Potential rule change to open up play

[vu84v2]

There has been a great deal of talk in the media and among coaches about opening up play to make the game more interesting and higher scoring.  Given the great basketball knowledge on this website, I thought I would propose an idea that I have never heard anyone consider and see what the great minds here might think.

There has been a lot of talk about reducing the shot clock, but there has been valid concern (at least in my opinion) that this will just lead to more poor shots when there is good defense being played.  I would say that reducing the clock fromm 35 to 30 is probably not going to create many poorer shots, but I alsodon't think that it would open up play that much more either.

My idea is that there be a two-stage shot clock.  If you shoot and score within 15 seconds of the 35 seconds, you get an additional point.  Thus teams are incented to try to score earlier and would require more open play, from more fast breaks and getting in their offense faster, to get the incentive.  However, teams will avoid taking some bad shots and just go for the "post 15 second" score.  The shot clock would put off some colored light for 15 seconds being reached.  To prevent stoppages from when a team may questionably have shot within 15 seconds, reviews for that instance would only be at the timeouts.  Second attempts (rebounds) or balls going out of bounds off the defensive player do not reset the 15 second clock, but defensive fouls would.

Maybe this is too weird of an idea, but the problem with every other solution offered is that there is no incentive for the offense.  Furthermore, when they tried to call games much closer at the beginning of last season, it just created a lot of free throws (not interesting) and the referees eventually went back to the status quo.

[valpotx]

Seems kind of like a Bank Shot premise

[a3uge]

Logistically, that seems like a nightmare. Getting everyone the proper equipment aside, the officials would have a difficult time getting this right. Considering college basketball refs seem to already have a hard time with basic concepts, I don't trust them to call this correctly. It also too big of a deviation from the game. Also, end of games would get ridiculous and become free-throw fests - teams up 4 would have to intentionally foul on defense.

I think the shot clock definitely needs to be reduced. I get the argument that a 24 second shot clock in college would just lead to more bad shots, but the biggest problem with a 35 second shot clock is that 5-10 seconds of the clock is wasted anyways. I'm not sure you'd notice a drastic difference in play by reducing it 5 seconds - teams take 8 seconds to get up court and take their time calling a set. If anything teams would simply get into their sets quicker.

But the biggest problem with a 35 second shot clock isn't the pace of play - it's the end of games. The last minute of a close NBA is a bit shorter, but much more watchable. In college, it can take up to 20 minutes. Last year's tournament averaged 6 minutes for the final 1 minute, and that included leads that were statistically safe at the end. The median length for a < 10pt game with a minute left was 7 minutes. A college team down 1 with 40 seconds left has to already start fouling (timeouts cant advance the ball, so even a miss and rebound won't leave enough time). Shortening up the shot clock may stop teams from fouling so early, and it would make 7-8 point games with 2 minutes left more watchable. It's very anticlimactic watching a team up 7 with 2 minutes left just dribble around for 30 seconds knowing they essentially end the game by killing clock for 2 more possessions before playing the foul-game 2 or 3 times. The NBA features clock killing, but since the shot clock is much shorter, it's much less noticeable and happens less often.

Also, one thing to come back and quote me on in 5 years - the NBA is already headed to more of a 3-point oriented league. 26% of shots are now 3 pointers, as opposed to 15% in 197 when the line moved out. Last year teams attempted more 3 pointers than any other year. I think you'll see the college game change as decent shooting gets valued more and more.

[vu84v2]

a3uge - All valid points, especially the one about the game being a mess at the endto avoid 4 point plays.  My idea is probably not the best idea, but my point is that the offense needs to be incented to attack the defense and the goal of any rule change should be to get more field goals, not just more points (via free throws).

My guess is that you are right about the NBA becoming a more 3-point oriented league.  Perhaps this does open up more space, but I think that really happens more in the pro game because the arc is so much further back and the shooters are the "best of the best".  Good defensive teams in college basketball can have defenders that can move more easily between an inside offensive player and defending someone on the arc, whereas there is a much greater distance to cover in the pros.  One could suggest moving the college arc back, but my guess is that there are not enough good outside shooters to make that work well.

Anyway, I just wanted to get some creative thought flowing.

[a3uge]

a3uge - All valid points, especially the one about the game being a mess at the endto avoid 4 point plays.  My idea is probably not the best idea, but my point is that the offense needs to be incented to attack the defense and the goal of any rule change should be to get more field goals, not just more points (via free throws).

My guess is that you are right about the NBA becoming a more 3-point oriented league.  Perhaps this does open up more space, but I think that really happens more in the pro game because the arc is so much further back and the shooters are the "best of the best".  Good defensive teams in college basketball can have defenders that can move more easily between an inside offensive player and defending someone on the arc, whereas there is a much greater distance to cover in the pros.  One could suggest moving the college arc back, but my guess is that there are not enough good outside shooters to make that work well.

Anyway, I just wanted to get some creative thought flowing.

I think with last year's de-enforcement of charges and handchecks was done to open up the scoring - they figured teams would simply stop playing that style which would open up more drives to the hoop. Instead, teams played the same style and games became unwatchable when the games became free-throw-fests. At midseason last year the refs considerably scaled back on the calls. You're right, it's about increasing scoring, not points. I do think the answer involves eliminating hand-checks and conditioning players to stop grabbing. The college game still seems too slow, but I don't think moving the 3 point line would open things up much. It seems like defenses would just sag more and dare players to shoot a lower percentage 3 pointer.

As far as the NBA goes - there's even talks of eliminating corner threes and moving the line back. I watched the Pistons vs Hawks game and it's clear the era of midrange ISO-play is gone. The Thunder look terrible despite having two of the best talents in the NBA. Harden might be the MVP not because of an ISO game, but because he's incredible at driving and finding open shooters. The Hawks have won 13 straight now by playing great team basketball. The Bucks have essentially the same players as last year (finished 15-67), but have already won 21 games and are actually ahead of LeBron's Cavs in the standings because they play great defense. Having 1-2 'stars' may no longer be a prerequisite in the NBA for winning a title if teams are able to achieve success via shooting the 3 well and playing good defense.