Any chance for a shot-clock yet?

14Red said:
Yes and no. If you have a team that may not be a bunch of scorers but good athletes and can dig down and play defense, slowing the pace down keeps you in the game longer. Also, you force kids who don't like to play defense to defend for 30-45 seconds or longer. How many times have we seen the less explosive team grind down a more talented team just based on discipline and taking good shots? There is a skill level with possessing the ball.
Click to expand...
You can continue to do all of that with a 45 second shot clock. A methodical style of play can still 100% be used to manage possessions. It already happens in college with great regularity, and that shot clock is only 35 seconds.

I'd even be open to maybe even 60 seconds in HS, but wouldn't go higher than that.
 
Doublehelix said:
Again, for the 550th time, getting rid of the stalling is a by-product of a shot clock, not the reason for adoption.

I don't know how many ways that has to be explained to you and yours before you stop responding with the same thing every time. As I've said, you think you're the smartest guy in the room but don't even realize that you're in the shallow end on this debate. You simply don't get the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Dude....you're the one that said the shot clock would eliminate the stall ball situations, not me. All I did was point out that if that is part of your reasoning then it's not a good reason as they are extremely rare situations.

So before you start throwing insults around you should go back and see what YOU posted first.
 
Doublehelix said:
You can continue to do all of that with a 45 second shot clock. A methodical style of play can still 100% be used to manage possessions. It already happens in college with great regularity, and that shot clock is only 35 seconds.

I'd even be open to maybe even 60 seconds in HS, but wouldn't go higher than that.
Click to expand...
There may be 20% or less of high school teams that could hold the ball for 60 seconds without turning it over.
 
I think many are missing the point. The shot clock would not make the players better. In fact, by adding something else for them to think about, the play would probably get worse. Also, good teams would simply force the ball to the weaker players, then deny the good players the ball.
 
winbypin said:
Dude....you're the one that said the shot clock would eliminate the stall ball situations, not me. All I did was point out that if that is part of your reasoning then it's not a good reason as they are extremely rare situations.

So before you start throwing insults around you should go back and see what YOU posted first.
Click to expand...
It would eliminate stall ball - but again, for now the 551st time, it's not the reason it's being looked at to be implemented. Elimination of blatant stalling would be a fantastic by-product of implementation. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard.
 
Last edited:
14Red said:
I think many are missing the point. The shot clock would not make the players better. In fact, by adding something else for them to think about, the play would probably get worse. Also, good teams would simply force the ball to the weaker players, then deny the good players the ball.
Click to expand...
Like with anything new, there would be a transition period for players and coaches. That's common sense.

But it would benefit the HS game in the long-run.

And of course you try to deny the good players the ball. That happens with or without a shot clock. The shot clock has no bearing on that.
 
Doublehelix said:
It would eliminate stall ball - but again, for now the 551st time, it's not the reason it's being looked at to be implemented. Elimination of blatant stalling would be a fantastic by-product of implementation. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard.
Click to expand...
Then quit making it a point in your argument for the shot clock. This is entirely on you.
 
winbypin said:
Then quit making it a point in your argument for the shot clock. This is entirely on you.
Click to expand...
Why? It's a good point to make.

It's not a big enough reason by itself, but it's certainly a welcome by-product.

Here's one thing I'm certain of. You never want people that avoid competition to be the ones making the rules. That's why these committees are called "competitiveness committees" - because blatantly not playing the game as a way to "compete" is completely assinine.
 
Last edited:
AllSports12 said:
One minute it's a reason to have a shot clock, the next minute.....

It's not..... Until it is again :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
To your point, it doesn't happen enough to have it be the main reason for adoption. That I will agree with you on.

But that was NEVER the intent of the shot clock. If you implement for the right reasons, and it rights other wrongs along the way, that's called a win-win.

Shot clock provides a consistent pace of play and demands competitive structure throughout the contest. These rules are necessary for almost every timed sporting event for this very reason. That's it. That's the purpose of the clock. And it's needed.

It's no different than a weak football team taking 2 minutes to run a play because less time actually playing the sport gives them an advantage. That advantage cannot exist on a level playing field. The goal isn't to allow weaker teams to compete better. That's not how sports work, even though you'd like it to be that way.

This is basic, basic stuff.
 
Your argument is basically:

We should allow a loophole in the competitiveness of sporting events to allow for weaker teams to have a chance.

Not strategic decisions within a game that could provide a weaker team an advantage, but changing the competitive landscape of the nature of the sport to allow for this chance. That is pure insanity.

And what's supremely ironic is that the people with this view are calling everyone else the snowflakes!!!! This is straight out of the "everyone gets a trophy" era.
 
AllSports12 said:
Eliminating the 5 second rule will result in one player frequently dribbling the ball for 15-20 seconds with his back to his defender, then a dribble drive.....

Congratulations on taking a great game and making it just like the garbage league. (NBA)
Click to expand...
Adding a shot clock would ruin the game. If we adopt a shot clock, then I see no reason to keep the other "timed" rules that are there to pace the game.
 
Doublehelix said:
Shot clock provides a consistent pace of play and demands competitive structure throughout the contest. These rules are necessary for almost every timed sporting event for this very reason. That's it. That's the purpose of the clock. And it's needed.
Click to expand...
The rule was put into place for one purpose..... To put butts in the seats for the NBA. In the NCAA the Four Corners offense resulted in UNC holding the ball for the last 7 minutes in the ACC Final against Virginia (47-45). Fans and advertisers went bonkers and the ACC experimented with the shot clock the next year. Throw in the UC/UK 24-11 game and now you had advertisers putting pressure on the NCAA to do something.

All because of money.

History lesson concluded........
Doublehelix said:
I'd even be open to maybe even 60 seconds in HS, but wouldn't go higher than that.
Click to expand...
60 second shot clock :ROFLMAO:...... So pace of play and stalling isn't the goal, eh?

Just like I said, one minute it is the reason, the next...... it isn't.
 
Doublehelix said:
Why? It's a good point to make.

It's not a big enough reason by itself, but it's certainly a welcome by-product.

Here's one thing I'm certain of. You never want people that avoid competition to be the ones making the rules. That's why these committees are called "competitiveness committees" - because blatantly not playing the game as a way to "compete" is completely assinine.
Click to expand...
Make your mind up. Either it is a reason or not.

Now you're just voicing your preference on style of play.
 
Doublehelix said:
It's no different than a weak football team taking 2 minutes to run a play because less time actually playing the sport gives them an advantage. That advantage cannot exist on a level playing field. The goal isn't to allow weaker teams to compete better. That's not how sports work, even though you'd like it to be that way.
Click to expand...
The problem with this comparison is that the defense has no opportunity to get the ball from the offense until the ball is snapped. The ball is always in jeopardy of being turned over in basketball.
 
AllSports12 said:
The rule was put into place for one purpose..... To put butts in the seats for the NBA. In the NCAA the Four Corners offense resulted in UNC holding the ball for the last 7 minutes in the ACC Final against Virginia (47-45). Fans and advertisers went bonkers and the ACC experimented with the shot clock the next year. Throw in the UC/UK 24-11 game and now you had advertisers putting pressure on the NCAA to do something.

All because of money.

History lesson concluded........

60 second shot clock :ROFLMAO:...... So pace of play and stalling isn't the goal, eh?

Just like I said, one minute it is the reason, the next...... it isn't.
Click to expand...
Who cares why it was put in place for the NBA. That's not why the HS powers that be are looking at it. It's irrelevant.
 
Doublehelix said:
Agree.

What does this have to do with any of my points?
Click to expand...
Every time I've ever seen a team stall by holding the ball at half court, it was because both teams were evenly matched. Both teams wanted to limit possessions.

Four corners is not the same as holding the ball with no action. It is a deliberate offense that is looking for an advantage. A good defense can take the ball away. Most of the time, the offense turns the ball over with no shot taken. Maybe the coaches should work harder on their defense if they fear a team could use four corners against them.
 
Yappi said:
Adding a shot clock would ruin the game. If we adopt a shot clock, then I see no reason to keep the other "timed" rules that are there to pace the game.
Click to expand...
And that's where the game is ruined.

It won't happen overnight...... But this, along with all the other crap (NIL...etc) that's filtering down in all the sports....

.......Will leave you with nothing other than glorifed AAU athletics.....

The state associations will not sanction that and all that will be left is intramurals. (it's already happening in soccer and starting to happen in volleyball with the increased popularity of sand scholarships)
 
So many logical fallacies being thrown around. A shot clock is not going to ruin the game of basketball. To some people maybe it does ruin the game. It would make the game better for more.
 
Yappi said:
Every time I've ever seen a team stall by holding the ball at half court, it was because both teams were evenly matched. Both teams wanted to limit possessions.

Four corners is not the same as holding the ball with no action. It is a deliberate offense that is looking for an advantage. A good defense can take the ball away. Most of the time, the offense turns the ball over with no shot taken. Maybe the coaches should work harder on their defense if they fear a team could use four corners against them.
Click to expand...
Again, what does this have to do with the points I made about the reason for a shot clock?

You are doing what everyone else does. You're saying a shot clock is needed for things that I said aren't the reason for a shot clock.
 
AllSports12 said:
And that's where the game is ruined.

It won't happen overnight...... But this, along with all the other crap (NIL...etc) that's filtering down in all the sports....

.......Will leave you with nothing other than glorifed AAU athletics.....

The state associations will not sanction that and all that will be left is intramurals. (it's already happening in soccer and starting to happen in volleyball with the increased popularity of sand scholarships)
Click to expand...
It won’t be like AAU. Most AAU do not have a shot clock. The ones that do aren’t AAU it is shoe Circut leagues. Which is significantly better than traditional high school basketball.
 
419Jester said:
So many logical fallacies being thrown around. A shot clock is not going to ruin the game of basketball. To some people maybe it does ruin the game. It would make the game better for more.
Click to expand...
100%

People thinking they are the smartest guys in the room with the utmost shallowest arguments - and not even realizing it.
 
Doublehelix said:
Who cares why it was put in place for the NBA. That's not why the HS powers that be are looking at it. It's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about.... Zero

Tell us how many meetings at the local, state, regional, or national level you have been a part of that's seriously discussed this rule. (serioulsy as in an actual vote was taken to affirm, reject, or table this adoption)

I'll answer that for you before you spin another one of your lies.....

It's noted above....

Zero
 
It's blatantly ignorant to say the sport of basketball is going to fall off a cliff with the addition of a shot clock. It's literal nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest it. None.

It may not be your preference as an observer, but that means nothing in the context of what's needed to improve the HS game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top