• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACC to try 30-second shot clock, join modern basketball era

bobknightfan said:
You needn't expect the idiots on this board to understand it, either.

Just like numbers doesn't understand why a shorter shot clock puts teams like WF at a disadvantage because "we've had two of the top players in the NBA". Whoop-De-Doo! Wake Forest has played in two ACC Tournament Championship games in the last 37 years....and the last one was 19 years ago. I guess that nuance isn't one of his things. Actually, though, the concept is relitively simple: The more you turn the college game into a one-style NBA-type contest, the fewer teams in the college ranks are going to be able to compete for championships on a regular basis....because the game will have changed from being a multi-faceted one where coaching & strategy has a chance to offset deeper levels of superior talent that only a relatively small number of schools are going to have.
Click to expand...

Just like I don't expect BKF to understand a concept like "sample size one game" which is what tournament conditions are. Made even more clear by your ridiculous argument that our close game against Manhattan in the tournament somehow diminish our accomplishments. We were something like a seven point favorite and won by four, yet it was considered as a disappointing performance by Wake by BKF.

Wake is competitive at basketball for exactly what you say: it doesn't take much to compete for championships because one player can drastically change every thing. You don't need "deeper levels of talent" to be dominant in college basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ayo
bobknightfan said:
If you cannot understand how changing the game from one where coaching & strategy has a chance to offset deeper athletic ability to one that places all the emphasis on being able to get the most players with the best athletic ability will place a school like WF at a bigger disadvantage, you are too damned dumb to be in law school.....because WF is never....and I repeat, never....going to be able to compete with teams like Duke, Carolina, Kentucky, etc. in stockpiling the best athletes in college basketball. We never have...and we never will. Wake Forest has been to exactly one Final Four in its entire history. I'm glad that I was fortunate enough to be able to see that one.....because you are never going to see one.
Click to expand...

You don't need to stockpile talent to be a top 20 team. I don't know what you're not understanding about that. You need one or two top players. The rest is sample size one game in the postseason as far as Final Fours go.

The 2005 team was a top 10 team in the country by every single metric and we didn't have "stockpiled talent"
 
Pretty sure there is significantly more parity in college basketball today than at any time in its history.
 
bobknightfan said:
The more you turn the game into an NBA-style game....which is what this shorter shot clock is doing....the more premium is placed on athletic ability relative to coaching ability and strategy. And the more the pendulum swings in that direction, Wake Forest's competetive disadvantage in the ACC....which is already significant as evidenced by the fact that they have not even made it to an ACC Tournament finals in the last 18 years....becomes even greater.

As booradley stated in his post, one of the best things about college basketball was that different teams had different styles...and sometimes teams that had far superior talent were forced to adjust to teams that used different styles to compensate for having lesser raw talent. What you and others who support shorter shot clocks are really advocating is turning the college game into one that is decided strictly by which schools can stockpile the most pure talent. I'm telling you, you are digging a school like Wake Forest's competetive grave with things like this.
Click to expand...

Teams with superior talent have always won in college basketball. That's just an asinine argument. Shortening the shot clock doesn't eliminate coaching strategy as much as it prioritizes efficiency. You can still run crisp offensive sets with a 30 or 24 second clock. This move also stops penalizing good defensive teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ayo
Lol, bkf insufferable once again. Yeah, if you take 5 seconds off the shot clock, WF may as well just end its basketball program. No coming back from this. I'm not sure who wins the crown for King of Hyperbole: RJ or bkf?
 
I think my biggest gripe with bkf's king of the OWG rants about CBB is that he places zero value on good defensive basketball that is not man to man.
 
bobknightfan said:
The more you turn the game into an NBA-style game....which is what this shorter shot clock is doing....the more premium is placed on athletic ability relative to coaching ability and strategy. And the more the pendulum swings in that direction, Wake Forest's competetive disadvantage in the ACC....which is already significant as evidenced by the fact that they have not even made it to an ACC Tournament finals in the last 18 years....becomes even greater.

As booradley stated in his post, one of the best things about college basketball was that different teams had different styles...and sometimes teams that had far superior talent were forced to adjust to teams that used different styles to compensate for having lesser raw talent. What you and others who support shorter shot clocks are really advocating is turning the college game into one that is decided strictly by which schools can stockpile the most pure talent. I'm telling you, you are digging a school like Wake Forest's competetive grave with things like this.
Click to expand...

Changing the shot clock by five seconds doesn't matter. Wake was the most competitive when it was one of the fastest-paced teams in the country, indicating that it is perfectly able to compete with a faster shot clock. In fact, in 2005, Wake's best year in the KenPom era, Wake had the second best offense in the history of KenPom - dating back to 2002 (behind only this year's Michigan team) and averaged 70 possessions a game. In fact, the slowest team in the NCAA this year only took 22.0 seconds on average per possession (Delaware State), a whole 70% of the 30 seconds you will still have to shoot.

The impact of moving the shotclock to 30 seconds should be negligible based on the actual statistics, but it will certainly speed up the game albeit slightly. There's still no chance that with a 30 second shot clock that the average possession reaches the level it was in 2000-01 that Cumberland cited earlier, which was played with a 35 second shot clock. There is absolutely no statistical evidence to support your position and every aspect of the position you claim has been utterly incorrect. You are falling prey to confirmation bias and it is blatantly obvious.
 
35 seconds is an eternity. So annoying watching a team run and screw up multiple offensive sets and you look up and they still have 17 seconds on the shot clock. Shorter shot clock emphasizes FUNDAMENTALS and PRECISION. And GTFO with the yearning for the four corners bullshit. Taking the air out of the ball for that long to try to win is akin to cheating in my book.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Changing the shot clock by five seconds doesn't matter. Wake was the most competitive when it was one of the fastest-paced teams in the country, indicating that it is perfectly able to compete with a faster shot clock. In fact, in 2005, Wake's best year in the KenPom era, Wake had the second best offense in the history of KenPom - dating back to 2002 (behind only this year's Michigan team) and averaged 70 possessions a game. In fact, the slowest team in the NCAA this year only took 22.0 seconds on average per possession (Delaware State), a whole 70% of the 30 seconds you will still have to shoot.

The impact of moving the shotclock to 30 seconds should be negligible based on the actual statistics, but it will certainly speed up the game albeit slightly. There's still no chance that with a 30 second shot clock that the average possession reaches the level it was in 2000-01 that Cumberland cited earlier, which was played with a 35 second shot clock. There is absolutely no statistical evidence to support your position and every aspect of the position you claim has been utterly incorrect. You are falling prey to confirmation bias and it is blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

You will score absolutely no points with bkf exalting the 2005 team.
 
bobknightfan said:
The more you turn the game into an NBA-style game....which is what this shorter shot clock is doing....the more premium is placed on athletic ability relative to coaching ability and strategy. And the more the pendulum swings in that direction, Wake Forest's competetive disadvantage in the ACC....which is already significant as evidenced by the fact that they have not even made it to an ACC Tournament finals in the last 18 years....becomes even greater.

As booradley stated in his post, one of the best things about college basketball was that different teams had different styles...and sometimes teams that had far superior talent were forced to adjust to teams that used different styles to compensate for having lesser raw talent. What you and others who support shorter shot clocks are really advocating is turning the college game into one that is decided strictly by which schools can stockpile the most pure talent. I'm telling you, you are digging a school like Wake Forest's competetive grave with things like this.
Click to expand...

No. All of those things are still in play. A better coach will have no problems getting to the sets he wants in 24 seconds. One could argue the 35 seconds gives the crappier coaches more time to fumble around in different actions and counters that they cant originally get to to in 24 seconds. Listen to Brad Stevens talk about how it was little to no change. Just less frills to get to a set or action. Good coaches will still be good coaches.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
35 seconds is an eternity. So annoying watching a team run and screw up multiple offensive sets and you look up and they still have 17 seconds on the shot clock. Shorter shot clock emphasizes FUNDAMENTALS and PRECISION. And GTFO with the yearning for the four corners bullshit. Taking the air out of the ball for that long to try to win is akin to cheating in my book.
Click to expand...

If you don't like 22 seconds of perimeter passing, you just don't like basketball.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
You will score absolutely no points with bkf exalting the 2005 team.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not going to drop to his level by failing to utilize objective statistics in an argument. Wake was the 7th best team in the nation that year and had the best offense on an objective scale (points per possession adjusted for strength of schedule).
 
Increasing the number of possessions is good for the game. Good for watching and playing. Sports in general, aside from maybe baseball, have passed bobknightfan by, I'm sure he'd admit. Not sure why y'all engage.
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, that team didn't win a single game in the ACCT, and it lost in the very first weekend of the NCAAT....but it did pull out that game against 15th-seeded Chattanooga, though it had to overcome a 23-12 first half deficit to do it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Sample size. Read about it. Acquaint yourself with it. Learn about it.

W Maryland 81-66
W UNC 95-82

Sample size two, two wins. Wake is awesome.

I can play this game too.

Yes tournament games mean more in reality, but that doesn't change the fact that sample size of one = sample size of one in objective measurements. You're a smart guy, you know this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top