Choices 24 seconds 30 seconds 35 seconds 45 seconds Other Vote Comments Show All Comments buckifishr 17 Apr 2013, 7:50 am The shorter the shot clock, the less time we have to see the badgers standing around waiting on it to expire. A shorter clock could make watching games against Wisky bearable. BuddhaBuck 17 Apr 2013, 8:06 am And Northwestern. And Pittsburgh. And Princeton. Don't text while driving. tennbuckeye19 17 Apr 2013, 10:21 am Thank goodness NW won't be running the Princeton offense anymore under their new coach. Hovenaut Mod 17 Apr 2013, 9:07 am Especially if we see more of this: http://days.to/7-september/2015 Rock on. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 8:00 am The shorter the shot clock the less actual offense will be run. Some of us like basketball and dislike the NBA. Buckeye in Illi... 17 Apr 2013, 11:17 am I agree completely. The shot clock should be no shorter than 30 seconds. In the NBA, on average maybe two passes are made on each possession before a shot is taken. No actual offense is set up. I personally like it at 35 seconds, but 30 would be a fair compromise. Also, I think it is a myth that more offense would be created. More shots will be taken but at a less efficient rate as more bad shots are jacked up near the end of the shot clock (similar to the NBA). Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours. "We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!" Nick 17 Apr 2013, 3:43 pm False, actually. Right now most teams dribble the ball at the top of the key and then run a play with 14 seconds left so there is a lot of time wasted. buckeyedude 17 Apr 2013, 9:31 am 25.58654321 sec. 4thandinches 17 Apr 2013, 9:52 am I think we can all agree watching a PG just standing there dribbling a ball for 20 seconds is one of the most frustrating things to watch. We don't tune into basketball to see a guy just stand there and dribble. I can understand at the end of the game if you want to run out the clock, but when you do it the entirety of the game it is just annoying. I wasn't born a Buckeye but I became one as fast as I could. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 11:21 am A PG dribbling for 20 seconds is on the defense, not the offense. If you aren't going to get out and defend a guy, why not stand there if you think you aren't as good of a team. That won't change with a shorter shot clock they'll stand there for slightly less time and still throw up a hideous shot. Danify 17 Apr 2013, 10:16 am I've always wanted the shot clock to be 28 seconds. It's a perfect in between 35 of the current college shot clock and 24 of the NBA. In my personal opinion it's one of the aspects of the NBA, rookies struggle with at first, adjusting to 11 less seconds to run through the offensive and defensive progresses. By using 28 seconds it will be a perfect in between for players to easily adjust, plus it will increase scoring and bring additional excitement to the already action filled college game. Lastly, and most importantly it will mean no more having to watch the eye bleeding, throw up inducing, boredom fest of Wisconsin basketball. andyb 17 Apr 2013, 11:01 am I think the above suggestion 28 seconds is ideal...but I would favor 24 instead of 35 anyway. The 35 second clock hurts team with actual physical ability and talent. I hate watching an inferior team get just the littlest of leads and is then able to dictate the tempo for the rest of the game. The more gifted and talented team in my opinion should not be handcuffed and at the mercy of a bunch of kids who don't belong on the same court. Make your shots and run your offense and you will win. This will also give more chances for teams to comeback from larger deficits=more exciting game. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 11:23 am Again, see above, that is on the defense. A good defense will get out and dictate tempo. Trapping and getting in passing lanes will force an offense into turnovers or to actually play good offense. A shorter shot clock encourages even less offense and more winging up bad shots. andyb 17 Apr 2013, 11:40 am We see this every year in the tournament....great teams get beat by lesser opponents. Part of that is because when they play good defense as you suggest they inevitably run into a ref crew that calls it tight. A lot of touch fouls and missed calls on perception. A shorter clock would still demand great defense, just for a shorter period of time. As I said before a longer shot clock only helps an inferior team and hurts a more talented team by making them more tired than necessary. Basketball is a fast paced game of skill. Of course we obviously prefer a different style of game and I'm not saying you're wrong. I just prefer a faster up tempo game that doesn't force the up tempo team to wear themselves out/get fouls called on them. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 11:47 am But sometimes the weaker team outplays the stronger team that day by hitting 3s etc. FGCU won by pushing the pace. WSUs run contradicts your view quite a bit. They looked really good when the other team's defense just sat on their hands (Louisville inexplicably came out in zone). When both OSU and Louisville started pressuring the ball on defense they started coming back. It had nothing to do with the worse team sitting on the ball for too long and everything to do with the "better" team sitting back on defense and not utilizing their superiority. If the better team doesn't want the other team to milk the clock they can get up in their face. It isn't like football where you can't do anything until the other team snaps the ball. andyb 17 Apr 2013, 1:48 pm Look, we can go back and fourth all day about this...I get it...I know what your argument is and its purely opinion..just like mine. Your last 2 sentences are completely correct. If the better team doesn't want the other team to milk the clock they can get up in their face. It isn't like football where you can't do anything until the other team snaps the ball. I just don't think they should have to pressure like that for a Maximum of 35 seconds..it's not fair to the defensive team and puts them at a huge disadvantage...you can run offense in 28 seconds...if you can't then that's your problem..get better. UrbzRenewal 17 Apr 2013, 12:59 pm I voted 24 seconds. Why? The current length is way too long. Way too much passing it around the outside only to take a terrible shot at the end of the possession. A shorter clock would push teams to increase urgency in possessions, slash more to the hoop, and draw up shorter, more efficient sets. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 1:23 pm I disagree, I think it will just lead to less offense. The teams that actually run sets won't have time so they'll make two passes and heave it. You will see a lot more bad shots than you do now. Very few teams run an offense that you describe on most possessions and if they do that is bad coaching and has nothing to do with the shot clock. brandonbauer87 17 Apr 2013, 1:25 pm The argument that it destroys offensive sets doesn't have legs. Most actual plays take 10 seconds or less. Even if it takes 9 seconds to get across the timeline, a 24 second clock still leaves you with 15 seconds to run your offense. A lot of teams just kill the first 25 seconds with the current setup. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 1:37 pm This is a better argument than what I have seen above. But what most programs do now (or at least good ones should) is run a primary fast break, then secondary fast break, then a normal offensive set, and finally a quick strike set if none of the previous things work. I think it does take about 35 seconds to get through all of those. And there are many programs that run more of the uptempo D'Antoni style offense (like FGCU). One thing that I love about college football is the diversity of offensive schemes. The same holds true for college basketball. Going down to 24 seconds will eliminate much of the offensive diversity because people won't have time to go through all of their sets. You'll see it reduced to a pick and roll game like the NBA essentially is. baddogmaine 17 Apr 2013, 4:37 pm I know I'm in the minority but I have zero interest in forcing scoring. I think that keep-away is a perfectly legitimate way to run an offense and it is up to the defense to create a turnover or foul or do something. So I never felt a need for a shot clock and don't feel a need for one now.I'm more concerned about alternate possessions for tie-ups that give nothing to good defense - bring back a jump ball or just give the ball to the defense. And while I have your attention let's stop video reviews from giving a time out to a team that doesn't have one; and let's eliminate a time-out when a player fouls out - the coach should have known as soon as the player got #4 that #5 might be coming and been ready. andyb 17 Apr 2013, 4:54 pm I couldn't disagree more with your feelings on the shot clock (you did say you were in the minority after all)...but I think you are spot on with the alternate possession and video review..it really kills game momentum and potentially gives an extra timeout to a team without any!! On that topic Clark Kellog came up with a fairly good resolution while still keeping replay....if you are out of timeouts and there is a replay happening, your players have to go to a designated area and are not permitted to have contact with the coach...if the coach sends signals or attempts to relay a play its a Technical and possesion for the other team....I think thats a great idea. rdubs 17 Apr 2013, 6:39 pm I also don't think that shortening the shot clock will lead to more scoring. Scoring was higher when we had a 45 second clock than it is now. It will lead to more forced shots and less efficient offense which is exactly why I don't like the NBA. I think it won't necessarily favor teams that are better, but rather teams with one really good player or shooter. 73buckeye 17 Apr 2013, 8:06 pm Geez, I was suprised to see this comment. I thought I was the only dinosaur left out there. If people don't go to any high school games, they probaby have never seen a game without a shot clock. A shot clock wasn't used for an awfully long time, and it eliminates a part of basketball strategy that can be exciting, as well as equalize teams that are able to execute that kind of game plan. It gives another interesting dimension to a great game. ernie buckeyechad 17 Apr 2013, 4:41 pm I'm thinking the closer to the NBA 24 second the shot clock gets the more likely the more talented/better team wins each game, which as one of the better programs currently is what I want. The less talented teams that screw around for 30 seconds a possession will start losing much more often (looking at you Bo), and will allow the teams with actual NBA talent to run the floor and score more often. Overall seems like there's only upside to making it under 30 seconds unless you're one of the boring ass, slow it down teams which no one likes to watch anyway. CentralFloridaB... 17 Apr 2013, 7:57 pm Anything to help speed up the game would be great! I think it plays to our advantage because more often than not we have the athletes that can run and move quickly against some of the slower teams. Bucksfan 17 Apr 2013, 8:38 pm College players aren't good enough to warrant a 24 second clock, but that is what I voted. NoVA Buckeye 18 Apr 2013, 12:06 am 24 to help make the NBA transition easier and I think HS should implement a 35 second shot clock to prevent teams from holding on to the ball an entire quarter to preserve a lead. Teams are still doing that. The offseason begins when your season ends. Even then there are no days off.