35 second clock

[Rawland Watson]

I have been convinced that this needs to be moved to 30 seconds but I'm even more convinced after watching this game not that I'm against giving lower seeds a chance to win, but these 50 point games are the reason why people are turned off this is a lot of what you would see if you watch normal college basketball day in and day out get rid of that 35 second clock please....and by the way for those who said it how is that "street ball" working? WPS!

[WxHog]

30 second shot clock being experimented in the NIT now.  Hopefully a step in the right direction.

[passinghog]

....AND THE NUMBER OF TIMEOUTS.

There are too many freaking timeouts in college basketball! They play 3 minutes and then a media timeout.

[jjdlc]

30 second shot clock, and greatly reduced time outs,  was several instances of 15 seconds of play to  5 minutes of timeout, even in the first half.  Kills the flow.

[ErieHog]

A faster shot clock gets people used to playing up tempo-- in the long run, that is bad for us.

[WxHog]

....AND THE NUMBER OF TIMEOUTS.

There are too many freaking timeouts in college basketball! They play 3 minutes and then a media timeout.

YES!  Each team should have one less timeout.  I doubt this will change because advertisers and TV networks will want to keep as is.

[Rawland Watson]

A faster shot clock gets people used to playing up tempo-- in the long run, that is bad for us.

I actually think that would be good for us because that's the way WE want to play not necessarily the way everybody else wants to but might be forced to.

[ErieHog]

I actually think that would be good for us because that's the way WE want to play not necessarily the way everybody else wants to but might be forced to.

It would be *terrible* for us, for just that reason.

We want people to be out of their comfort zone;  when they reconstruct how they play the game as part of a permanent change to the game of college basketball, to play faster, it diminishes our edge, as their comfort zone is closer to our own.

[Rawland Watson]

It would be *terrible* for us, for just that reason.

We want people to be out of their comfort zone;  when they reconstruct how they play the game as part of a permanent change to the game of college basketball, to play faster, it diminishes our edge, as their comfort zone is closer to our own.

From what I saw we didn't have an edge tonight there guards just held the ball.

[bigredone]

A faster shot clock gets people used to playing up tempo-- in the long run, that is bad for us.

Everyone needs to read this, it is absolutely correct.

If you want the Hogs helped and basketball scoring to go up go back to the old hand check rules. They helped allow good defensive players to stand off their target and watch passing lanes which leads to cleaner overall play and more scoring via fastbreaks.

Scoring was higher before the shot clock was ever implemented in the first place. Teams could not count on winning a game 2 - 0 but now they want the lowest score possible and they will continue to do that with a shorter shot clock. There will be more zone defenses as the shot clock is shortened, too.

Stop the wrestling matches among the bigs in the lane and allow hand checking in the mid court area and scoring will go up. Encouraging pressure defense actually raises the scores.

[ErieHog]

From what I saw we didn't have an edge tonight there guards just held the ball.

That's a matter of us failing to take control of tempo.   They were never out of their comfort zone.

A shorter shot clock means a mandatory change to a pace of play that is supposed to set us apart-- not be more uniform than ever before.

[Danny J]

....AND THE NUMBER OF TIMEOUTS.

There are too many freaking timeouts in college basketball! They play 3 minutes and then a media timeout.

Yep...that also IMO is the second biggest reason why scoring has gone down. Way too many stoppages of play and it takes teams out of rhythm. Can you imagine the HUNH teams stopping in the middle of a drive so that we can have commercials? At several points today I switched to one of the 4 stations broadcasting the games and they were all at commercial breaks. Happens way too often.

[arkansasrazorback]

The commercials tonight were brutal.  Way too many.

[Paul]

It would be *terrible* for us, for just that reason.

We want people to be out of their comfort zone;  when they reconstruct how they play the game as part of a permanent change to the game of college basketball, to play faster, it diminishes our edge, as their comfort zone is closer to our own.

.  I'll have to disagree.

[hogsanity]

If you shoot the ball well, it won't matter 30 or 35 seconds. The game last night was in the 50's because at one point Wofford was 9-26 and the Hogs were 9 of 27 from the field. For the game Wofford shot 31% Hogs shot 45%. Wofford took 9 more shots because they killed on the offensive glass. Gos also only shot 56% from the FT line.

Erie is right, in the long run a shorter shot clock is going to take away to advantages of playing the tempo the Hogs like because EVERY will have to play at that tempo.

[azhog10]

A faster shot clock gets people used to playing up tempo-- in the long run, that is bad for us.

Disagree. Hard to become better at something than someone that's been doing it for years.

[azhog10]

If you shoot the ball well, it won't matter 30 or 35 seconds. The game last night was in the 50's because at one point Wofford was 9-26 and the Hogs were 9 of 27 from the field. For the game Wofford shot 31% Hogs shot 45%. Wofford took 9 more shots because they killed on the offensive glass. Gos also only shot 56% from the FT line.

Erie is right, in the long run a shorter shot clock is going to take away to advantages of playing the tempo the Hogs like because EVERY will have to play at that tempo.

Interesting how a faster paced team shot the ball better than a team who averages the least amount of possessions than anyone in the NCAA. In the past your argument has been that lowering the shot clock will make shooting in basketball worse. Yet the higher percentage shooting teams play faster on average.

[azhog10]

It would be *terrible* for us, for just that reason.

We want people to be out of their comfort zone;  when they reconstruct how they play the game as part of a permanent change to the game of college basketball, to play faster, it diminishes our edge, as their comfort zone is closer to our own.

I disagree. It wouldn't be "terrible" for us. It would be good for us as it will limit what teams can actually slow the tempo like Wofford did. If you think CMA or anyone associated with the program are afraid of a team that may eventually "learn" how to play fast, you are crazy. It's not just about learning to play fast. It's about recruiting as much as it is philosophy. Not many teams will have the bench and ability to put players on a floor that will be able to run fast.

You will still have your teams that are going to run sets and hold the ball as long as they can. Then you will have teams like Arkansas who will try to push the tempo even faster than they did before. There's no settling and thinking a team is going to catch up to you. CMA will continue to push the bar and see just how fast and effective he can get this team.

[hogsanity]

Interesting how a faster paced team shot the ball better than a team who averages the least amount of possessions than anyone in the NCAA. In the past your argument has been that lowering the shot clock will make shooting in basketball worse. Yet the higher percentage shooting teams play faster on average.

I did not say make it worse, I said if you soot poorly you will just miss more shots.

Arkansas was getting many shots in the paint last night, at one point 22 of I think it was 31 points were in the paint. When you get it inside a lot you shoot better, yet they still only shot 45%.

[Biggus Piggus]

Why 30 seconds? Why be unique? International amateur ball is 24 seconds. Why is everyone afraid of that number?

And hogsanity, Arkansas was one made basket away from making 50% from 2-point range. The Hogs were 3-8 from 3-point range, 38%. It was a pretty good shooting night, actually.

[hogsanity]

Why 30 seconds? Why be unique? International amateur ball is 24 seconds. Why is everyone afraid of that number?

And hogsanity, Arkansas was one made basket away from making 50% from 2-point range. The Hogs were 3-8 from 3-point range, 38%. It was a pretty good shooting night, actually.

Why does it have to be the same? In the long run, shortening the shot clock is going to hurt teams that now play up tempo, because over time EVERYONE will have to adopt that style, EVERYONE will have to learn to play that way. All coaches will have to coach that way. Everyone will give at least some back court pressure to force the offense to eat a few seconds, then the offense will only have 16-18 seconds to get a shot up. You won't be able to pressure a team and get into their legs, because everyone will be used to that pace.

[Biggus Piggus]

OMG how did the international game ever adapt? It's doomsday.

[azhog10]

OMG how did the international game ever adapt? It's doomsday.

Before the argument was basketball would be so horrid to watch because shooting at a 35 second clock is so bad now. But when presented numbers that show the faster paced teams shoot better, now the argument became that we are unique and we won't be unique anymore. Except when we play teams that slow us down, which happens often, we struggle. But when the tempo is allowed to be played at our pace we do well.

Now it's about not being able to get into a teams legs. This assumes that all teams are going to go from a slower paced team, to a 40 minutes of hell style of team overnight. This is even more hilarious because I can tell you Tom Izzo isn't changing what he does. He will still run sets and play in the halfcourt. But isntead of holding the ball for 10 seconds before he goes into his sets, he will hold it for 5. Doesn't change the way they play, or the fact they will only play 8 or 9 guys while we play 10 or 11.

[hogsanity]

OMG how did the international game ever adapt? It's doomsday.

The adapting is exactly why, long term, it would be bad for the coaches who already coach that way. When everyone has to play the same way, those coaches lose their advantage.

That is what is good about the college game now, you can play several distinct styles. Make is a 24 second clock, and it is all going to be the same.

Now, if they did go to 24 seconds, in the 1st year, two, maybe even three, the current uptempo coaches would have a huge advantage while everyone else adjusted.

[azhog10]

Why 30 seconds? Why be unique? International amateur ball is 24 seconds. Why is everyone afraid of that number?

And hogsanity, Arkansas was one made basket away from making 50% from 2-point range. The Hogs were 3-8 from 3-point range, 38%. It was a pretty good shooting night, actually.

Arkansas shot very well. I thought that comment was hilarious because he always goes to shooting percentages when this comes up and lately the way Ark has shot as well as other fast paced teams. It contradicts his argument.

[ErieHog]

Disagree. Hard to become better at something than someone that's been doing it for years.

To the contrary, it is a rule based demand that a team change to play faster.    That's death to a distinct style.  It is *exactly* how you get better at what you struggle at coping with, normally. 

[LRHawg]

Too many timeouts.

[azhog10]

I did not say make it worse, I said if you soot poorly you will just miss more shots.

Arkansas was getting many shots in the paint last night, at one point 22 of I think it was 31 points were in the paint. When you get it inside a lot you shoot better, yet they still only shot 45%.

That would have nothing to do with Bobby's seemed like 6 missed layups, or the two hacks on Harris on his attempted shot in the paint? No, I woudln't expect you to have that kind of optimism and non biased outlook on things.

[code red]

I enjoy the struggle...keep it like it is IMHO. 

[azhog10]

To the contrary, it is a rule based demand that a team change to play faster.    That's death to a distinct style.  It is *exactly* how you get better at what you struggle at coping with, normally.

Like I said, I disagree. It's not fact that Arkansas will do better or worse with a faster clock. Simple fact is we play better when the tempo is faster. We play worse when it's slowed down. That seems simple to think if we can play fast all the time we will be pretty darn good. Again, you are acting as if every team is going to turn into a 40 minutes of hell style. They aren't, nor will they want to. The Izzo's and the Big 10 will still play their style of basketball and we will play ours, except both teams will have 5 less seconds a possession to do it.

[Sportster365]

Not really sure taking seconds off the shot clock will actually cause teams to put more points on the board in fact it could very well do just the very opposite.

That would be rushing them to take more ill-advised shots, leading to more misses. Defensively oriented teams like Arkansas could see some benefit from it, seeing as how we wouldn't have to play pressure defense as long and potentially could turn them over more frequently due to their rush to get into their offenses.

[azhog10]

That would be rushing them to take more ill-advised shots, leading to more misses. Defensively oriented teams like Arkansas could see some benefit from it, seeing as how we wouldn't have to play pressure defense as long and potentially could turn them over more frequently due to their rush to get into their offenses.

Yes. They would be rushing because they weren't prepared for the change. Like they didn't have all off season to prepare for it. Or do you mean faster paced means poor shooting? Because I haven't already shown proof of that theory not being true.

[ErieHog]

Like I said, I disagree. It's not fact that Arkansas will do better or worse with a faster clock. Simple fact is we play better when the tempo is faster. We play worse when it's slowed down. That seems simple to think if we can play fast all the time we will be pretty darn good. Again, you are acting as if every team is going to turn into a 40 minutes of hell style. They aren't, nor will they want to. The Izzo's and the Big 10 will still play their style of basketball and we will play ours, except both teams will have 5 less seconds a possession to do it.

We play somewhat better;  other teams being forced to learn to play better on the fly, though, is a much larger detriment-  that's how you get better at playing at pace-- by doing more of it.  Everyone in the country is going to have to do more of it.      They'll change how they recruit, they'll change how they initiate offense, and they'll change how they substitute.    Each of those things is a net negative for Arkansas basketball.

[Inhogswetrust]

A faster shot clock gets people used to playing up tempo-- in the long run, that is bad for us.

Maybe and maybe not. The NBA has a super short shot clock and some of their top teams in the league are not known for their constant running style. I don't think shortening to 30 seconds would make a whole lot of difference offensively.
A few thoughts but not quantifiable:

It would possibly increase the overall scoring average but by how much is debatable.
It may actually help teams that are stronger defensively.
It appears to me those teams wanting a "slower" pace sometimes don't even start working their offense until 5 or 10 seconds are run off the clock as it is now. All they would have to do is start their offense quicker.

[hogsanity]

The longer a team tries to hold the ball against a team like the Hogs, the more chances they have of making a mistake, of getting too deep into the shot clock and having to force up a shot, of making poor decisions.

[Sportster365]

Everyone needs to read this, it is absolutely correct.

If you want the Hogs helped and basketball scoring to go up go back to the old hand check rules. They helped allow good defensive players to stand off their target and watch passing lanes which leads to cleaner overall play and more scoring via fastbreaks.

Scoring was higher before the shot clock was ever implemented in the first place. Teams could not count on winning a game 2 - 0 but now they want the lowest score possible and they will continue to do that with a shorter shot clock. There will be more zone defenses as the shot clock is shortened, too.

Stop the wrestling matches among the bigs in the lane and allow hand checking in the mid court area and scoring will go up. Encouraging pressure defense actually raises the scores.

As much as I believe hand checking would help the Razorbacks tremendously, I just don't think it need to be a part of the game.  Unless you're going to allow guys to play much more physical like they were able to do in the past.

[Sportster365]

Yes. They would be rushing because they weren't prepared for the change. Like they didn't have all off season to prepare for it. Or do you mean faster paced means poor shooting? Because I haven't already shown proof of that theory not being true.

Teams are struggling to score 60 with 35 seconds a possession to do it. Giving them 30 doesn't seem like it would help that much is all I'm saying.

But mathematically when you look at it. Shortening the shot clock provides more possessions. If each team were to hold the ball for 35 seconds a possession they each would have about 34 possessions each, if they were to chop the shot clock down to 30 seconds it would on average add 6 more possessions to each team rounding at about 40 possessions per team. So looking at it from that perspective, maybe it would produce higher point totals.

As for it benefiting Arkansas or not... I think it has it pros and its cons. Some will try to adjust to a faster paced game but I think overall, 5 less seconds will not be enough for seasoned coaches to change their entire philosophy to playing.

[azhog10]

We play somewhat better;  other teams being forced to learn to play better on the fly, though, is a much larger detriment-  that's how you get better at playing at pace-- by doing more of it.  Everyone in the country is going to have to do more of it.      They'll change how they recruit, they'll change how they initiate offense, and they'll change how they substitute.    Each of those things is a net negative for Arkansas basketball.

If it went to 24 I agree. But at 30 seconds no. I've watched girls college basketball, dated a couple girls that played and I would not say that they play at a tempo even close to Arkansas.