have to make a tough decision once every 2/3 games. Over the course of the season, executing a sound pitching strategy to DHs will come into play much more often than executing NL pitching strategies.

Case in point: A good friend of mine was able to figure out a double switch while recently a Reds/Nats game. SHE's from DC, and didn't hop on the baseball wagon until last season. NL Purists act like this stuff is rocket science. It really isn't.

Could you or I make the double switch from stands or our couch? A lot of the times, yes. Do you or I know the swing tendencies, count patterns, and location strength/weaknesses of each DH? Not quite as well.

Unless we are talking Adam Dunn. Because none of this applies to him. I'm a Sox fan and I'm sick of him. He doesn't even walk anymore - it's HR or K.

All good points.

At the end of the day despite having better hitting lineups, to me, it's just not true baseball in the AL. There are maybe three or four matchups at a time in about three or four games when CC is pitching Ortiz and if it's a playoff scenario, that tips even more so to effective pitching, which the Giants have demonstrated is much more valuable by winning two of the past three titles. All that really matters is whether or not the makeup of your team and how they perform when it matters, which is the playoffs.

If the AL are capable of knocking off and beating each other up, then it should assume winning a title would be a cake walk. But just like the Big East of recent past, you can play in a tough division or conference and still have a shot at winning the title, where that doesn't seem to be the case with AL teams.

In fact the Texas Rangers had Michael Young as their DH because basically they couldn't find a position on the field. I doubt that say Ian Desmond, who that year was much better, would have been used as the DH had he been on AL roster.

Basically what I'm saying is, the DH, for a lot of teams, is not a huge step up in talent. There are more Adam Dunns, Jim Thomes, etc, then David Ortizs. They are not usually put in the three or four spot, so while it's an upgrade hitting wise over a pitcher, it doesn't, in my mind, make the game more interesting. Especially when someone like Young bats .277, while batting sixth for the AL champs.

I miss Dunn here in DC, but mostly because he was just a fun guy. I can't believe he is not walking which makes him basically useless on any fantasy team in a leauge that values OBP.

If there is a way you could share your friends anaylasis on the double switch, I would be very interested in seeing that. Maybe I am making it overly complicated because I have only really followed NL baseball since the Nats moved here in 2005.

[DC Muskie]

Help the flow by not allowing timeouts by a team after they make a shot. Also, end the annoyanc of coaches calling timeouts right before the under 4's by moving to an NBA system (team timeouts would count as the under 4).

Isn't that only an issue during the tournament?

[danaandvictory]

Steve Kerr went over some good suggestions on Bill Simmons' podcast (most dealing with improving the game flow).

Help the flow by not allowing timeouts by a team after they make a shot. Also, end the annoyanc of coaches calling timeouts right before the under 4's by moving to an NBA system (team timeouts would count as the under 4).

I like the idea of not allowing teams to call timeouts except at a dead ball. That's the international rule I believe.

Nothing pisses me off more than a coach calling a TO four miliseconds before his player throws a dumbass pass in press break.

[DoubleD86]

Count me as one who considerably favors the DH. I don't buy the "strategy" aspect of the pitcher hitting at all. Anyone who follows the game of baseball somewhat closely could make a double switch. It's not strategy. It's common sense.

I'll be the first to admit that come the 6th/7th inning, pitching decisions get dicey, but I would say that happens once every three games or so. Give me the DH where you have to come up with a strategy/scouting report to pitch to a DH. Show me a pitcher who can execute that strategy. Now that's interesting.

Best vs. Best confrontation is interesting. Intetionally walking the 8th hitter with a runner on second and two outs to get to the pitcher, not so much.

There's a reason American League teams have dominated the National League in interleague play.


I agree that college baseball should go to wooden bats. I played club ball at Xavier, and promoted the use of wood with the NCBA (governing body of club baseball). The cost effectiveness is no longer there with aluminum bats as a decent aluminum bat runs around $400. You could buy a supply of nice wooden bats for a season with that. The new BBCOR aluminum bats have no pop as is. It's essentially hitting with wood, with a junky metal feel.


Back to the topic at hand. I could handle 30 seconds, anything lower would promote too much of an NBA style game. And I agree completely that the fouls at the end need to be called "intentional." That's my biggest issue when it comes to basketball.

Rosey, I am with you. I think the DH is more "real baseball" than what the purists do. Quick, name the last pitcher who was paid because of his ability to hit? Anyone? The answer is no one because it doesn't matter. A "good" hitting pitcher is still an easy out. I want hitters to hit and pitchers to pitch.

[LA Muskie]

I like the idea of not allowing teams to call timeouts except at a dead ball. That's the international rule I believe.

Nothing pisses me off more than a coach calling a TO four miliseconds before his player throws a dumbass pass in press break.

Coaches shouldn't be allowed to call timeouts at all. Period. Only a player with possession should be able to call timeout.

[LA Muskie]

Rosey, I am with you. I think the DH is more "real baseball" than what the purists do. Quick, name the last pitcher who was paid because of his ability to hit? Anyone? The answer is no one because it doesn't matter. A "good" hitting pitcher is still an easy out. I want hitters to hit and pitchers to pitch.

Well, except that hitters are also supposed to field. What's next? Designated runners (from the plate) for fat-asses? Why bail out those who can't field while leaving those who can't run to fend for themselves?

[D-West & PO-Z]

Disagree. 30 second shot clock isn't going to make players better shooters.

Im not sure where I said that. 35 sec is an eternity and too long. Possessions have no meaning it feels like at times. It doesnt take that much time to run a play and there is too much standing around with no purpose and pointless passes. No reason the shot clock should be 35 secs.

To me one of the best things, compared to college, in the NBA, besides the talent, is the shot clock.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Exactly.

30 second shot clock will result in a lot of rushed shots that look turrrible.

Disagree, 5 secs wont do anything but eliminate the pointless standing around. Way too much of it in college basketball.

[paulxu]

You got to be crapping me. We're still talking about Redford's defense?
For God's sake...it was NOT that bad. He takes over for Dee and we beat Memphis. Give the guy a break.
Or just one time, just once, say someone else's defense sucks when they are searching for their jock.

BTW...screw the DH. That's not baseball.
And...many of the best hitters in high school/college are the pitchers. I have no idea where that skill goes after that. They're probably all counting on playing in the AL.

Go to the 24 second clock and NBA 3pt. line. College bball is the minor league. Man up.

[DC Muskie]

Rosey, I am with you. I think the DH is more "real baseball" than what the purists do. Quick, name the last pitcher who was paid because of his ability to hit? Anyone? The answer is no one because it doesn't matter. A "good" hitting pitcher is still an easy out. I want hitters to hit and pitchers to pitch.

You know who is also an easy out? A shortshop or second baseman who can't hit either. I doubt teams pay them to hit either.

Oh and they do give pitchers awards for fielding. Name another thing a DH does during a game. When's the last time you ever saw a DH steal a base?

I like baseball because it's played by baseball players.

[DC Muskie]

Im not sure where I said that. 35 sec is an eternity and too long. Possessions have no meaning it feels like at times. It doesnt take that much time to run a play and there is too much standing around with no purpose and pointless passes. No reason the shot clock should be 35 secs.

To me one of the best things, compared to college, in the NBA, besides the talent, is the shot clock.

Do you watch NBA games? Do you think there is a ton of movement? Not at all.

College basketball is vastly below the talent level of the NBA. That's a huge deal. When teams in college are standing around it's because they are playing poorly. It has nothing to do with the shot clock.


Disagree, 5 secs wont do anything but eliminate the pointless standing around. Way too much of it in college basketball.

How so? Watch high school basketball that features the shot clock. There are a lot of forced shots if they take too long getting into their offense.

Eliminate the ten second rule to eight, and let offenses develop.

[RoseyMuskie]

DC: You are right with that Mets/Werth scenario. I think that's the toughest decision in baseball. The 6th/7th inning in the NL can be dicey. Making a tough decision there just doesn't happen as often one thinks, so that's why I don't buy the NL strategy opinion as much as others.

In terms of the scenario, it was something along the lines of (after looking at the scoreboard) "How is player X hitting in the 9 spot, and why is pitcher Y hitting in the 5 hole? Oh, isn't that called a double switch? That's where the pitcher's spot is moved in the lineup so the team can get a better hit up sooner, right?"

Granted, she was able to do so using the scoreboard, but I was quite shocked that she could figure that out from context considering she essentially became a bandwagon Nats fan last year.

It's so easy, even Dusty can do it (most of the time:laugh:)

[coasterville95]

I could see the move to 30 to try to quicken the game pace without forcing teams totally into a run-and-gun game. A nice compromise between the 35 it is now, and the 24 the pros use. The fact that it would match the women's game, and with using a single three point line - simplifies game administration. (admittedly a small minor side benefit)

I tthought the last minute fouling is an integral part of the game. Within reason. It you get down by say 10 or more, give it up. "Don't dream, it's over"
But if I am losing by say 7 or less, absolutely the foul is the right call. Otherwise you are in a two posession game, after the one minute warning. Shot clock is 35. If I am the winning team, I can play keep away ball and run down the entire 35 second clock, then try to sink a dagger with 1 second left on it, or maybe even just let the clock expire, here, you can have the ball. You have 25 (or less) seconds to get your two or three points, then we are going to dribble out whatever remains. Thanks for playing. The fouling, while making the final minute or two the longest minutes of the game, provide a mechanism to prevent ball hogging. In theory you are giving the other team an easy two points, which should disuade you from trying it, but as real experience shows, enough late game free throws get missed to make it a viable play. And admit it when we had Tu or another one of our free throw shooting machines at the line in late game, it was rather fun to watch.

I'm not touching DH or no DH with a 10 and a half foot pole.

[danaandvictory]

You got to be crapping me. We're still talking about Redford's defense?
For God's sake...it was NOT that bad. He takes over for Dee and we beat Memphis. Give the guy a break.
Or just one time, just once, say someone else's defense sucks when they are searching for their jock.


Sorry, Mrs. Redford. It won't happen again.

[smileyy]

His 1-1 defense was pretty bad. Catch him in an iso situation, and its probably a layup. But he was able to fit into and contribute to an overall team defense.

[xubrew]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/lopresti/2013/05/02/college-basketball-do-not-shorten-the-shot-clock/2123513/

[bigdiggins]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/lopresti/2013/05/02/college-basketball-do-not-shorten-the-shot-clock/2123513/

Agree 1000%. Shorter clock will ultimately mean less ball movement, worse shots.

[RealDeal]

Agree 1000%. Shorter clock will ultimately mean less ball movement, worse shots.

Bad shots lead to bad passes.

[LA Muskie]

I seriously doubt that taking 5 seconds off the shot clock will affect the quality of the game, and I do believe it will result in higher scoring by adding additional possessions to the game. The vast majority of offenses are designed to get a quality look within about 25 seconds. Everything after that is broken play type stuff. (And seemingly the defense should benefit from that more than it currently does.) For those that use the full 35 seconds currently, that's just because they are using the full allotment. They will easily accommodate the reduced time.

[Emp]

I personally believe the shot clock is not the problem. 35 is plenty fine to let teams run differing styles without truly "stalling" the game.

The biggest problem and difference from the NBA is the amount if contact defenses get away with. NBA has a freedom of movement philosophy that college needs to adopt ASAP. Tired of seeing players ( Redford) continuously bumped, grabbed, held, hip check, etc coming off screens. Teams are rewarded for playing a mix of basketball and football on the hardwood. Scores are in the 50s/60s because the great or even good players are unable to get clean looks in any thing that could resemble an offensive set. Teams have resorted to pick and roll styles of offense as they can score when they get a good one on one matchup.

Lets get back to true offense basketball were defenses need to move feet to be productive not grab a jersey

Yes. And while we are at is, go back to the original definition of moving picks. Some times I think the Seven Blocks of Granite have come back and pulling guards are setting picks.

[LA Muskie]

Yes. And while we are at is, go back to the original definition of moving picks. Some times I think the Seven Blocks of Granite have come back and pulling guards are setting picks.

You think they are bad in the college game, just watch an NBA game (particularly in the playoffs). I haven't seen a legitimate screen yet -- all the while seeing at 3 illegal ones per possession (and those are just the on-the-ball ones I notice; I'm sure there are at least that many off the ball).

[D-West & PO-Z]

I seriously doubt that taking 5 seconds off the shot clock will affect the quality of the game, and I do believe it will result in higher scoring by adding additional possessions to the game. The vast majority of offenses are designed to get a quality look within about 25 seconds. Everything after that is broken play type stuff. (And seemingly the defense should benefit from that more than it currently does.) For those that use the full 35 seconds currently, that's just because they are using the full allotment. They will easily accommodate the reduced time.

100% agree. I cant fathom how 5 seconds will make offense more sloppy and cause an issue. I hope it happens. Like you said it will create more possessions and make end of games more exciting. One of the things I love most about the NBA is that a team can be down 8-10 points with only a little over a minute remaining and easily be in the game.

5 secs off the clock wil only be beneficial in my mind to the college game.

[XU05]

Per Jeff Goodman:
"NCAA rules committee likely to keep shot clock at 35, but changes to flagrant fouls, etc. coming in 2013"
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22217747/ncaa-set-to-vote-on-key-rule-changes-shot-clock-likely-to-remain

[blueblob06]

2 of the changes listed in the article:
"The block/charge call could be slightly altered in an effort to help the offensive player. Now the secondary defender needs to be in legal guarding position before the player leaves the ground. The new interpretation would be that the defender needs to be set before the offensive player begins the upward motion of his shot. "We feel this would help referees, and also reduce the number of charge calls," the source said. "

So up until now, does this mean the defensive player did not have to be in position before the offensive player left the ground? This would explain why Semaj had a million charges that I thought weren't charges. Defenders simply step up as Semaj goes up, take a step in and lean toward him, Semaj collides/lands on them, and it's a charge. So does this mean currently if the defender is in the way (but can be moving), it's a charge, but going forward the defender must be set (and not moving) for it to be a charge?


"Instead of a full 35-second shot clock following a foul in the frontcourt, it will likely be reduced to somewhere between 20 and 25 seconds in an effort to create a few more possessions each game."

I could see this making for some interesting strategies at the end of the half. For example, let's say we have fouls to give and the opponent has the ball with 30 to 35 seconds left. Rather than let them hold the ball and get the last shot of the half, we can foul them and then they only have 20/25 seconds to shoot, resulting in us getting a possession before the half. Conversely, to avoid this happening, the offensive team in that position could make sure to take more time bringing the ball up to the frontcourt to combat this. Just a thought.

[rove02]

I doubt after a foul they will reduce the shot clock if the team already had more than the 20-25 seconds left. I think it only applies if there is less time on the shot clock. So if you get fouled with 10 seconds left then it resets back to the 20 or 25 but if you get fouled with 27 seconds left then you still have 27 seconds. Similar to how the kicked ball rule works.

[XU-PA]

2 of the changes listed in the article:
"The block/charge call could be slightly altered in an effort to help the offensive player. Now the secondary defender needs to be in legal guarding position before the player leaves the ground. The new interpretation would be that the defender needs to be set before the offensive player begins the upward motion of his shot. "We feel this would help referees, and also reduce the number of charge calls," the source said. "


This would be the biggest change to rules since the 3 point shot. it will take away scads of what were charges in the past. much like what has become normal with the "continuation" in ruling a shooting vs common foul, this would be huge!
IMO, it rights the situation, but would also make taking a charge very difficult and quite rare. That's because a defender could slip in under a player, as long as the shooter had not left the floor, and it was a charge. that left the offensive player at a distinct disadvantage since a shooter could very well be in a position of no return in the process of leaping to shoot.
Good change I think,,,, but will bring big offensive changes.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I doubt after a foul they will reduce the shot clock if the team already had more than the 20-25 seconds left. I think it only applies if there is less time on the shot clock. So if you get fouled with 10 seconds left then it resets back to the 20 or 25 but if you get fouled with 27 seconds left then you still have 27 seconds. Similar to how the kicked ball rule works.

Exactly. They won't be taking time off the shot clock when it's above 20 or 25 when a foul occurs. That would be ridiculous.

[blueblob06]

Exactly. They won't be taking time off the shot clock when it's above 20 or 25 when a foul occurs. That would be ridiculous.
Yeah sorry, didn't think that through, makes sense.