Is Thirty Seconds Too Much to Ask?

Last night’s debacle called the Men's Divison I National Championship Game is likely still turning stomachs. Yes, a win’s a win and a title is a title if you’re a fan of the boys from Storrs; so congratulations to the UConn Huskies that actually scored a basket, blocked a shot or grabbed a rebound. That Butler played in back to back national championship games is a testament to the program, even in an era that has been (deservedly) maligned for watered down programs and greater NCAA malfeasance.

Yet, the greatest take away from the game for this Scribe wasn’t how bad both teams performed – and they were awful. It’s something far more maddening and still unconscionable.

Is it time to lower the men’s college basketball shot clock again?

It’s important to note the men’s game because as you’ll see tonight with the women’s national championship game, despite the physical differences in the players, there’s a quicker pace in their game.

"Okay, I got 24 seconds to work."

Some history: The NBA introduced the shot clock in 1954 after finding that fan and media interest declined year after year (the league itself was just eight years old) due to low-scoring, stall-fests. The introduction of the shot clock is credited to Danny Biasone, the founding owner of the Syracuse Nationals (they eventually became the Philadelphia 76ers) as he experimented with a clock during a scrimmage. He found that there was an immediate increase in offense, game pace and excitement in the game and pushed the Association to implement the clock in time for the start of the 1954-55 season.

Essentially, the game was reborn. Removed from the mere extension of the peach-basket era of the patriarch’s design (James Naismith), new strategies and maneuvers were developed and the five positions on the floor evolved in ways not previously conceived. Of course coaches found ways to stall anyway; stalling occurred far less regularly while remaining only a way to ensure a win in the final frames of a contest instead being a defined style of play.

The shot clock saved the professional game as other pro leagues across the globe adopted the standard 24-second clock. However, the NCAA was peculiarly slow. It was the women, not men, that played with the shot clock first in 1969; an experimental 30-second clock that was made permanent in 1970 and remains to this day. The testosterone crew added the clock, eventually, in 1985.

1985.

It was a 45-second shot clock and one that met decades of resistance long before its arrival as this Sports Illustrated article from 1982 explains. The clock was reduced again to 35 seconds after 1993-94.

Yet, somehow, the college game continues to be defined by a deliberate pace. Whereas the NBA was raked through the coals for a sluggish pace in the immediate years of the post-Jordan era – despite its existence during the Jordan era – the NCAA game managed to become slower and slower and slower.

Maybe the watered-down talent argument has a lot of merit. After all, in one of the most insane tournament games of all time, the UNLV Runnin’ Rebels ran all over Loyola Marymount in the 1990 Elite Eight, 131-101 (check the 1:50 mark). The eventual national champions boasted one of, it not the greatest college basketball team of all time (not just the early shot clock era), led by mad scientist head coach Jerry Tarkanian and future NBA stars in Larry Johnson, Greg Anthony and Stacey Augmon. That amazing output in 1990 wasn’t just an offensive explosion as that team played exceptional defense all season long, allowing that end of the court to set the pace on the opposite side. [Keep in mind that for LM, Paul Westhead orchestrated a successful high-tempo offense himself.]

Yet, there’s something to be said that even in a shorter shot clock of 35 seconds, last night had the lowest scoring title game since 1946. Butler (which might be better than these back to back appearances show) played in the two lowest scoring games since the adoption of the clock. Let’s not forget that Maryland scintillated the world in 2002 against Indiana in a 64-52 contest, the third lowest of the era.

via AOL - if you can find it.

Now, shaving the clock isn’t just some manufactured manner of getting NBA fans to enjoy the men’s college game, though whether some like it or not, having those eyes are vital to viewership, sponsorships and for neutral site games, attendance. Lowering the shot clock again would compel better decision making by coaches and players.

College coaches are some of the most conservative play designers in sports; preferring to milk each second of the shot clock. They rather minimize mistakes and at the last second, outshoot zone defense (don’t laugh). This is made easier if there are some good rebounders on the team to extend the possession. Players seem to be pretty good at over-passing and running around the perimeter until the clock goes :01. It’s an exercise in stamina and strategy, but certainly not efficiency.

If you quicken the pace a bit, players could consider taking shots as soon as they are open. In fact, players might consider moving a second or two sooner to set them up for a better shot. Coaches should encourage their floor leaders to play with more options. On occasion, a player might decide to take the game on his shoulders and avoid going into six overtimes while having to play the next day.

Or better yet, you don’t have a scenario like the ’08 title game between Memphis and Kansas. There’s a reason for the reputation coach John Calipari as a terrible game manager late in games despite the NBA-level talent he has managed to recruit over the years. With a seven point lead in the final minutes of the second half, the Tigers, with Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts, seemed to play keep-a-way, but Kansas – knowing that Memphis was a poor free-throw shooting squad – kept fouling and creating possessions on the other end. Kansas chipped at the lead and forced overtime. In the extra session, Rose and CD-R (leading scorer in the tournament) essentially stuck with a clock-milking perimeter game as opposed to attacking the basket after the Jayhawks jumped to and maintained the early lead.

These kids were recruited for a myriad of basketball skills that should be displayed more than the current game allows. This is a game that can use more attacks to the rim, not just brilliant backdoor cuts. This is a game that can truly benefit from displaying cleverly used, but aesthetically pleasing athleticism as opposed to one actual dunk in the last two title contests – the most bizarre stat in recent basketball history.

This isn’t to say that Brad Stevens or Jim Calhoun should flip the switch and become Mike D’Antoni and even Don Nelson next winter. Stevens built a good defensive program that could probably kick up the tempo a bit more once the Bulldogs get into conference play (because it’s easy to drop buckets against overmatched, non-conference lightweights in November). Calhoun, meanwhile, can always recruit the top players around the country and despite the typical ‘my way or the highway’ credo coaches live by, he could let the talents somewhat dictate the style of play.

The shorter shot clock would allow coaches to flaunt their supposed genius a bit, too.

Stop cringing. It'll be okay.

Now, some will say “Jason, you admitted that you don’t follow the college game very much anymore, so you can’t speak on it”. Yet, this is the main reason why it’s so difficult for a pro snob such as me to re-invest in college basketball. It’s not about tailoring the game to bring in more viewers or sell more merchandise. It’s about seeing how good these kids truly are when facing an inherent challenge in advancing the ranks of the game.

The game is too similar to high school except that instead of playing teens that already reached their athletic peak; they’re playing the cream of the secondary school crop. There’s a tremendous challenge in playing against the best young talents from top notch high schools and AAU programs. Yet, just as students have to adjust to an advance structure of education in the classroom with professors, lectures and tougher grading policies, as a player ascends in his career, he should be able to mature with a more advanced structure a higher level of game should imply.

Whenever a nationally televised championship elicits so much moaning and groaning about the quality of play, we expect the league to respond. More often than not, they have; from the NHL’s post-lockout rule changes to the NFL’s limitations on defensive contact to the NBA’s adoption of clear path fouls and restricted area in the paint. Some of these changes still ruffle feathers, but there’s no question that they have encouraged an evolution of game play by forcing coaches to expand playbooks and players to make physical adjustments.

Yet, this one modification won’t exactly threaten the look of the court, the physicality of the players or the playbook coaches employ. It will encourage the system to display the absolute best their players and coaches have to offer.

Now, about that pointless possession arrow…

Deleted Scenes from "Hardwood Graduation"

As promised. It's always fun to edit works like this, knowing that Scribe is a perfect place to show everyone what was left on the cutting room floor.

Again, mucho thanks to Rodney Brown.

What you’re doing now and how long have you been involved?: I work in K-12 education as a high school administrator and have also worked as a high school athletic director in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I’ve also served as a nonprofit executive with the Urban League, adjunct college professor of political science at a community college, a community organizer with a neighborhood association and a political candidate for local office.

Where did you play?: I played at Santa Clara University (1986 to 1990). Santa Clara produced professional players like Kurt Rambis and Steve Nash and sports super-agent Billy Duffy. In my senior year, I led our team in 3 point field goal shooting, was a team captain and led our conference in 3 point field goal percentage for most of the season. My proudest accomplishment was being voted Most Inspirational Player by my teammates in my senior year.

Did you start? Sub?: I started about half of the games my senior year, otherwise I was the first player off of the bench. I played point guard and shooting guard.

If you played with a highly-touted pro prospect (no matter how long they stuck in the pros), who was it?: Although Steve Nash entered Santa Clara 2 years after I left, I played pick-up basketball with him at Santa Clara. And, all the things that Steve does now, he was doing’ as a freshman at Santa Clara. There were three guys that I played with that went on to play basketball overseas (Dan Weiss-China, Jens Gordon-Germany and Jeffty Connelly-Spain).

Sycophants

Color me curmudgeon, but I’m not infected with Madness anymore.

Not since Carmelo Anthony led Syracuse to the national championship in 2003 have I paid attention to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament from start to finish. While interest at that time was tepid at best, it has dropped to Dubya-like approval rating levels in the last six years.

In fact, this Scribe has watched a whopping total of thirty-five minutes of college basketball in the entire regular season.

It wasn’t always this way as for someone with a vested interest in professional sports, I was anxious to see who really had the talent to make it to the elite level. I wanted to see who would be grossly overhyped, overrated and overwhelmed when they arrived. I also wanted to unearth players that were not considered in the National Player of the Year race who would turn out to become solid, if not great pros. I studied the players with my own eyes as opposed drinking the Kool-Aid served up publicly or privately by the media and friends.

Yet, for every column, comment or conversation I have come across in regards to the collegiate game over the years, someone feels obliged to take a shot at the pros; specifically the NBA.

It’s something that has bothered me for quite some time for reasons too numerous to list. Yet at the core of this frustration are these tried-and-true exclamations:

• There are too many teams in the NBA: The NBA features thirty teams, all made from buckets of what are the 500 best players in the known universe compared to 349 teams that consist of 95% Intramural All-Stars, 3% future collegiate assistant coaches and 2% that might get at least a Summer League invitation.
  And can you realistically believe that the hustle-for-cash expansion of Division I has been financially viable for every team?
  
  
• They play with passion!: Ano unfair judgment that is made without knowing the individual’s psyche, routine and off-court life. Sure, there are pros out there who may not exude the telltale signs of passion; a lot of screaming and scowling, getting in people’s faces when game plans go awry, those head-in-hand moments as a senior realizes his athletic career ended on a buzzer-beater. Yet, if anyone besides media could ever witness a professional locker room in person after a close loss, you may discover that passion – like leadership, savvy and other intangibles we wax poetic about – isn’t always in full view of the public. In looking for the obvious and borderline-obnoxious signs (see Eric Devendorf), you’ll miss the more subtle and profound displays.
  
  
• They’re more fundamentally sound than the pros: When you graduated from high school, were you more fundamentally sound than you were in college? For those who went to college, do you find that you are more fundamentally sound that you are now?
  Your answers should both be ‘no’. The idea that college players are better than the professionals because they “don’t dunk all over the place” is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous because when you are a professional at anything in life, the ivory tower ideals are continuously challenged and either supplemented or rejected with real-life experience.
  
  
• It’s about the TEAM, not one player: If you’re sick of hearing about Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and the NBA’s other stars, think about this: when we suddenly fell in love with the sharpshooting Stephen Curry, did we take the time to learn the names of any other player from Davidson? Can anyone name someone on the snubbed St. Mary’s team besides Patty Mills? Who notched up assists for Gonzaga when Adam Morrison shot the lights out of Western region arenas at tourney time? Take your time in answering.
  
  
• (My favorite) They play harder than the pros!: Really?!?! While there are certainly folks in this world who loaf through their days, one of the most unfair things we do as a society is to question someone’s work ethic from afar.
  When you’re a professional – especially one who had to fight amongst many others to earn a coveted job – your livelihood is at stake with every key stroke, every presentation, every brick laid and every mid-range jump shot taken. You improve because of one or more of the following: A) you enjoy/need that income, B) you see something that can be improved and need to correct it, C) being in the company of like-minded and/or skilled individuals breeds healthy competition and greater production or D) there are other like-minded and/or skilled individuals who will take your spot if you are unable to perform.

You have to understand again that I once loved the college game. As a young child, I watched both men and women’s (that’s right, equal opportunity viewing) amateur games just about as much as the professionals; in reality, it was as much as a non-cable household could watch sports. As I grew older and cable finally arrived at the Clinkscales’ doorstep, I discovered a gluttonous serving of all levels of the games I loved.

In particular, it was basketball that gained much more of my attention as I would be able to see some of the best teams and players from all corners of the country. While having an athletic program was not a consideration for my choice of college – Babson College is a Division III school, but actually quite good – I have a healthy respect for the school-wide camaraderie and pride a successful one creates for the student body and alumni. Some of the larger schools I was accepted to would have provided such experiences; experiences that admittedly would have kept my interest in the ‘old college try’ far stronger than it is today.

Yet, the continued claims of integrity by NCAA sycophants at the expense of the NBA and its fans, no matter how false and absurd, have weathered this soul. They truly believe that because their athletes are not (legally) paid that the virtues of the game show themselves basket after basket. They truly believe that the money professionals earn makes every play less meaningful and less aesthetically pleasing. They believe that the control wielded by the coaches - men who may lead amateurs, but have no qualms with parading down the sidelines in thousand-dollar designer suits – keeps the game of basketball pure and uncompromised.

Why NCAA basketball fans assail on their NBA counterparts is beyond me. The NBA fan – one who certainly is aware of the league’s perception issues and criticisms – is one who has a great respect for the game. That respect, more often than not, is shunned by their collegiate partners because a majority of those in the NCAA camp can’t move beyond the fact that a select group of players are handsomely compensated to display their talents and passions to the world.

So to everyone consumed by this year’s tournament, enjoy yourselves. This is your time to shine in the spotlight and there’s no doubt that one player or one team will provide an everlasting memory for someone in the masses. Yet, the next time you say to yourself that “this is why I hate the NBA”, consider this comment from today’s op-ed from the New York Times’ Timothy Egan, who extolled the ‘virtues’ of the NCAA tourney:

“Spare us the poetic waxing and shilling for a hypocritical sport that is a huge cashcow for everyone except the players, unless they cheat.”