Interesting article in NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/sports/college-lacrosse-considers-shot-clock-to-speed-games.html?_r=1) this week about growing sentiment for a shot clock in college lacrosse. Would that help or hurt Cornell?
Quote from: dbilmesInteresting article in NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/sports/college-lacrosse-considers-shot-clock-to-speed-games.html?_r=1) this week about growing sentiment for a shot clock in college lacrosse. Would that help or hurt Cornell?
Yes and no.::smashfreak::
I'm not sure whether it would help Cornell or not, but a shot clock does sound like it would make the game more interesting. If they do institute it, it should just be a simple 60 second shot clock, not a third second one that starts after a stall warning (which was one of the possibilities mentioned in the article).
Curious. That definitely would speed things up.
But, the kids would get at lot less time to breathe.
Would it work at the high school level where a team doesn't have an unlimited number of subs available??
::thud::
Quote from: Johnny 5Curious. That definitely would speed things up.
But, the kids would get at lot less time to breathe.
Would it work at the high school level where a team doesn't have an unlimited number of subs available??
::thud::
Back in the old days, midfielders ran the entire field and played both offense and defense. So teams would typically run 3 or even 4 midfields. Defense and attack could rest while the ball was at the other end, so typically a team would need 5-6 players at attack, with 1-2 of them riding the pine, and a similar number at defense. If one team dominated, it would have to play more attackers, but then the score would be such that weaker players could get off their butts. The situation was reversed for a team that was being dominated.
A shot clock might not speed things up that much from a personnel standpoint. A shot leading to a turnover would allow teams to change roles and give attackers or defenders a rest. With midfielders specializing in offense or defense, they too will get a rest (providing the previously defending team clears the ball). A shot clock would favor a team with strong ball control (faceoffs, rides, etc.) because it can spend more time in the attacking zone and it's easier (less dangerous) to sub while your team's on attack. A shot clock would also slightly favor teams with more depth, which may put teams like Cornell at a disadvantage because we depend on blue-collar guys with potential rather than dozens of high-school AA's, and we give them a year or two to ripen.
At the high-school level it actually might be a good thing because it would give more kids a chance to play and develop sooner. (Pannell apparently didn't really begin to excel until his senior year in high school.)
As close as we'll get to a shot clock for 2 years. Two articles on the rule changes from the Syracuse Post-Standard/Syracuse.com. First from Coach Desko (http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2012/09/desko_says_rules_changes_comin.html) and then from Colgate's Peter Baum. (http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2012/09/baum_and_shooting_stars_in_lac.html)
Quote from: Jim HylaAs close as we'll get to a shot clock for 2 years. Two articles on the rule changes from the Syracuse Post-Standard/Syracuse.com. First from Coach Desko (http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2012/09/desko_says_rules_changes_comin.html) and then from Colgate's Peter Baum. (http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2012/09l/baum_and_shooting_stars_in_lac.html)
DeLuca is also quoted in the first article, Pannel in both.
Eliminating face-offs again? It didn't work the last time. Why do it again?