Time Has Finally Run Out On The 35-Second Shot Clock

I’m going to let you in on a dirty little secret: College basketball is in trouble – at least the regular season is. But if the NCAA is smart, they’ll do what’s needed to improve the game by reducing the 35-second shot clock. – Jim Weber

It’s the last week of February and all eyes right now should be on college basketball. This is when teams desperately make their cases for the NCAA Tournament and the media spends almost an entire month breaking down the “bubble watch.” And yet, despite a crazy weekend of college hoops in which the top four ranked teams all lost, college basketball is barely a blip on the radar right now.

Instead, this past weekend was full of Blake Griffin dunk highlights, Carmelo Anthony trade talk and clips of the completely irrelevant NBA All-Star Game.

It appears that college basketball has become nothing more than the NCAA Tournament in the eyes of the public so it’s no wonder the NCAA tried to expand to a 96-team field.

Consider this: Last year, it was reported that attendance during the regular season hit a 23-year low. While attendance numbers are not in yet, TV ratings have fallen off a cliff for the 2010-11 season. Meanwhile, ratings for the NBA are up 30 percent this season because of the momentum generated this offseason.

There are a lot of things the NCAA can’t control when it comes to ratings and attendance.

Number one, they can’t stop the horrible decisions college kids are making by going pro too soon and leaving the college talent pool extremely shallow.

It’s not so much the one-and-dones that have crippled the talent level in college hoops (at least not directly), as players like Kobe Bryant, Amare Stoudemire and LeBron James never even went to college. But the NBA age limit seems to have changed the mindset of all college players because now everyone seems to think they are immediately ready for the NBA. Guys that had no business turning pro last year (i.e. Avery Bradley, Craig Brackins, Daniel Orton, Darrington Hopson, Solomon Alabi, A.J. Ogilvy, Courtney Fortson) have all been complete non-factors in the NBA this season – if they are even in the NBA – instead of helping their old schools.

And college basketball also just got unlucky this year. Since the one-and-done rule was instituted, superstar underclassmen have always risen to the top to become must-see players (Greg Oden and Kevin Durant in ’07, Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love and Michael Beasley in ’08, Blake Griffin in ’09, Kentucky’s entire team in ‘10), but that hasn’t happened this year. Sure, Jared Sullinger is in the Player of the Year discussion, but watching him execute a perfect post move or pass out of a double-team doesn’t make you pick up the remote control. The one freshman that looked like he was going to take the nation by storm, Duke’s Kyrie Irving, hasn’t played since the beginning of December.

If you want an idea of just how bleak the talent level in college hoops currently is, just compare the No. 1 team in America right now, Duke, vs. the 2001 national champion Blue Devils. That team was loaded with NBA talent like Jason Williams, Mike Dunleavy, Carlos Boozer, Shane Battier, Dahntay Jones and Chris Duhon. Now? The only Duke player aside Irving that will even make a dent in the NBA is Nolan Smith, who might not even go in the first round of this June’s draft.

The third thing the NCAA can’t control is that the only “must see” player in college hoops, BYU’s Jimmer Fredette, isn’t seen by most of the country because the school’s TV contract that doesn’t have him shown on ESPN.

It’s clear that the NCAA Tournament is still huge business after the NCAA reached a $10.8 billion TV deal last year. But just how much are CBS and ESPN going to pony up for regular season games if attendance and ratings continue to slip for games that are becoming the equivalent of exhibition contests every time the tournament expands?

One thing the NCAA can control is the way the game is played. While the NBA has been widely panned for constantly changing rules over the last two decades that have done everything short of completely banning defense in order to increase scoring in the league, commissioner David Stern is a shrewd businessman and any complaints still voiced by critics are currently being drowned out by the sound of cash registers.

It’s not rocket science that sports fans like to see constant action and the ball go through the hoop.

Now I’m not suggesting the NCAA tries to become the NBA by eliminating zone defense and the like. But it’s finally time to cut down the 35-second shot clock.

Now, college basketball (and the NCAA in general) has been tremendously slow in instituting necessary changes to improve the game. After the shot clock debuted in the NBA in 1954, it wasn’t added to college basketball for over 30 years. And after the NBA started using a 3-point line in 1979, it took another seven years for the NCAA to add it to the college game.

But after reducing the shot clock from 45 seconds to 35 seconds for the 1993-94 season, it’s remained unchanged in college basketball for nearly two decades. This is despite the fact that women’s college basketball has a 30-second shot clock.

With the combination of a grossly excessive shot clock and inferior talent this season, regular season basketball has become unbearable to watch at times. Take, for example, Saturday’s game between North Carolina and Boston College aired on ESPN. Yes, both teams couldn’t have hit a lake with their shots. But there’s no excuse for a college basketball game to be in the 40s, which happened when BC bled the clock to try and neutralize Carolina’s athleticism.

Or how about Saturday’s St. John’s-Pittsburgh thriller? Yes, it was a great finish with Dwight Hardy’s lay-up in the final seconds. Let’s just hope you didn’t fall asleep in the middle of it. St. John’s and Pitt combined for a total of 86 shots. Granted, there are more minutes in an NBA game, but that’s about what a high-paced team like the Knicks or Warriors attempts in one game alone. A reduced shot clock would force players and teams to put the ball up more.

College players would love the idea. Ohio State’s Evan Turner even said if he could change one thing about college hoops, he’d use a 24-second shot clock to make the game more exciting. Players aren’t the only ones that want change. A couple years ago, Conference USA even flirted with the idea of going to a 30-second shot clock for conference games.

Yes, a switch to a reduced second shot clock would bring howls from coaches that run the Princeton offense like John Thompson III, who will say the NCAA is punishing their style of play that probes a defense for the full 35 seconds before getting the best shot possible. And defensive-minded coaches like Pitt’s Jamie Dixon will say that the rule is ruining the game by punishing those who emphasize good defense.

Guess what: People said the 3-point line was going to ruin the game too. How’d that turn out?

I’ve seen it too many times in college basketball where a point guard walks the ball up the court for 10 seconds, followed by the team aimlessly passing it around the perimeter for another 15 seconds until they really try and attack the basket. If NBA teams like the Knicks install a “seven seconds or less” policy on shooting, needing 35 seconds to shoot is just ridiculous.

And of course, the highest-tempo conference in the country, the Pac-10, is rarely on national television.

While I’d prefer the NCAA going to a 24-second shot clock, it would at least be a start if they instituted a 30-second clock like the women.

A reduced shot clock would also benefit the end of games. With a 35-second shot clock, it’s incredibly difficult for trailing teams to come back because they’re aren’t enough possessions to do so. Therefore, NCAA games turn into hack-a-thons long before NBA games do. It falsely inflates the point total of games while greatly diminishing the product on the court.

The NCAA even admitted in The New York Times last year that there hadn’t been a meeting in the previous four or five years where the foul fest at the end of games hadn’t been discussed. People have discussed the idea of shortening the short clock just for the end of games, but how do you think that goes over? After all, no coach wants to be penalized just for having the lead.

So there you have it. A reduced shot clock immediately solves not one, but two major problems solving the game today: The snail’s pace at which many college games operate and eyesore the end of games often become.

A complete no-brainer, right?

Great. So you can expect the NCAA to actually adopt this change in about 10 years.

Jim Weber is the president and founder of LostLettermen.com. His column appears each week.

11:51 AM on 2/22/2011

Best of the Web

Scott

This is a terrible idea, I hate the NBA because it is totally unwatchable and please don’t try to change the college game into the NBA. For real basketball fans the NBA game is terrible and it is not real basketball. Give me the college game or even the HS game before the NBA
big e

age limit….. people, how dang dumb do you have to be to see that the nba is a watered down, overhyped bunch of pre madonas and the college game has taken a bigger hit, because of the guys that stay there are alot that think they are pro material….. 2 or 3 yrs in college is the way to save both nba and the ncaa
Dan

What basketball needs is no shot clock. Those of us who have seen basketball played without a shot clock have seen great basketball and the shot clock has ruined it. Soccer isn’t high scoring and it is the most popular sport globally with some of the most passionate fans in the world. “Shot-clock induced” high scoring games only excite the ignorant masses, and I for one, am for a better, purer, more intelligent sport.
trev55

Agree with the author completely. And this is someone who went to UCLA and got to experience boring Howland-basketball; the wins were bittersweet. With no superstars staying past there 2nd year, a change must be made to the game. I have been advocating a shorter shot clock for the past few years to all my friends. I definitely prefer college football.
Patrick

Watch Kansas-Mizzou on March 5. That game will be up and down. Fun to watch… Guaranteed.
Steve

@ Dan-
No shot clock? That whole past is sarcasm, right? Because nothing would be more exciting than seeing a team get a ten point lead and play keep away for the rest of the game. How is that a “better, purer, more intelligent” sport? The NBA instituted the shot clock in 1954 for a reason: the games were excruciating to watch. Just because there’s more scoring doesn’t make the game take less skill. There’s no shot clock in soccer because it is unnecessary: it’s extremely difficult to score in score, much less get a good enough look at the goal to shoot. Soccer isn’t the most popular sport in the world because it doesn’t have a shot clock, and even FIFA understands that the plodding, defensive minded play in last year’s World Cup was not the most exciting thing to watch and are already tinkering with the format to encourage more scoring.
@Scott
I am really tired of people claiming to speak for “real basketball fans” who say the NBA is “terrible” and “unwatchable” and “not real basketball”. What makes it “not real?” They’re still playing the same sport, just at a much higher level. You may say you prefer the style of the college game, but as a fan of the sport, how can you not appreciate the skill and talent level of NBA players and the game they play? Just because their size and shooting ability makes the game look easy at times doesn’t make it “terrible”. I challenge you to watch this Thursday’s Heat/Bulls game and not leap out of your seat at some of the things LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Derrick Rose are capable of and do on a routine basis.
frosty

I would not mind going to the 30 second clock, but no further at this point. As to the end of the game, which I hate, I would give the team that was fouled the option of shooting the free throws or taking the ball with a new 30 second clock starting somewhere around the last two or three minutes of the game. All the fouls at the end are really intentional but we pretend they are not. THere would be no reason to intentionally foul to get the ball back if the team that was fouled could keep the ball with a new clock. It would shorten dramatically the last part of the game and they would be playing the game rather than trying to foul. Maybe it could be coupled with a shorter clock time, say 20, or 25 seconds during the the last few minutes. That way the leading team would have less ability to kill the last few minutes with passes and the losing team would play defense rather than foul. I would much rather watch them play an end game with a short clock without intentional fouling than the current system.
Steve

I hate the idea of changing the rules just for the end of the game. The rules should stay the same from the first tip to the last whistle. Just shorten the shot clock for the whole game so we don’t have to worry about such a complicated change.
Scott

I use to like the NBA back in the 80′s but today’s players only use their athletic ability to get by but the fundementals of today’s players are lacking big time. I want to watch team basketball and not just see one on one play all game long and that is why I hate the NBA. What is getting me upset about the college game is that they are trying to make it to much like the NBA and that is making the college game harder to watch. Give me funadamentals and basketball IQ over athletic ability any day.
Steve,

I normally would agree with you about different rules for the end of the game. However, that is the one time in which fouls are intentionally made, ad nauseum in my opinion. But they are not called as intentionally unless they are flagrant or extreme. And the refs probably resent having to make the determination since some last minute fouls might not be truly intentional. So that is why I propose the option to take the ball again rather than the foul, to let the refs off the hook. Or they could just decide they will make an effort to sort out the fouls made based on the situation, without my proposed rule. The shorter clock helps some, but even at 30 seconds that will not eliminate the issue. And for college, I hate to see them play the game with a much shorter time than that. What I do know is, whether it is athletic play or team play that we want to see, a free throw contest on last minute fouls to stop the clock is not what I find entertaining.
Big Red

Shorter shot clock, absolutely. As per several of the comments, I don’t see in any way how college ball is more “pure basketball” than the NBA… passing along the three line for 30 seconds then launching a shot… consistently poorly executed late-game plays… There’s something to be said for actual game experience, it hones a better player. To denigrate the more finely tuned league while praising the “purer” feeder is just delusional.
Pete

It’s ludicrous that people still think the NBA is unwatchable and bad basketball. The past 5 years have seen an incredible American talent infusion, which when added to the fact that 1/5 NBA players weren’t born in the US has created an atmosphere where nearly every game is fantastic. You have far inferior players who are less experienced, less skilled, and less athletic. It’s like saying middle-school basketball is better than HS basketball or HS basketball is better than college basketball.
Daniel

Try watching a college game and an NBA game with good seats (or find a full-contact NBA practice, teams often have open practices the day before road games at local colleges). It’s absolutely shocking when you see how physical the NBA game is up close and how hard these guys really work.
Bruce

30 seconds makes more sense than 35 as it divides evenly into the number of minutes. In his history of the NBA, “24 Seconds to Shoot,” sports writer Leonard Koppett explained that just prior to the 1954 season the NBA had a statistician determine the shot clock length by dividing the total game time, 48 minutes (2,880 second) by average combined number of field goal attempts per game, which was approximately 120. The result of this simple equation was 24 seconds.

As for the excessive fouling at the end of games, I’d like to see the double bonus amended so that after the 12th team foul, the team gets two free throw attempts and possession.

On an unrelated topic, my pet peeve is that alternating possession punishes good defense. I’d rather do away with the arrow and award the ball to the defense. It doesn’t make sense to start the game and each OT period with a jump ball, but not the second half.

Time Has Finally Run Out On The 35-Second Shot Clock

Best of the Web

headlines