Thoughts on how a thirty second shot clock will change things

[DanL53]

Just coming from the usual couch coach perspective. I'm sure I'll be as wrong as I am right in my predictions. But assuming the change is coming.

I think it will benefit our Hawkeyes. Looking back to seasons ago and we liked to run, did so just to see if an opportunity presented itself. We may have struggled a bit in the half court, but to me it seemed a problem caused more by having only one go to guy as opposed to any struggle getting shots off. In fact, as I recall we were known for pushing the pace and getting shots up fairly quickly.

Last year we pulled back on the reigns a bit. My guess is the shorter bench was a big reason. And we usually had one guy, Gesell, capable of getting us down the court. Two seasons ago we had both Marble and Gesell performing that task. This is not a critique of Clemmons, but again, last season he was often backing up Gesell at the one.

But we've got it in us, if we can expect more minutes from Mike and Anthony, if our incoming athleticism plays a part, we should be better equipped to once again push the pace.

And I am presuming that our outside shooting will improve. It's a matter of who is gone, who is returning, and who is new. And in all three cases it appears that we could take a big step forward in hitting threes. Those, with a shorter clock, are important.

If anything will suffer, it is the time consuming motion looking to distribute until someone is open. Third and forth options on a team will not see the ball as frequently as in the past.

But where I think the thirty second clock will help us the most is on defense. We already spend much effort with or three quarter court press causing teams to lose precious seconds just bringing the ball up the court. Our traps and even the hedging by our bigs is more of the same. Anything to cause a team to have to reset.

Just think, our opponent crossing center court with twenty-two seconds to shoot. A trap, a hedge, one reset and they've got fifteen seconds. Now the time to run the motion is running out. No second tries. With ten seconds to go it's already time to run one of just a few set plays, and we're going to get used to seeing them.

And, to me, wow, if the no charge circle under the hoop is moved from three feet to four as well? Thank you NCAA! We're already going to have to practice some ball denial fronting, especially when Woody sits. It's great to know we'll have to do it for five seconds less than in the past!

That seems like a big deal to me. Teams relying on bigs to get their points already take more time to run a play, and the less time they have, the better.

My memory goes back to the Dr. Tom days when rules were changed regarding when a ref counted to five on the inbounds pass. It seemed like one of our "weapons" had been weakened. Back then it always seemed like anytime a rule changed it was harmful to us. Lute Olson and the four corners? Shot clock! Big guy defending the inbounds pass? We're going to watch that defender, point of emphasis!

It's nice to see changes that look like they will actually help us. Although I'm one of the rare fans who wished we could do away with time clocks and three point shots and just go back to games officiated like they were in the past, at least if the rules HAVE to change, it sure looks like were getting an advantage.

How much of a difference? There is a reason we like to force teams to take time bringing the ball up. Five seconds could be a big difference, for teams like us.

 

[RocknRollface]

Id like to see them take it even lower, so we can completely do away with any offenses designed to hold the ball.

The bigger thing that holds back scoring though is on the defensive end. They have to start calling fouls on all the bumping and grabbing that is allowed for certain coaches.

And that's not likely to happen until there's some better oversight for the officials.

 

[hooper56]

Dan I agree completely, with one caveat. When Iowa gets a 2nd half lead of any size and gets into the double-bonus. We mostly run motion and drive the ball and spend the rest of the game shooting free throws, thus protecting our lead. Coach McCaffery loses very few games when he has a lead and has his team in the double-bonus in the 2nd half. With a shorter clock, it makes this a little tougher, as it gives the other team more possessions. So for 1/4 of the game it hurts and 3/4 it helps. (assuming we have the lead down the stretch. The shorter clock favors the team that is trailing. I also expect us to take advantage of the smaller clock by doing more trapping.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Id like to see them take it even lower, so we can completely do away with any offenses designed to hold the ball.

The bigger thing that holds back scoring though is on the defensive end. They have to start calling fouls on all the bumping and grabbing that is allowed for certain coaches.

And that's not likely to happen until there's some better oversight for the officials.

It really boils down to this for me....take a look sometime at Iowa's final 4 game against Louisville sometime and it's shocking how differently the game was played and called. With a 30 second shot clock and a stricter enforcement on bumping/grabbing/hand checking.....we'd see CBB scoring go way up.

 

[SSG T]

Id like to see them take it even lower, so we can completely do away with any offenses designed to hold the ball.

The bigger thing that holds back scoring though is on the defensive end. They have to start calling fouls on all the bumping and grabbing that is allowed for certain coaches.

And that's not likely to happen until there's some better oversight for the officials.

This. This. This.

I'm not against lowering the shot clock by any means, however, it won't mean jack if they still let teams grab, clutch, bump and grind, push, pull and otherwise assault the offensive player coming into the lane. Teams that do that aren't playing good defense, they aren't getting great position they are breaking existing rules and getting bailed out by refs who refuse to call those fouls.

Call the rules as they're written, both on the offense and defense, and you will eventually see fouling drop and scoring increase, regardless if there's a 30 sec clock or no shot clock.

 

[DanL53]

Id like to see them take it even lower, so we can completely do away with any offenses designed to hold the ball.

The bigger thing that holds back scoring though is on the defensive end. They have to start calling fouls on all the bumping and grabbing that is allowed for certain coaches.

And that's not likely to happen until there's some better oversight for the officials.

Less than a year ago I used to get called all kinds of names for saying this kind of thing. Even during the season I was called to task for ever having dared say that the Iowa/MSU game in the Big Ten Tournament (2012/13) was bulls..t.

I guess last season things finally went too far as you don't catch many officiating experts claiming it's all in our heads now!!! In fact, I think it's only fair somebody give Penn State's coach his money back for only having told the truth!!!

But no, you are right R&R, it won't change just yet. Not when Jim Delaney was asked his opinion on NCAA wide oversight of officials and his response was, "I think not. I think it is beneficial for each league to have it own traditions." (That is paraphrased from memory but I think I got the point right.....the Big Ten will remain a physical league with favorites being treated as such).

Which is why the one thing I fear from Iowa having a smaller lineup is injuries. We can theoretically front a big and deny the ball. In fact, a thirty second shot clock just helps! We can use our speed to get rebounds.

But I can well imagine a guy like Dom Uhl mysteriously flying three rows out of bounds but nobody gets called for shoving him in the back. I can believe Jarod Uthoff could get put out of a game with a dislocated shoulder or broken collar bone when a 300 lb brute brings an elbow down hard on Uthoff.

There is going to be one hell of a standoff this year between coaches and officials. It's not just Iowa. I've been looking at the separation between the big teams and the quick teams and it has grown so large as that MAYBE there should be weight divisions in basketball!!! Watch Bo Ryan yelling for officials to call fouls this coming season. Tim Miles. Tom Crean. Fran McCaffery. And more. Meanwhile Izzo, Painter, Turgeon are going to be fighting for things to be called like last year.

And what's funny, too sad? Games will be called both ways depending on who is playing.

 

[bouma1415]

That is my number one frustration with basketball, at all levels. The refs decide games way too often. Call me a conspiracy junkie, but I think the refs, many times, know who the "conference" wants to win the games to enhance the conferences reputation, and to maximize exposure for the BTN and ESPN contracts. It's all about money! Matter of fact, in the NBA football league, one TV commentator made the comment that it was "good" for the league to have NY and/or LA in the NBA playoffs....$$$$.

 

[RocknRollface]

That is my number one frustration with basketball, at all levels. The refs decide games way too often. Call me a conspiracy junkie, but I think the refs, many times, know who the "conference" wants to win the games to enhance the conferences reputation, and to maximize exposure for the BTN and ESPN contracts. It's all about money! Matter of fact, in the NBA football league, one TV commentator made the comment that it was "good" for the league to have NY and/or LA in the NBA playoffs....$$$$.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but more a coincidence.

The refs almost always let themore famous coaches teams get away with more fouls, those coaches are on the higher profile traditional powers and those are the teams that the conferences leaders would prefer to see win.

It's not surprising Delany would want to keep the status quo.

 

[DanL53]

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but more a coincidence.

The refs almost always let themore famous coaches teams get away with more fouls, those coaches are on the higher profile traditional powers and those are the teams that the conferences leaders would prefer to see win.

It's not surprising Delany would want to keep the status quo.

Good thoughts, it makes for an interesting word search. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Natural Selection? There is something that get's certain coaches what appears to be more breaks than others.

 

[bouma1415]

Good thoughts, it makes for an interesting word search. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Natural Selection? There is something that get's certain coaches what appears to be more breaks than others.

Just look at what is NOT happening at U of North Carolina. We all know that they have been blatantly cheating, yet the NCAA does not want to cut down one of it's elite teams and hurt marketing. I would be willing to bet my last dollar on this.

 

[HawkNorth]

Interesting thread. I think it's unfortunate that the shot clock was lowered to :30. This was a case of TV calling the shots. They want a faster game with more scoring. In essence, the college game will now become "pro basketball lite". When the game becomes all about flying down the court and dunking or jacking up threes, it devalues those teams, like Wisconsin and Gonzaga, who get open looks by moving the ball, cutting and screening. Instead the teams with the best athletes, like the Kentuckies and Dukes of the world, will have a decided advantage. On the other hand, I applaud the elimination of the five second guarding rule, which lost its relevancy when the NCAA went to the :35 second clock. I also think that Iowa will be one of the teams that benefits from these rule changes. Fran's emphasis on bringing in athletic, multi-position players should be a big advantage, especially if they can continue to play aggressive, tight defense all over the half court.

 

[RocknRollface]

Interesting thread. I think it's unfortunate that the shot clock was lowered to :30. This was a case of TV calling the shots. They want a faster game with more scoring. In essence, the college game will now become "pro basketball lite". When the game becomes all about flying down the court and dunking or jacking up threes, it devalues those teams, like Wisconsin and Gonzaga, who get open looks by moving the ball, cutting and screening. Instead the teams with the best athletes, like the Kentuckies and Dukes of the world, will have a decided advantage. On the other hand, I applaud the elimination of the five second guarding rule, which lost its relevancy when the NCAA went to the :35 second clock. I also think that Iowa will be one of the teams that benefits from these rule changes. Fran's emphasis on bringing in athletic, multi-position players should be a big advantage, especially if they can continue to play aggressive, tight defense all over the half court.

Disagree that it will have a negative effect on skilled teams.

Gonzaga and Wisconsin were two of the higher scoring teams in the country and they attempted a very high number of threes.

A fast paced game favors the team that shoots better and they shot better than just about everybody.

Kentucky was a very poor shooting team last year and did not attempt many 3s. They relied on great defense and huge size.

You must not watch much current NBA, Gonzaga especially plays an nba style game, aka lots of ball movement, screen and roll, inside out and shoot allot of 3s. The better teams in the NBA like the Spurs and Warriors have far better ball movement than anything you will see in college.

Now if you would have said UNI, Michigan State, Illinois, teams that hold the ball on offense and mug on defense, yes it will negatively effect them.

The nba is much purer form of basketball than the slow down unskilled foul fest that defines much of college bball.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Interesting thread. I think it's unfortunate that the shot clock was lowered to :30. This was a case of TV calling the shots. They want a faster game with more scoring. In essence, the college game will now become "pro basketball lite". When the game becomes all about flying down the court and dunking or jacking up threes, it devalues those teams, like Wisconsin and Gonzaga, who get open looks by moving the ball, cutting and screening. Instead the teams with the best athletes, like the Kentuckies and Dukes of the world, will have a decided advantage. On the other hand, I applaud the elimination of the five second guarding rule, which lost its relevancy when the NCAA went to the :35 second clock. I also think that Iowa will be one of the teams that benefits from these rule changes. Fran's emphasis on bringing in athletic, multi-position players should be a big advantage, especially if they can continue to play aggressive, tight defense all over the half court.

TV only wants what TV viewers want, that's how they make $. And, apparently, TV viewers want cbb to be the minor leagues of the NBA.

I'm ok with the 30 sec clock, I suppose, but I hope it doesn't go any lower. The less time teams have to work to get a good shot favors teams that have players that can consistently create their own shot.

On defense it will be great! I'll bet we gave up 200 points in the last 5 seconds of the shot clock and now those won't count! (Just kidding).

The genius sports writers that cover cbb say the game is horrible. It's all turnovers, fouls and missed shots. If that's true, making teams hurry isn't going to fix that.

 

[buttermypancakes]

Interesting thread. I think it's unfortunate that the shot clock was lowered to :30. This was a case of TV calling the shots. They want a faster game with more scoring. In essence, the college game will now become "pro basketball lite". When the game becomes all about flying down the court and dunking or jacking up threes, it devalues those teams, like Wisconsin and Gonzaga, who get open looks by moving the ball, cutting and screening. Instead the teams with the best athletes, like the Kentuckies and Dukes of the world, will have a decided advantage. On the other hand, I applaud the elimination of the five second guarding rule, which lost its relevancy when the NCAA went to the :35 second clock. I also think that Iowa will be one of the teams that benefits from these rule changes. Fran's emphasis on bringing in athletic, multi-position players should be a big advantage, especially if they can continue to play aggressive, tight defense all over the half court.

You obviously don't watch the NBA. As rocknroll stated Gonzaga plays an open free-flowing style that is very similar to the NBA. Wisconsin also shot a ton of threes but once Jackson went down they really didn't have a point guard to push the basketball.

I'm for anything that reduces the coaches overbearing effect on the game. As I have said before if you watch alot of college basketball most possessions include alot of false motion with players just standing there holding the ball or dribbling in place without a purpose. It eliminates those parts of a possession and make you initiate your offense and make a basketball play.

The BIG tournament a couple years ago when we lost to NW, was the perfect example of whats wrong. Tre Demps had taken and made a contested 3 right at the end of the shot and the announcers acted like that was great offense while on the next possession Demps shoots a wide open 3 eight seconds into the shot clock and because he misses they call it a "quick/bad" shot. I hate that mentality that most college teams have not even trying to push the ball or get any early offense. Why would you not want to catch the defense before it's set, you're just making it easier on yourself. At least Fran understands the benefit of early offense and will make the transition a non issue, and actually an advantage with his multiple looks he shows on defense.