no question it was more compact and that Michigan team was a small quick team that got up and down the court. Losing Wilkerson in that game and they still beat Michigan. I personally think most people do think the 3 pt shot has a bigger effect on the game. I just know that before the 3 ball there were still shots taken at that distance. It's purpose was to 1) spread the players since there were a lot of big bodies and that took place by awarding more points when a basket was made...that also enhanced the smaller players which due to population would also increase more teams being competitive since there are a lot more 6'2" players than 6'10" players and the big schools couldn't hoard all the good 6'2" players as we have seen some guards play against Purdue that were small school guards that were good.You "think" CMP prefers a good low post player? What made you think that
All good TJ, you obviously prefer the pre-shot clock era and I don't. Nothing wrong with that.
Back to the original discussion, what has had a bigger impact on the game? Shot clock or 3 point? Just for a reference, I just went to YouTube and watched the 1st half of the 76 IU championship. Considered the best team of their era, of course pre shot clock and 3 point. What was striking was how compact the game was. It wasn't the pace, I didn't put a stop watch to it, but neither team was holding the ball. They were taking shots fairly quickly. What was obvious though was how much "smaller" the court was on offense because of no 3 point shot. Made for a completely different looking game.
Just my opinion, but I think the 3 point shot has had a much bigger influence on the change in the game than the shot clock has.
I just take a view that before the shot clock the winner was not declared until the clock ran out and so however many points were scored it did not matter until the clock expired and then the game was decided. Many teams would have different results if the clock expired 7 minutes earlier or 7 minutes later and so the clock was when the scores were important. Had there been no clock and teams just played to a score, then the clock wouldn't be a major factor. Inside the clock is the shot clock a secondary clock of importance and one that tries to force any element of basketball into a few seconds of critical mass. I see this quicker action moving more to individual play, less low post play, altering D a bit due to the clock and either going to more individual efforts to score than before the clock . The shot clock was to space the floor due to big bodies and physical play and level the playing field between more teams...and most fans like it. I just happen to be on that doesn't like all the teams to be so similar and a more one dimensional in style, but that is me the unicorn today.
