Why a 24-second shot clock is needed
By Fran Fraschilla | ESPN INSIDER
To many, the idea of reducing the college shot clock from 35 seconds to 24 seconds is sacrilegious. But it makes too much sense to me.
To start: a 24-second clock would be more closely aligned to the NBA, NCAA and FIBA, creating a more cohesive global game.
The NBA has been playing with a 24-second shot clock since the 1954 season. Some might argue that the NBA is able to use a shorter clock since its rosters feature the very best players in the world. But FIBA has been utilizing the shorter clock at every level of basketball too -- including in preteen play. Young FIBA players grow up with an "internal shot clock" in their mind.
With proper instruction, college basketball players would make a quick adjustment to the new rule. USA Basketball teams at the youth level have made the transition quickly in recent years. There's no reason why college basketball teams would find the transition any more difficult.
The ease and necessity of the change aside, here are three ways I think a 24-second shot clock would improve the college game.
1. It would promote more ball movement and team play
When you play with a shorter clock, you must get into your offense more quickly and efficiently. With less time to shoot, good teams would push the ball up the court early and be in attack mode immediately against any defense. Every cut, pass and screen would require precision and execution of proper offensive fundamentals.
Poor fundamental basketball would put a team in a bad way because of the premium put on smart ball and player movement. A deflected pass or a fumbled dribble would set a team back.
The argument against the 24-second shot clock is that the more talented team would win because there would be more possessions in a game. Guess what? They usually do, anyway.
Even so, a better-coached team always has a chance of making up a talent disadvantage. Intelligent teams will utilize the shorter shot clock to execute against poorly orchestrated defenses, no matter how athletic they might be, and force low percentage shots versus less disciplined offensive teams.
Think of how effective Tony Bennett's pack line man-to-man defense at Virginia would be if they had to guard for 11 fewer seconds, and if their ability to force contested shots and end possessions was enhanced.
Zone defenses would become more prevalent as well, forcing teams to pass more effectively.
2. It would enhance coaching creativity
Altogether, we'd see a constant back-and-forth of strategic adjustment, something any fan of the game would enjoy.
Well-coached teams will internationally adjust to get great shots against any defense they see. Even athletic teams would be forced to think about the game more than they already do.
Anyone who studies the NBA or FIBA game at its highest levels realizes that the best coaches can get great shots for their teams regardless of the length of the shot clock. However, because there would be more possessions per game, it would be critical for a college coach to devise an offensive philosophy that creates quick-hitting scoring opportunities for his team.
Don't you think John Beilein, Sean Miller, Bo Ryan or any other top college would figure out how to "go to school" on the great creativity of the NBA game to prepare their teams effectively for the new rule?
Take a look at the effect UConn's Kevin Ollie and Iowa State's Fred Hoiberg, two former NBA players, have had on the college game since becoming head coaches. Both have done a great job putting their best players in a position to succeed. They've used the pick-and-roll to isolate their top guys as well as create mismatches and space the floor, even while staying within a team structure.
Think back to the way the San Antonio Spurs moved the ball during last month's NBA Finals. Some described it as "European basketball." But to me, it looked like the way basketball was once played by great college and pro teams, like the legendary iterations of the UCLA Bruins and Indiana Hoosiers, and the old Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers dynasties.
Can you imagine if more college teams moved the ball the way those teams did?
3. It would create multi-skilled players at the college level
In recent years, the lack of ball movement in college basketball has invited teams to become more point guard-dominant than ever. Offensive possessions often begin and end with the ball in the point guard's hands. Defenses that can keep the point guard from getting the ball back at the end of a possession often cut off the head of the snake.
Because the shot clock is shorter in FIBA basketball, international basketball tends to develop more complete players. This is true of FIBA big men who can handle, pass and shoot the ball and play comfortably on the perimeter. They are accustomed to having the ball in their hands, both inside and out.
I believe that the 24-second clock would help develop all-around offensive players at all five positions. A short clock would dictate that the ball be distributed not only to the smallest players when time's running out. Also, there would be more possessions in a game and more decision-making opportunities all around.
College basketball doesn't need to be saved. But it can be enhanced. Teaching to move the ball creatively within a team concept would be good for our game -- and maybe even better for the players themselves. Once the shock of change subsides, the surge in total possessions would provide for more exciting play for the athletes, coaches and fans alike.
By Fran Fraschilla | ESPN INSIDER
To many, the idea of reducing the college shot clock from 35 seconds to 24 seconds is sacrilegious. But it makes too much sense to me.
To start: a 24-second clock would be more closely aligned to the NBA, NCAA and FIBA, creating a more cohesive global game.
The NBA has been playing with a 24-second shot clock since the 1954 season. Some might argue that the NBA is able to use a shorter clock since its rosters feature the very best players in the world. But FIBA has been utilizing the shorter clock at every level of basketball too -- including in preteen play. Young FIBA players grow up with an "internal shot clock" in their mind.
With proper instruction, college basketball players would make a quick adjustment to the new rule. USA Basketball teams at the youth level have made the transition quickly in recent years. There's no reason why college basketball teams would find the transition any more difficult.
The ease and necessity of the change aside, here are three ways I think a 24-second shot clock would improve the college game.
1. It would promote more ball movement and team play
When you play with a shorter clock, you must get into your offense more quickly and efficiently. With less time to shoot, good teams would push the ball up the court early and be in attack mode immediately against any defense. Every cut, pass and screen would require precision and execution of proper offensive fundamentals.
Poor fundamental basketball would put a team in a bad way because of the premium put on smart ball and player movement. A deflected pass or a fumbled dribble would set a team back.
The argument against the 24-second shot clock is that the more talented team would win because there would be more possessions in a game. Guess what? They usually do, anyway.
Even so, a better-coached team always has a chance of making up a talent disadvantage. Intelligent teams will utilize the shorter shot clock to execute against poorly orchestrated defenses, no matter how athletic they might be, and force low percentage shots versus less disciplined offensive teams.
Think of how effective Tony Bennett's pack line man-to-man defense at Virginia would be if they had to guard for 11 fewer seconds, and if their ability to force contested shots and end possessions was enhanced.
Zone defenses would become more prevalent as well, forcing teams to pass more effectively.
2. It would enhance coaching creativity
Altogether, we'd see a constant back-and-forth of strategic adjustment, something any fan of the game would enjoy.
Well-coached teams will internationally adjust to get great shots against any defense they see. Even athletic teams would be forced to think about the game more than they already do.
Anyone who studies the NBA or FIBA game at its highest levels realizes that the best coaches can get great shots for their teams regardless of the length of the shot clock. However, because there would be more possessions per game, it would be critical for a college coach to devise an offensive philosophy that creates quick-hitting scoring opportunities for his team.
Don't you think John Beilein, Sean Miller, Bo Ryan or any other top college would figure out how to "go to school" on the great creativity of the NBA game to prepare their teams effectively for the new rule?
Take a look at the effect UConn's Kevin Ollie and Iowa State's Fred Hoiberg, two former NBA players, have had on the college game since becoming head coaches. Both have done a great job putting their best players in a position to succeed. They've used the pick-and-roll to isolate their top guys as well as create mismatches and space the floor, even while staying within a team structure.
Think back to the way the San Antonio Spurs moved the ball during last month's NBA Finals. Some described it as "European basketball." But to me, it looked like the way basketball was once played by great college and pro teams, like the legendary iterations of the UCLA Bruins and Indiana Hoosiers, and the old Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers dynasties.
Can you imagine if more college teams moved the ball the way those teams did?
3. It would create multi-skilled players at the college level
In recent years, the lack of ball movement in college basketball has invited teams to become more point guard-dominant than ever. Offensive possessions often begin and end with the ball in the point guard's hands. Defenses that can keep the point guard from getting the ball back at the end of a possession often cut off the head of the snake.
Because the shot clock is shorter in FIBA basketball, international basketball tends to develop more complete players. This is true of FIBA big men who can handle, pass and shoot the ball and play comfortably on the perimeter. They are accustomed to having the ball in their hands, both inside and out.
I believe that the 24-second clock would help develop all-around offensive players at all five positions. A short clock would dictate that the ball be distributed not only to the smallest players when time's running out. Also, there would be more possessions in a game and more decision-making opportunities all around.
College basketball doesn't need to be saved. But it can be enhanced. Teaching to move the ball creatively within a team concept would be good for our game -- and maybe even better for the players themselves. Once the shock of change subsides, the surge in total possessions would provide for more exciting play for the athletes, coaches and fans alike.
