Oh, I agree completely. Shot clock good. Shorter shot clock better.MJatUM wrote:Fair point. I did not mean it as a blanket statement that all games would be less scoring, but (IMO) giving a team the opportunity to sit on the ball at the end of a game is ridiculous, even if it only happens 5 times all season.
Could you imagine a team that is down by 2 having to foul with 3 minutes left in a game because the opponent can spread it out and pass the ball around the perimeter?
Shorter shot chnages
Raise the bar, do the minimum.
-
JoleonLescottsHair
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 3013
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:17 pm
- Location: Cuticle, Cortex and Medulla
No problem, but I will help you further; you were "thinking" like a real condescending prick with your smug and dismissive "terrible idea fwiw" parenthetical. How's that for some thought and examples? Pretty simple.MJatUM wrote:^Thank you. The examples and thought you put into your answer has swayed me. Don't know what I was thinking.![]()
I didn't like the shot clock when it was introduced but have come around some in the thirty years since it was introduced into college ball. What I like about it, though, is not that it encourages shooting (which, at 35 seconds with ten seconds to get over half-court, it really doesn't) but that it rewards strong defense. I'm happy with the balance the 35-second shot clock creates. What I don't like is sports changing rules to encourage scoring (see the DH rule).