In my 64 years, I've seen huge changes in the sports world. Yet these came one change at a time, which many good changes being strongly resisted. So I'm starting this thread to discuss some of those.
The shot clock in basketball was fiercly resisted in the 1960's when I entered college. The "freeze" was part of the game: teams leading near the end would just dribble for minutes at a time, near midcourt, forcing the opponents to foul or steal. The "freeze" tactic was carried to an extreme in a UGA home game vs Adolph Rupp's Kentucky around 1967. While their own fans booed, UGA just dribbled almost the entire first half. The halftime score was 8-6 Kentucky. UGA switched to a modified freeze called a "slowdown" in the second half, winning 49-40.
Despite the absurdity of these "freeze" tactics, many coaches argued that the "freeze" was part of the game and that there should be no shot clock. Thank goodness they soon lost their argument!
The shot clock in basketball was fiercly resisted in the 1960's when I entered college. The "freeze" was part of the game: teams leading near the end would just dribble for minutes at a time, near midcourt, forcing the opponents to foul or steal. The "freeze" tactic was carried to an extreme in a UGA home game vs Adolph Rupp's Kentucky around 1967. While their own fans booed, UGA just dribbled almost the entire first half. The halftime score was 8-6 Kentucky. UGA switched to a modified freeze called a "slowdown" in the second half, winning 49-40.
Despite the absurdity of these "freeze" tactics, many coaches argued that the "freeze" was part of the game and that there should be no shot clock. Thank goodness they soon lost their argument!
Comment