3 point line moving back.

[IWokeUpLikeThis]

This is where the college line should be. Let's get the 24 second shot clock and quarters and call it a day.

Genuine question, why is a 24 second shot clock so much better than 30?

Addiction to instant gratification.

[BuBrave2006]

This is where the college line should be. Let's get the 24 second shot clock and quarters and call it a day.

Genuine question, why is a 24 second shot clock so much better than 30? I never really understood that. I get that you will have more possessions in a game and theoretically more points but with less time to score, I would expect quality of shot to go down as well as shooting percentages. I'm not really for or against either amount of time, just never understood why many people seem to think 24 will be better.

The quality of shots wouldn't go down. Maybe at first because of the adjustment but once teams and, more importantly, coaches, adjust the quality of shots would equalize.

And the best shots don't come late in the shot clock anyway. They come early. The shots now from five down on the shot clock aren't near as good as ones early in the clock - generally speaking.

I just disagree, I think that the shots that teams normally get with 7-13 seconds remaining on the shot clock will turn into rushed shots at the end of the shot clock. The "pro shorter shot clock" crowd I feel like has an NBA mindset where teams can get shots whenever they want because there is so much individual talent.

When a good defensive team scores a basket and can get back and set their defense, with only 24 seconds, it can be very difficult to score against. That can become even more difficult if you play a team that plays token pressure and forces you to walk the ball up the court. All of a sudden you're crossing midcourt with 15 seconds left and you haven't even started running your offense yet. I see no problem with 30 and I think that 24 would be a bit too rushed.

As for shots early vs late in the shot clock. Theoretically you will get the same amount of shots early in the shot clock because you will get those types of shots exactly the same. Whereas you will get more end of shot clock shots because the end of the shot clock will come up more often than it used to since it is 6 seconds shorter.

This isn't a hill I am willing to die on or anything, maybe I am wrong and 24 is better than 30, but I just can't see it being unequivocally better than some people seem to think it would be.

[tribecalledquest]

I just disagree, I think that the shots that teams normally get with 7-13 seconds remaining on the shot clock will turn into rushed shots at the end of the shot clock. The "pro shorter shot clock" crowd I feel like has an NBA mindset where teams can get shots whenever they want because there is so much individual talent.

When a good defensive team scores a basket and can get back and set their defense, with only 24 seconds, it can be very difficult to score against. That can become even more difficult if you play a team that plays token pressure and forces you to walk the ball up the court. All of a sudden you're crossing midcourt with 15 seconds left and you haven't even started running your offense yet. I see no problem with 30 and I think that 24 would be a bit too rushed.

As for shots early vs late in the shot clock. Theoretically you will get the same amount of shots early in the shot clock because you will get those types of shots exactly the same. Whereas you will get more end of shot clock shots because the end of the shot clock will come up more often than it used to since it is 6 seconds shorter.

This isn't a hill I am willing to die on or anything, maybe I am wrong and 24 is better than 30, but I just can't see it being unequivocally better than some people seem to think it would be.

They play 24 seconds all around the world at every level...except for in the US in HS and in college. To me I would need to know why having a 30 second shot clock is better for the game and better for basketball than what everyone else in the world, including all FIBA competition, is doing.

It's not about "shot quality". That will even itself out once teams get used to it. But the shorter shot clock makes it a faster paced game, driven more by players. To me, that's what it should be. I don't need a guy walking the ball up the court and looking over at the coach for the play every single possession.

[tribecalledquest]

This is where the college line should be. Let's get the 24 second shot clock and quarters and call it a day.

Genuine question, why is a 24 second shot clock so much better than 30?

Addiction to instant gratification.

No.

[BuBrave2006]

They play 24 seconds all around the world at every level...except for in the US in HS and in college. To me I would need to know why having a 30 second shot clock is better for the game and better for basketball than what everyone else in the world, including all FIBA competition, is doing.

I assume you mean every professional level? Are there amateur levels that use 24 seconds? I know that college basketball runs at a professional level for all intents and purposes, but these are still amateur players. In the NBA, just about everyone can "get their own shot" when the shot clock is running down because there is so much talent there. That's why they can get away with it. I am skeptical that the college game could produce similar results. I think that reducing the shot clock in the NCAA would create more shot clock violations, more turnovers and lower shooting percentages. Maybe not for the top teams, or the efficient teams, but across the board.

But like I said, I could very well be wrong, but wanted to have a discussion about it to discuss pros and cons of the two. Not a hill I'm willing to die on.

[BEARZ77]

I'm with BuBrave, a shorter shot clock, in my opinion, hurts teams with lesser talent and takes away from the strategy of the college game. One of the great things about the college game is it allows for diversity of style of play and for coaches to be able to counter more talented teams by limiting the number of possessions and type of possessions the other team gets. You take that away when you shorten the clock. The more the college game resembles the pro game the worse product we'll have. Personally, I like a full court , fast paced game; but I also like to see diversity and see really good coaches be able to counter what teams with better talent do by using floor spacing, clock management, changing defenses, etc. To me being the best coach isn't about having the most resources, but unfortunately that's what the game is becoming; I like the proverbial guy who can beat you with his players and can also beat you with your players because it's not just about talent. we already have a sport built exclusively on talent and resources, it's called FBS football and about 10 teams have legitimate chances to win. One thing we forget in the push for college athletics to mirror the pros is that the pros recognize the value in trying to keep a somewhat even field so that competition remains. That's why bad teams get 1st pick at talent in the drafts, and why there is revenue sharing for certain contracts etc. In college sports all the resources aren't shared much at all except at the conference level and the rich get richer as they get the bulk of the NCAA $$ and because they get all the best talent usually as there is no equalizing draft. We don't need to change the game to feed that system even more.

[tribecalledquest]

I assume you mean every professional level? Are there amateur levels that use 24 seconds? I know that college basketball runs at a professional level for all intents and purposes, but these are still amateur players. In the NBA, just about everyone can "get their own shot" when the shot clock is running down because there is so much talent there. That's why they can get away with it. I am skeptical that the college game could produce similar results. I think that reducing the shot clock in the NCAA would create more shot clock violations, more turnovers and lower shooting percentages. Maybe not for the top teams, or the efficient teams, but across the board.

Not to be "that guy" but basketball exists outside of the NBA and NCAA college basketball. The rest of the world, not just pros, play with a 24 second shot clock. The college league in Puerto Rico plays FIBA rules. As do the U20 and U18 levels on the international level.

I would say, yes, early on you would see an increase in shot clock violations, turnovers, etc. But give the players and coaches a couple of years to adjust and you will see a much faster, free flowing game. It's not going to be pretty overnight. That's an unfair ask.

[tribecalledquest]

I'm with BuBrave, a shorter shot clock, in my opinion, hurts teams with lesser talent and takes away from the strategy of the college game. One of the great things about the college game is it allows for diversity of style of play and for coaches to be able to counter more talented teams by limiting the number of possessions and type of possessions the other team gets. You take that away when you shorten the clock. The more the college game resembles the pro game the worse product we'll have. Personally, I like a full court , fast paced game; but I also like to see diversity and see really good coaches be able to counter what teams with better talent do by using floor spacing, clock management, changing defenses, etc. To me being the best coach isn't about having the most resources, but unfortunately that's what the game is becoming; I like the proverbial guy who can beat you with his players and can also beat you with your players because it's not just about talent. we already have a sport built exclusively on talent and resources, it's called FBS football and about 10 teams have legitimate chances to win. One thing we forget in the push for college athletics to mirror the pros is that the pros recognize the value in trying to keep a somewhat even field so that competition remains. That's why bad teams get 1st pick at talent in the drafts, and why there is revenue sharing for certain contracts etc. In college sports all the resources aren't shared much at all except at the conference level and the rich get richer as they get the bulk of the NCAA $$ and because they get all the best talent usually as there is no equalizing draft. We don't need to change the game to feed that system even more.

It's not about making it resemble the pro game. It's about making it in line with how the game of basketball is played all over the world, except, US colleges and high schools.

[BuBrave2006]

I assume you mean every professional level? Are there amateur levels that use 24 seconds? I know that college basketball runs at a professional level for all intents and purposes, but these are still amateur players. In the NBA, just about everyone can "get their own shot" when the shot clock is running down because there is so much talent there. That's why they can get away with it. I am skeptical that the college game could produce similar results. I think that reducing the shot clock in the NCAA would create more shot clock violations, more turnovers and lower shooting percentages. Maybe not for the top teams, or the efficient teams, but across the board.

Not to be "that guy" but basketball exists outside of the NBA and NCAA college basketball. The rest of the world, not just pros, play with a 24 second shot clock. The college league in Puerto Rico plays FIBA rules. As do the U20 and U18 levels on the international level.

I would say, yes, early on you would see an increase in shot clock violations, turnovers, etc. But give the players and coaches a couple of years to adjust and you will see a much faster, free flowing game. It's not going to be pretty overnight. That's an unfair ask.

This is a fair counterpoint. It will be interesting to see how this develops if and when it happens.

[BEARZ77]

I'm with BuBrave, a shorter shot clock, in my opinion, hurts teams with lesser talent and takes away from the strategy of the college game. One of the great things about the college game is it allows for diversity of style of play and for coaches to be able to counter more talented teams by limiting the number of possessions and type of possessions the other team gets. You take that away when you shorten the clock. The more the college game resembles the pro game the worse product we'll have. Personally, I like a full court , fast paced game; but I also like to see diversity and see really good coaches be able to counter what teams with better talent do by using floor spacing, clock management, changing defenses, etc. To me being the best coach isn't about having the most resources, but unfortunately that's what the game is becoming; I like the proverbial guy who can beat you with his players and can also beat you with your players because it's not just about talent. we already have a sport built exclusively on talent and resources, it's called FBS football and about 10 teams have legitimate chances to win. One thing we forget in the push for college athletics to mirror the pros is that the pros recognize the value in trying to keep a somewhat even field so that competition remains. That's why bad teams get 1st pick at talent in the drafts, and why there is revenue sharing for certain contracts etc. In college sports all the resources aren't shared much at all except at the conference level and the rich get richer as they get the bulk of the NCAA $$ and because they get all the best talent usually as there is no equalizing draft. We don't need to change the game to feed that system even more.

It's not about making it resemble the pro game. It's about making it in line with how the game of basketball is played all over the world, except, US colleges and high schools.

Who cares what rules they use in France, Australia etc.; doesn't make it a better game. In fact most foreign players who come state side to play in college are decidedly lacking in defensive skills, cause guess what, they didn't have to play any with a 24 second clock. I like American College Basketball above all other forms because it allows for diversity of styles. But, jmo.