The scary thing about your response is that you might actually think you're going to hang banners with today's athletes scoring 50 points per game.  Trivia question: out of the 347 D1 mens hoops programs, how many are currently averaging 50PPG or less?  Answer: One, Grambling State at 48.6PPG.  They are also 0-23.  Do they hang banners for winless seasons?  Do you think their PPG average or wins would go up with no shot clock?

What I am really struggling with is this: what do you think will improve with no shot clock?  If we are going to remove the reward of playing 35 seconds of good defense, should we remove the 10 second rule to cross half court?  Maybe remove the 5 second inbounds rule and let guys stand on the sideline as long as they want until the right pass presents itself?

Do the refs just ignore a player request or does it become a technical or some sort of violation?

Miami played slow, low scoring, successful basketball for a number of years. Their attendance sucked.

Coaches sometimes call timeout to offset something they think is about to happen to the detriment of the team. The coach may see something imminent that the players aren’t aware of- perhaps he anticipates a jump ball coming, or a double team that doesn't  look too good for his kid “No Hands Stan”; or a 3 or 5 second violation about to be called; or a player about to step out of bounds; the possibilities are endless. Maybe this is unfair to the opposition, a debatable point I suppose.

Just my opinion, but I prefer play be determined by the play on the court without coach intervention. 

Call all the travelin and palming that regularly happens.

Institute a short (24 seconds?) play clock.

No 3 point shots savefor the last 3-4 minutes of the game, none in OT.

If you make 3 shots in a row, until another player scores (i) you can commit as many fouls as you want, (ii) the other team isn't allowed to play defense against you, and (iii) the ball must be set on fire.

Some posters are assuming that not having a shot clock or a three point line means lower scoring.  That's not the case.  Scoring was not low before these innovations were brought in.  In fact, scoring has been dropping as a trend for a number of seasons now.  

It was really hard to stall because of the 5 second rule...and the natural proclivity to throw the ball away eventually.  Stalling was the exception rather than the rule.  

Was Steve Alford less of a factor without a three point line?  Rick Mount?

Today's offenses are based a lot on drive and kick rather than finding a good 15 foot jump shot.  I thought the game was aesthetically better when there was a mid range game.  Less ball screening and physical play...

Gotta also recognize that refs allow much more physical play than in the 70s and 80s.

Athletes are bigger, stronger, better fed and better bred. The fanbase wants beastly dunks over skilled shooters. They favor the guy who can play physical and body up over a guy who works his skillsets all summer to make up for a physical mismatch. Mount would not get his shot off against these diefenses as they would body him up and hedge all screens. jamerson would be in the same boat unless he played for an elite squad that moved the ball really well. Niether of those guys would be able to "create their own shot" as you hear so many talking heads and fans state with authority.

For me....everybody needs a shooter, moreso now with greater emphasis on athleticism over skills. On the recruiting trail every coach thinks he can take an athlete and make him a player. That takes motivation and hard work for a player to build his game. Not all have that. 

I do not care if a kid can dunk. If he can shoot like Rotnei Clark Iwill take him in a heartbeat.

A dunk feels like more but it is only 2 points.

3 > 2

COmbination of Dean Smith and stall ball and fans with hoops ADD hating the 4 corners offense.

If you ever figure out why Americans can't get totally behind Hockey or Soccer and you will have your answer

Jeff,

I don't think you're too far off in wanting to implement some changes.  Heretical as it sounds, I think the shot clock has slowed the game down in some ways. 

My example; offenses tend to want to "take advantage" of the shot clock, meaning use all of it you can to find a good look.  What happens is pass after pass after pass around the perimeter until you can/have to do something - then basketball is played.  (BTW, if I see another possession where every player takes two passes, makes two weak-a$% ball fakes and passes again, I think I'll break my TV.)

Meanwhile, the defense can sit back in the passing lanes to stop an entry pass instead of challenging the ball to force a change of possession because they know the game is coming to them within 35 seconds.

This is not the same game that we used to play back in the day but as sentiment here will tell you there is no going back.

100%Cat, if you had read my original post carefully, you would have noticed that my proposal is to have the shot clock and 3 pt line operative during the last four minutes of each half.

Some of the opponents of my proposals are citing rare aberrations from the past as if that was frequent back before the shot clock and three point line.  11-6??  Come on, very rare.  Scoring was actually higher before the rules changes than it is now...

My recollections are that stalling often backfired on teams...unless the other team capitulated to it and didn't aggressively guard people. 

It's not like the overall game of college basketball was moving at a snail's pace and something had to be done.  It was actually more based on the negative publicity that came from Dean Smith's use of the four corners offense when Phil Ford was there...in important, televised games.  Coach Smith would try to put the game on ice occasionally after getting a double digit lead. 

But I'm thinking that having the shot clock operating during the last four minutes of each half would militate against a revival of four corners strategy to run out the clock at the end of games.  

I think the removal of the shot clock would lead to offenses using skill to run sets or motion offenses without a desperate attempt to knock people out of the way with ball screens to get guys open shots before the shot clock expires. 

As for the three point line...several reasons were given for it back when it was instituted.  One was that offenses were depending too much on slashing to the basket and defenses were sagging into the lane.  The thought was that the three point shot would spread the floor more and keep defenses from collapsing into the lane.  Proponents thought this would make the game more aesthetically appealing.  Another reason given for the three point line is that it would "bring the little guy back into the game."  Back then, of course, most, but not all, perimeter shooters were guards.  

Since the 3 pt line has been instituted, the game has evolved from running an offense to earn good 12-15 foot shots to driving and dishing outside.  Players either want to get to the hoop or dish out for three point shots.  This is just my opinion, but I think the game was more exciting and interesting when offenses featured the mid range game.  

Another major factor in the changes to the game is, like Borna wrote, the increased physicality.  Refs flat out allow more contact to go on.  Players are bigger, stronger, and try to assert themselves.  I would suggest that the game would be better if there was a concerted effort made to return to more of a finesse style.  Heck, that doesn't mean the game wouldn't be physical at all.     

This article seems rather timely, no?

Bornacat: you make good points about the size, speed, strength and nutrition of today's athletes, but you are also ignoring the fact that Dave Jamerson, Rick Mount, etc...today would also benefit from the weight room, training tables and modern training techniques and would be better themselves.