Jerry Tipton: Imagine a world with no shot clock, no fouling out

[jbcarol]

Frank Martin and Joe Dean, Jr. weigh in on the impact of the shot clock and player disqualification

South Carolina Coach Frank Martin wouldn't mind if shot clocks were removed altogether. He certainly opposes reducing the time to shoot from the current 30 seconds (down from 35 seconds last season) to the NBA's 24 seconds.

"If you look at the NBA, pretty much all the teams have the same calls for the same plays," he said earlier this season. "Because there's only so many things you can do in 24 seconds. And I don't think college basketball should be about that."

More time on the shot clock would give still-developing college players a greater chance to learn basic skills.

"Learning how to play at the end of the clock is important," Martin said. "But learning how to play is more important. Meaning how to pass, how to screen, how to cut. All the things you learned as a kid rather than stand around and set a ball screen."

A longer shot clock — or no shot clock — invites a greater variety of playing styles.

Martin would also like to see a wider court in order to give players more room to operate.

Television analyst and former Kentucky assistant coach Joe Dean Jr. served on the NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee from 2004 to 2007. Each year he proposed that players foul out on the sixth foul rather than the fifth.

"I'm tired of watching our best players sit on the bench," Dean said.

Each year, the Rules Committee tabled Dean's proposal.

Undeterred, Dean now suggests an even more radical idea: Unlimited fouls. In other words, players would never foul out.

To discourage unrestrained fouling and interminable free-throw shooting, Dean said a more severe penalty could be imposed when a player commits his sixth foul and any subsequent foul. Say, the other team shoots two free throws and then retains possession.

"I don't think we should disqualify players," Dean said. "We are the only sport that does."

The '60's and '70's ABA had a player disqualification rule similar to the one Dean is proposing.

[mbgrulz]

Martin's ideal version of basketball would be 40:00 games with scores like 32-28 and Greco-Roman wrestling matches to settle jump balls.

[Dr. Starcs]

I'm all for eliminating or increasing the foul limit.

The officials have WAAYYY too much control of a game.

[rude1]

No shot clock = no fans. Sorry but I don' think fans want to go back to watching teams get up 6 with ten minutes to go and go into the new four corners offense and try and kill ten minutes without a shot................Never going to happen.........

[Danny J]

I'm all for eliminating or increasing the foul limit.

The officials have WAAYYY too much control of a game.

I agree....I would also like to see the one and one done away with. I like the idea of 4 ten minute quarters and after 5 fouls you shoot 2 FT's.

[Dr. Starcs]

Me too Danny

[PonderinHog]

What about penalty minutes, like hockey?

[Danny J]

What about penalty minutes, like hockey?

We basically already have that....when a guy gets two fouls in the first half most coaches bench them the rest of the half unless they get down a lot.

Don't get me started on the one and one.....I can't stand that rule.

[PonderinHog]

We basically already have that....when a guy gets two fouls in the first half most coaches bench them the rest of the half unless they get down a lot.

Don't get me started on the one and one.....I can't stand that rule.

But the difference would be, with penalty minutes, you HAVE to come out.

[ShadowHawg]

Foul trouble is a fundamental aspect of the strategy of the game. A guy with 3 fouls on him is going to play more passive than a guy with 1.

The disqualification should never change. If the best players are so great, then they shouldn't need to foul often enough to get in trouble anyway.

[Dr. Starcs]

A player doesn't have any control over how good or bad an official is.

[ShadowHawg]

A player doesn't have any control over how good or bad an official is.

Players can adjust their game to how the official calls it. Anyone who has ever coached or played beyond Jr. High knows that to be true. It's just part of the game.

There is way more variation to how basketball officials call a game compared to football officials in terms of allowing physical play, block/charge, protecting shooters or ball handlers, even though the rules are the same across the board.

Players have to adjust. Removing fouling out from the games won't change bad calls that affect a game's outcome. Rarely does a game come down to an actual foul being called like we got at Florida last season. Most bad calls are actually NON CALLS.

[NuttinItUp]

Shot clock seconds should be lowered, not eliminated.

[Dr. Starcs]

A player doesn't have any control over how good or bad an official is.

[BadHog]

I'm all for eliminating or increasing the foul limit.

The officials have WAAYYY too much control of a game.

Definitely but leave the shot clock alone. I couldn't bear to watch there wasn't a shot clock.

[PonderinHog]

I like the thirty second clock.

[DeltaBoy]

NO way you would wind up with a game of  5 star and looking like Princeton did a few years ago in the tourney.

[TomBigBeeHog]

I like the thirty second clock.

Twenty-four second clock. Just like the NBA, since that's what all these kids think they are trying out for anyway. Plus, move the 3 point line out to NBA range and give one more foul.

[PonderinHog]

Twenty-four second clock. Just like the NBA, since that's what all these kids think they are trying out for anyway. Plus, move the 3 point line out to NBA range and give one more foul.

All the one and dones should have to play by NBA rules.      Joe college teams should get a break.   :razorback:

[hogsanity]

NO way you would wind up with a game of  5 star and looking like Princeton did a few years ago in the tourney.

They did that in the confines of the 35 second shot clock, and watching them run their offense was watching a thing of beauty.

What the lower shot clock has done is homogenize the game.

What unlimited fouls would do would is promote even more physical play inside.

I have advocated for years that the team that gets fouled any time they posses the ball, should get 1 ft and the ball back ( or 2 fts and the ball if fouled shooting a 3 pt shot ). Why should they have to make 2 ft's from 15 ft away when in their normal offense they might get a shot from 1ft away or a dunk? That would be like in football if you have the ball 1st and goal at the 3, and the defense jumps off sides, they make the offense move back to the 10 but give them a head start on the next play.

[phadedhawg]

Martin's ideal version of basketball would be 40:00 games with scores like 32-28 and Greco-Roman wrestling matches to settle jump balls.

damn near spilled coffee on myself when I read that...

hahahahahaha

[hogsanity]

Martin's ideal version of basketball would be 40:00 games with scores like 32-28 and Greco-Roman wrestling matches to settle jump balls.

hmm 19-2 or 11-10....................................

[razorsharp94]

hmmm 64-56, 21-41 or 97-58, 43-35.............................

[Rocky&Boarwinkle]

Martin's ideal version of basketball would be 40:00 games with scores like 32-28 and Greco-Roman wrestling matches to settle jump balls.

We have a high school coach in our neck of the woods that doesn't have the horses or size to compete with most of the teams in our conference, but he does have some quickness.  So if the other team runs a zone or packs it in around the paint, he runs a version of the Carolina 4 corners.  I have seen a team literally sit there for almost 2 minutes trying to wait them out, while the point guard just stands there by half court with the ball held on his hip.  It is the most mind numbingly boring and ugly basketball I have ever watched.

They need a shot clock in high school.  Like 45 seconds or even a minute.

[hogsanity]

We have a high school coach in our neck of the woods that doesn't have the horses or size to compete with most of the teams in our conference, but he does have some quickness.  So if the other team runs a zone or packs it in around the paint, he runs a version of the Carolina 4 corners.  I have seen a team literally sit there for almost 2 minutes trying to wait them out, while the point guard just stands there by half court with the ball held on his hip.  It is the most mind numbingly boring and ugly basketball I have ever watched.

They need a shot clock in high school.  Like 45 seconds or even a minute.

a 35 second shot clock is fine for hs, and college. It gives teams, such as the one you describe, a chance to do some things to help themselves by shortening the game, yet does not let them stall away the entire game. Same for college, 35 let teams play varying styles, 30 almost forces teams to all play about the same way unless they get a fast break.

[Dr. Starcs]

I really don't feel 5 seconds makes a huge difference in style of play.

35 to 24 obviously would.

[ChicoHog]

I like the 5 fouls and you are out rule.  Makes guys adjust to how many fouls they have and think about not making stupid fouls.  Shot clock should be 40 or 45 IMO as too many teams throw up crap shots now as clock winds down.  Of course that could happen regardless of how many seconds are on the clock.  I do like to see more passing and off the ball screens however which a longer clock would help.  I am tired of the high ball screen and then point guard has to dribble penetrate over and over again. 

[mbgrulz]

I think the thing that has been even better than the shorter shot clock has been reducing the amount of timeouts. I have LOVED the 4 total and 1 must-use TO.

[mbgrulz]

hmm 19-2 or 11-10....................................

So if I find a coach who disagrees with Martin and has a better record, I win?

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

I really don't feel 5 seconds makes a huge difference in style of play.

35 to 24 obviously would.

IMO, 45 to 35 changed the game.  35 to 30 has further changed it.  30 to 24......Well you might as well just have an official playbook posted online that all coaches use because the difference in styles will be so little you wouldn't be able to tell anyway.

While you're at it, you might as well buy the best recruiter as a head coach.  Ever see a team in the NBA consistently win through superior coaching vs superior talent?

No.
Me either.

[ShadowHawg]

IMO, 45 to 35 changed the game.  35 to 30 has further changed it.  30 to 24......Well you might as well just have an official playbook posted online that all coaches use because the difference in styles will be so little you wouldn't be able to tell anyway.

While you're at it, you might as well buy the best recruiter as a head coach.  Ever see a team in the NBA consistently win through superior coaching vs superior talent?

No.
Me either.

This.

There is less variation to the collegiate game than ever because of the shot clock. Even with 45 seconds you could still play a very patient, ball control style and be effective or play extremely up tempo and do the same. When these two styles clashed it was fun just watch who could impose their will on the other.

These days everyone looks the same for the most part. In most college games it feels like a race to 70 instead of basketball.

The more they lower the shot clock the more empowered teams who routinely get the lottery pick high school kids are going to be.

I am all for moving the shot clock back, but keep the disqualification and where it is. It does add to strategy and even forces players to use their fundamentals more than they would otherwise.

Football does disqualify players for certain hits or two personal fouls in the same game. Pitchers are removed from baseball games at umpire's discretion as are position players. The notion that basketball is the only sport this happens in is not true.

[Paul]

There would be "four corner" offenses that would hold the ball for the last 5 min of the game even if you were down by one.  Inconceivable!  Oh, wait!

[rude1]

IMO, 45 to 35 changed the game.  35 to 30 has further changed it.  30 to 24......Well you might as well just have an official playbook posted online that all coaches use because the difference in styles will be so little you wouldn't be able to tell anyway.

While you're at it, you might as well buy the best recruiter as a head coach.  Ever see a team in the NBA consistently win through superior coaching vs superior talent?

No.
Me either.

I totally disagree with this. There have been plenty of different styles in pro basketball with the 24 second shot clock, the Magic led Lakers wanted "show time" push it up the court fast trying to score quickly in transition. The Bird led Celtics wanted to get you into the half court and make you defend their sets against their size and strength. Bad Boys of Detroit was another team that would slow you down then grind on you with their strength.

24-30 Seconds is plenty of time to run sets in basketball, when teams have longer shot clocks there is simply a lot wasted motion of slowly dribbling around out side, a couple of passes and if the defense doesn't break down, back out front for the reset so we do it all over again. Not fun for me to watch, a shot clock forces a team to come down, get into their sets and actually attempt to score rather than just burning time to shorten the game or bore the defense into a mistake so you get a layup.

Superior talent wins in college too, I don't know what games you are watching. Yes coaching matters more in college but won't be winning you any championships if you don't have some elite level talent to go alone with it. The difference in the two is that in the NCAA tourney with the one and done format, a team can get hot and based on the draw with who gets upset, you can see them advance. While in the NBA it's decided by winning a series of contest not single games, which means the better team has the best chance to win over the long haul.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

I totally disagree with this. There have been plenty of different styles in pro basketball with the 24 second shot clock, the Magic led Lakers wanted "show time" push it up the court fast trying to score quickly in transition. The Bird led Celtics wanted to get you into the half court and make you defend their sets against their size and strength. Bad Boys of Detroit was another team that would slow you down then grind on you with their strength.

24-30 Seconds is plenty of time to run sets in basketball, when teams have longer shot clocks there is simply a lot wasted motion of slowly dribbling around out side, a couple of passes and if the defense doesn't break down, back out front for the reset so we do it all over again. Not fun for me to watch, a shot clock forces a team to come down, get into their sets and actually attempt to score rather than just burning time to shorten the game or bore the defense into a mistake so you get a layup.

Superior talent wins in college too, I don't know what games you are watching. Yes coaching matters more in college but won't be winning you any championships if you don't have some elite level talent to go alone with it. The difference in the two is that in the NCAA tourney with the one and done format, a team can get hot and based on the draw with who gets upset, you can see them advance. While in the NBA it's decided by winning a series of contest not single games, which means the better team has the best chance to win over the long haul.

First off, you used examples from 30 years ago that don't exist anymore.

Secondly, the game has become very homogenized with new rules, timeouts, and how the game is is usually officiated.

Thirdly, you're right.  I vote we drop the shot clock to 14 seconds since apparently no amount of dropping the shot clock affects style, only the ''4 Corners'' game.

[rude1]

First off, you used examples from 30 years ago that don't exist anymore.

Secondly, the game has become very homogenized with new rules, timeouts, and how the game is is usually officiated.

Thirdly, you're right.  I vote we drop the shot clock to 14 seconds since apparently no amount of dropping the shot clock affects style, only the ''4 Corners'' game.

24 seconds is 24 seconds doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago, if teams could run adequate sets 30 years ago in 24 seconds then nothing would have changed. The thing that has changed is style of play and that happens when a team finds success using a particular style because in most leagues it's a copy cat league, as other teams try to duplicate it. Same thing happens in football.

I never said changing the shot clock doesn't effect play, my point is that 24-30 second shot clocks have proven to be adequate for teams to run sets and employ a more deliberate style. The Spurs are a team who played like that recently and still won championships.

[HoopS]

There would be "four corner" offenses that would hold the ball for the last 5 min of the game even if you were down by one.  Inconceivable!  Oh, wait!

exactly. Eddie Sutton may get back in the game if these rules were brought on.

But stop messing with rules. I'm good with going  from 35 to 30 as we did but just am not a fan of more changes right now. Games evolve but taking a shot clock away would make this sport suck more than it does right now with whistle happy refs being as well known as star players. If they make any changes it should involve less ticky tack calls.

[XavierZane]

I actually liked this idea way more than I expected to when clicking on this thread.  I think most players and teams could regulate themselves so that we wouldn't have stagnant or boring games.

To ensure no one just stands around holding the ball, enforce a pass clock instead of a shot clock and a general three-second violation (no standing around allowed anywhere).  That would keep the game moving and always allow the possibility for steals/changes of possession.

[Dr. Starcs]

^^^

That would result in even more official stoppages

[HoopS]

I actually liked this idea way more than I expected to when clicking on this thread.  I think most players and teams could regulate themselves so that we wouldn't have stagnant or boring games.

To ensure no one just stands around holding the ball, enforce a pass clock instead of a shot clock and a general three-second violation (no standing around allowed anywhere).  That would keep the game moving and always allow the possibility for steals/changes of possession.

a pass clock would be dizzying to keep up with.

[XavierZane]

a pass clock would be dizzying to keep up with.

Why?  Set it at 24 or 30 seconds, just like the shot clock.  Just to ensure that no one person holds the ball for minutes at a time. 

[ShadowHawg]

I actually liked this idea way more than I expected to when clicking on this thread.  I think most players and teams could regulate themselves so that we wouldn't have stagnant or boring games.

To ensure no one just stands around holding the ball, enforce a pass clock instead of a shot clock and a general three-second violation (no standing around allowed anywhere).  That would keep the game moving and always allow the possibility for steals/changes of possession.

I don't know how old you are, but the idea that teams would not play stagnant, boring games on purpose has zero credibility historically.

I am so old I attended Eddie Sutton basketball camps in Fayetteville and he literally said that the perfect basketball game would be a a 2-0 game. He wasn't kidding either, though it was hyperbole. He got that from his mentor.

Before the shot clock, Sutton would pull guys out of games for missing 1 outside shot attempt. Not an exaggeration. The point was to emphasize the ball was to worked around until you could get a shot much closer to the basket regardless of how long that took. You weren't allowed to think about "settling" for jumpers.

Granted the longer a player was in his system the longer his leash got, but under classmen who played were pulled for missing an outside shot, not shots, just shot.

We don't want to return to the days of no shot clock, but backing it up would not be bad, IMO.

[XavierZane]

I don't know how old you are, but the idea that teams would not play stagnant, boring games on purpose has zero credibility historically.

I am so old I attended Eddie Sutton basketball camps in Fayetteville and he literally said that the perfect basketball game would be a a 2-0 game. He wasn't kidding either, though it was hyperbole. He got that from his mentor.

Before the shot clock, Sutton would pull guys out of games for missing 1 outside shot attempt. Not an exaggeration. The point was to emphasize the ball was to worked around until you could get a shot much closer to the basket regardless of how long that took. You weren't allowed to think about "settling" for jumpers.

Granted the longer a player was in his system the longer his leash got, but under classmen who played were pulled for missing an outside shot, not shots, just shot.

We don't want to return to the days of no shot clock, but backing it up would not be bad, IMO.

I know the history of basketball well enough.  What I was saying is that after so long with the shot clock, very few people involved in the modern game, whether coaches, players, or especially fans, would want to revert to that style of play.  The expectations from a game of basketball have been changed by the shot clock, but I don't think it's required anymore to ensure the game stays relatively quick.  My suggestion of a pass clock and a perpetual motion rule was to check against those that might try to slow down too much.  Defenses would also have to adjust to prevent stagnant play, re-emphasizing created turnovers since a change of possession isn't basically guaranteed like now.

[ShadowHawg]

I know the history of basketball well enough.  What I was saying is that after so long with the shot clock, very few people involved in the modern game, whether coaches, players, or especially fans, would want to revert to that style of play.  The expectations from a game of basketball have been changed by the shot clock, but I don't think it's required anymore to ensure the game stays relatively quick.  My suggestion of a pass clock and a perpetual motion rule was to check against those that might try to slow down too much.  Defenses would also have to adjust to prevent stagnant play, re-emphasizing created turnovers since a change of possession isn't basically guaranteed like now.

The belief of the underdog in basketball is to shorten the game. Shot clock has never changed that POV.

Furthermore, the roots from the coaching trees that thought low scoring was where it was at are still spread far and wide in college basketball. Get rid of the shot clock and it will be back almost immediately. Book it.

The shot clock is like a school teacher. The kids behave as long as they are in the room. If the teacher runs down the hall, the norms of the classroom environment start changing immediately from open conversations to kids up out of their seats and running around. If the shot clock weren't needed to stop the stall approach on offense, it wouldn't be there at all.

The shot clock only came about AFTER other alternatives were explored to try and stop the stall game. The first rule changes made for preventing the stalling of the ball began in the 1930s. It was completely stopped with the 45 second clock.....................FIVE DECADES LATER, and then only after a fight over whether the clock should be turned off for the last 5 minutes or not.

Here is a link for the rules changes adopted by the NCAA over the history of basketball. It's kind of confusing because at times, conferences have had their own rules in addition to the NCAA rules and those aren't included here.

http://www.orangehoops.org/NCAA/NCAA%20Rule%20Changes.htm

I would like to point out there was NEVER a hand checking rule added like some on here posit when they try to say "a pressing system can't work because.....". That was never more than a SINGLE SEASON point of emphasis for referees just like the recent point of emphasis on screen setting this season.

The stall game is out there my friend. It lurks in the shadows.........................MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hogsanity]

the lowest scoring ncaat final since 1950 occurred in 2011 when Duke beat Butler 51-42. Just a snapshot I know.

[ShadowHawg]

the lowest scoring ncaat final since 1950 occurred in 2011 when Duke beat Butler 51-42. Just a snapshot I know.

Shot clocks can't guarantee points, but they do guarantee more action required to get those points.

[hogsanity]

Shot clocks can't guarantee points, but they do guarantee more action required to get those points.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are coaches out there who most definitely, if they thought it was their best shot to win, would keep games in the 20's if they could, but I think with every passing year that number dwindles at the college level. You will ALWAYS have that in HS until they institute a shot clock there.

[ShadowHawg]

Don't get me wrong, I know there are coaches out there who most definitely, if they thought it was their best shot to win, would keep games in the 20's if they could, but I think with every passing year that number dwindles at the college level. You will ALWAYS have that in HS until they institute a shot clock there.

The thing that differentiates college coaches from most high school coaches is that employment is tied to wins and losses much more for college than high school coaches. Winning fills bleachers more than any other factor.

For the vast majority of 300+ college coaches out there, being the underdog is the reality. If shortening the game means more wins for them, that is exactly what they are going to do in order to stay employed.

The ONLY thing that stops that even now is the shot clock.

I would love to see the shot clock backed up to 45 again though. I think this article is dead on about shortening it actually homogenizes the game too much and hurts player development.

[hogsanity]

The thing that differentiates college coaches from most high school coaches is that employment is tied to wins and losses much more for college than high school coaches. Winning fills bleachers more than any other factor.

For the vast majority of 300+ college coaches out there, being the underdog is the reality. If shortening the game means more wins for them, that is exactly what they are going to do in order to stay employed.

The ONLY thing that stops that even now is the shot clock.

I would love to see the shot clock backed up to 45 again though. I think this article is dead on about shortening it actually homogenizes the game too much and hurts player development.

I still believe, in the long run, it is going to hurt the Hogs as long as MA is here because it brings everyone closer to the uptempo style, and therefore everyone is more practiced against. Also, players who want to play that way have more options of where to go to do so.

[ShadowHawg]

I still believe, in the long run, it is going to hurt the Hogs as long as MA is here because it brings everyone closer to the uptempo style, and therefore everyone is more practiced against. Also, players who want to play that way have more options of where to go to do so.

I am with you on the more options, but the style we employ is always going to be a minority style.

I think that reducing the clock helps the team with more individual talent. Cal is a perfect example of a coach profiting from this type of move. Clock gets low, spread the d, isolate and crash the boards for misses.

When the clock gets shortened, the teams with good individual offensive players have an advantage in that those guys don't have to expend physical and mental energy on defense to get the ball back. They play about 10 seconds of defense when you figure the ball isn't even getting past the halfcourt line until around the 25 sec mark, make sure the floor is balanced another couple secs, run some continuity until about the 12 sec mark, penetrate and throw something up, rinse, wash, repeat.....

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

24 seconds is 24 seconds doesn't matter if it was 50 years ago, if teams could run adequate sets 30 years ago in 24 seconds then nothing would have changed. The thing that has changed is style of play and that happens when a team finds success using a particular style because in most leagues it's a copy cat league, as other teams try to duplicate it. Same thing happens in football.

I never said changing the shot clock doesn't effect play, my point is that 24-30 second shot clocks have proven to be adequate for teams to run sets and employ a more deliberate style. The Spurs are a team who played like that recently and still won championships.

You and I are going to have to be content being two ships that pass in the night.

What you're calling different styles, I'm calling two variations of the same style.

And every change in the shot clock further homogenizes the game and makes us less different and easier to play against.