Originally Posted by
Bob21
Originally Posted by
redietz
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.