Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post

Redietz, I’ve read your post a couple times now and you seem to be contradicting yourself. The fewer the number of possessions, or the shorter the game, the more variance, if we look at variance as the outcome of the game. Basically, the fewer possessions, the more likely the inferior team is to win.

That’s why before the shot clock, in the NCAA tournament the inferior teams would usually stall each half and try to get the games down to a couple possessions. It usually didn’t work but it gave them a chance. I remember some games back then in the 20s. And it resulted in incredibly boring games.

I think the bigger reason the NCAA put in the shot clock is to get away from these very boring games. They obviously want to sell a product, and a basketball game with mostly stalling isn’t fun to watch. Who wants to see one team stall the whole half? Also, whenever a team got the lead, they’d go into the stall, which wasn’t fun to watch. Even good teams did this. I’m sure you remember North Carlina’s four corner stall offense.

Yes, the shot clock helps the better teams, but it also makes the game more enjoyable to watch. Looking back on that era, I’m surprised they didn’t implement the shot clock sooner.

Other than these two points, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.
Bob21, I said that the fewer the number of possessions, the more variance in the game outcome. How could you possibly think I said anything but that? I said it continually during the post. What the hell?
Okay you’re right and I’m wrong on this. The way you worded your sentences was confusing. But now going back through your post very carefully I see how you stated it is correct. My bad. We’re on the same page on this one.

Obviously, the fewer the number of possessions, the more the variance in the outcome of the game.

I still think the NCAA mostly put in the shot clock to make the games more enjoyable to watch.
That's why I wrote, "This is why, in part...." The "in part" means this is one reason. Not necessarily the most important, but a significant reason. The shot clock prevented games from being history once one team had a 14 or 15 point lead. So it kept the outcome in doubt, which helped massage television ratings. That would be the primary reason, in my mind. Close behind would be the need to ass-kiss the established ratings getters, the brand names like UNC or Duke, because those brand names are necessary to ratings, also.

Instead of writing "This is why, in part," I should have written "This is one reason." That would have been superior writing, but it is a junk forum, so I usually post without editing.