Any chance for a shot-clock yet?

Doublehelix said:
It creates consistent pace for both teams, and creates more time-expiring shot situations.
Click to expand...
And this is where we disagree. I do not want consistent pace. I want the coach to choose what he feels is best for his team to give them the best chance to win. One coach may want 80 shots per game, another coach may only want 40 shots per game. Neither is wrong. It is just a style of play. And watching a game of contrasting styles is the most interesting, IMO.

Also, I get it, you like time-expiring shots. It is exciting for you and others. On the flip side, I'm happy to see it at the end of the quarter every once in a while. For me, it does not need to be frequent throughout a game.

So with all due respect, your "fix" is what ruins the game to me. The difference is that the game I enjoy has been played this way for decades and you want to change it. That shouldn't be done unless there really is something broken.
 
Doublehelix said:
Everyone always says this about the entertainment value - but what becomes drastically more "entertaining" with the advent of a shot clock?

PROVEN - the adoption of a shot clock has a very small impact on scoring to the point where it's almost negligible. This argument is a myth. Type in "shot clock's impact on scoring" into Google and see for yourself. Droves and droves of evidence.

Do you really think a shot clock makes a terrible shooter a better shooter? No - it just means more misses. Shot clock adaption is scoring agnostic. It has nothing to do with increased points or a better entertainment factor. Hell, alot of times, it doesn't even equate to more shots taken. The argument is a COMPLETE myth.
Click to expand...
So we agree? It's hard to tell with you. Please tell me again why you favor a shot clock, especially how it will help the high school players and teams. Thanks.
 
Doublehelix said:
Everyone always says this about the entertainment value - but what becomes drastically more "entertaining" with the advent of a shot clock?

PROVEN - the adoption of a shot clock has a very small impact on scoring to the point where it's almost negligible. This argument is a myth. Type in "shot clock's impact on scoring" into Google and see for yourself. Droves and droves of evidence.

Do you really think a shot clock makes a terrible shooter a better shooter? No - it just means more misses. Shot clock adaption is scoring agnostic. It has nothing to do with increased points or a better entertainment factor. Hell, alot of times, it doesn't even equate to more shots taken. The argument is a COMPLETE myth.
Click to expand...
Its not proven, its deeper than that, go past the first page on google bro.The two biggest factors that have decreased scoring is the three point line and the physicality that you can bring defensively.
 
AllSports12 said:
Prepare for the circular arguement.
Click to expand...
I will say this...when this discussion was first posted I was 100% in favor of a shot clock. It has been interesting to read all of these perspectives for or against the shot clock. I am kind of on the fence now if someone were to ask me about the shot clock. I think that is the point of this discussion board. To have meaningful conversations/discussions/debates about topics that we deem important. Thanks to everyone who has expressed their opinion.
 
Talk some sense said:
So we agree? It's hard to tell with you. Please tell me again why you favor a shot clock, especially how it will help the high school players and teams. Thanks.
Click to expand...
This is strictly my opinion based on what I see as the main reason for some of HS basketball's fall:

I think coaches hold most of the blame. I think there is way too much coach-controlled offense literally every second of the game. No I am not anti-coach, but I have seen a significant up-tick in the past 10 years of the constant running of sets to get the perfect shot by the preferred kids. They simply run circular motion for long periods of time with no intent to score until their preferred shooter gets an open look.

I think this has done two things: 1) using clock to gain possession advantages. I think there shouldn't be an advantage and consistent pace of play should be uniform. That levels the playing field for all teams. Each team has the exact same time scenario to create offense. In a timed event, that keeps competition universal. 2) Less kids are getting offensive opportunities. Most teams have two scorers and a bunch of role players. Again, not against role players as they are super important. But every kid should be developed to be a scoring threat on the floor. Most of these role players are enforcers or guys that come into foul people. The shot clock almost forces more kids to have to develop offensive skills because there will be more instances when end of clock scenarios will occur when the time dictates who will take a shot vs. it being scripted by the coach.

I could also add a 3rd point, but it's moot when compared to the shot clock - and that's the physicality of play. It's completely out of control and adds to the ugliness of current HS basketball.

And last but not least - blatant stalling. Not the main reason for adoption, but a by-product. It completely eliminates the coaches who stand around for entire quarters holding the ball. Yes, I realize both coaches are to blame, but it's simply stupid and a shot clock would eliminate the stupidity, which is good.
 
Living in a shot clock state,i don't even notice it. Will here a muted horn go off and that is when i realize we are playing with a shot clock. May happen about once a game...not much effect on the sport in my humble opinion
 
serpico said:
“Literally”?
Click to expand...
I overheard a coach last year tell a player to dribble 6 times, fake a pass to the left, then pass to the right at exactly 1:23 left on the clock. Then that player was to dribble for 19 seconds before passing to someone under the basket.
 
Doublehelix said:
This is strictly my opinion based on what I see as the main reason for some of HS basketball's fall:

I think coaches hold most of the blame. I think there is way too much coach-controlled offense literally every second of the game. No I am not anti-coach, but I have seen a significant up-tick in the past 10 years of the constant running of sets to get the perfect shot by the preferred kids. They simply run circular motion for long periods of time with no intent to score until their preferred shooter gets an open look.

I think this has done two things: 1) using clock to gain possession advantages. I think there shouldn't be an advantage and consistent pace of play should be uniform. That levels the playing field for all teams. Each team has the exact same time scenario to create offense. In a timed event, that keeps competition universal. 2) Less kids are getting offensive opportunities. Most teams have two scorers and a bunch of role players. Again, not against role players as they are super important. But every kid should be developed to be a scoring threat on the floor. Most of these role players are enforcers or guys that come into foul people. The shot clock almost forces more kids to have to develop offensive skills because there will be more instances when end of clock scenarios will occur when the time dictates who will take a shot vs. it being scripted by the coach.

I could also add a 3rd point, but it's moot when compared to the shot clock - and that's the physicality of play. It's completely out of control and adds to the ugliness of current HS basketball.

And last but not least - blatant stalling. Not the main reason for adoption, but a by-product. It completely eliminates the coaches who stand around for entire quarters holding the ball. Yes, I realize both coaches are to blame, but it's simply stupid and a shot clock would eliminate the stupidity, which is good.
Click to expand...
A lot of us love the game the way it is. Shot clock favors the team with the best players. Would result in less coaching and fewer upsets. Controlling tempo and grinding out games is what makes the GCL South so good, and why they are a threat to get to the final four every year. HS basketball isn’t played to entertain fans. Nothing, by the way, is more entertaining than winning.
 
Doublehelix said:
This is strictly my opinion based on what I see as the main reason for some of HS basketball's fall:

I think coaches hold most of the blame. I think there is way too much coach-controlled offense literally every second of the game. No I am not anti-coach, but I have seen a significant up-tick in the past 10 years of the constant running of sets to get the perfect shot by the preferred kids. They simply run circular motion for long periods of time with no intent to score until their preferred shooter gets an open look.

I think this has done two things: 1) using clock to gain possession advantages. I think there shouldn't be an advantage and consistent pace of play should be uniform. That levels the playing field for all teams. Each team has the exact same time scenario to create offense. In a timed event, that keeps competition universal. 2) Less kids are getting offensive opportunities. Most teams have two scorers and a bunch of role players. Again, not against role players as they are super important. But every kid should be developed to be a scoring threat on the floor. Most of these role players are enforcers or guys that come into foul people. The shot clock almost forces more kids to have to develop offensive skills because there will be more instances when end of clock scenarios will occur when the time dictates who will take a shot vs. it being scripted by the coach.

I could also add a 3rd point, but it's moot when compared to the shot clock - and that's the physicality of play. It's completely out of control and adds to the ugliness of current HS basketball.

And last but not least - blatant stalling. Not the main reason for adoption, but a by-product. It completely eliminates the coaches who stand around for entire quarters holding the ball. Yes, I realize both coaches are to blame, but it's simply stupid and a shot clock would eliminate the stupidity, which is good.
Click to expand...
I agree with the physicality of play which has increased over the years. But working to get your best players a good shot? Oh the horror!

Kids will develop themselves into scoring threats, hopefully with a coach's guidance and a ton of hard work. Shot clock won't do it.

I still think shot clock will result in best players taking bad shots after isolation at the end of the shot clock.

Holding the ball as a stalling tactic has been well discussed. Less than 0.1% of games over a season. Not a reason for a rule change.
 
Yappi said:
I'm willing to do a study to see if it would bring crowds to the game. Let's have a league (or two) that plays all their home games with a shot clock. Let's see how it works. Does it make the game better? Do more fans show up? Are there any problems?

What would also be interesting is to see how many out-of-league schools would want to play a game at these schools to experience the shot clock. The novelty of having the shot clock should bring alot of fans out to these games. Plus the coaches that are in favor of it should signup quickly to play a game at one of these schools.

Maybe you guys are right, maybe the game would get better and crowds would increase. Hopefully, you are willing to admit that the game may get worse and may not affect attendance at all.

IMO, there are alot of factors in the declining crowds. Most of it has to do with societal trends away from all sporting events and the number of star players that are leaving the OHSAA to play at basketball factories.
Click to expand...
I’d love to see a sample size of some kind. To your last point though, are they doing this because of the style of play? If I’m a star football player on a good team, it’s a fair bet we run an offense or defense very similar to what I’ll be in for college. But if I’m a star basketball player who‘s team runs the motion offense for 30-50 seconds regularly, why would I choose to be in that? I’ll just play AAU where I can actually showcase my skills instead of running offense
 
smurfyeah19 said:
I’d love to see a sample size of some kind. To your last point though, are they doing this because of the style of play? If I’m a star football player on a good team, it’s a fair bet we run an offense or defense very similar to what I’ll be in for college. But if I’m a star basketball player who‘s team runs the motion offense for 30-50 seconds regularly, why would I choose to be in that? I’ll just play AAU where I can actually showcase my skills instead of running offense
Click to expand...
A star basketball player and a star football player both probably run an offense like they will play in college. It is the non-star players in football that can run the wing-t that virtually no one sees in college but can be very difficult to stop in HS. I don't want to take away basketball creativity that can let lesser athletic teams hang with teams that are off the charts athletically.

Basketball already rewards height and athleticism more than any other sport. The shot clock reinforces that.
 
smurfyeah19 said:
I’d love to see a sample size of some kind. To your last point though, are they doing this because of the style of play? If I’m a star football player on a good team, it’s a fair bet we run an offense or defense very similar to what I’ll be in for college. But if I’m a star basketball player who‘s team runs the motion offense for 30-50 seconds regularly, why would I choose to be in that? I’ll just play AAU where I can actually showcase my skills instead of running offense
Click to expand...
This is a good point.

The best coaches have a structured approach, but also will allow their talent some freedom.

I think the best example of this currently in Ohio is Brook Cupps. He ran awesome sets, had awesome plays, but also gave his players the power to make a play if they could. I love that balance. If most coaches had this balance, I would probably change my stance on the shot clock.

But most coaches are scared to death of giving kids more freedom, and double-down on more control.

You are right about kids wanting some of that freedom. Not only does it develop them better, it's honestly more fun to play with that freedom. Kids are jacked to play in that type of environment.
 
Redandgold said:
A lot of us love the game the way it is. Shot clock favors the team with the best players. Would result in less coaching and fewer upsets. Controlling tempo and grinding out games is what makes the GCL South so good, and why they are a threat to get to the final four every year. HS basketball isn’t played to entertain fans. Nothing, by the way, is more entertaining than winning.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree on the shotclock. The less talented team simply struggles to to get any decent look once the superior team sits down in a half court defense.They end up turning it over before the get a good luck. The inferior team has a much better chance at getting loose to shoot jumpers in a transition offense. Pat Kelsey has battled teams like North Carolina with D2/D3 guys by getting transition 3s, not half court. Carl Kremer slowed it down with huge succes for years because he had superior athletes to do it with. The past few yrs he hasn’t had talent and hasn’t done as well with that tempo.
I would also disagree with your reasoning on the GCL south success. Its because they’ve always had superior athletes, it’s the same reason they’ve always had success in every other sport. They’ve always got to pull kids from 6-10 different school districts. I would argue that their style of play and the publics getting open enrollment is why Elder hasn’t seen a final four in almost 20 yrs, why lasalle has fallen so far, and why X has not had but a couple decent teams in 20 yrs.
 
?????? said:
I would have to disagree on the shotclock. The less talented team simply struggles to to get any decent look once the superior team sits down in a half court defense.They end up turning it over before the get a good luck. The inferior team has a much better chance at getting loose to shoot jumpers in a transition offense. Pat Kelsey has battled teams like North Carolina with D2/D3 guys by getting transition 3s, not half court. Carl Kremer slowed it down with huge succes for years because he had superior athletes to do it with. The past few yrs he hasn’t had talent and hasn’t done as well with that tempo.
I would also disagree with your reasoning on the GCL south success. Its because they’ve always had superior athletes, it’s the same reason they’ve always had success in every other sport. They’ve always got to pull kids from 6-10 different school districts. I would argue that their style of play and the publics getting open enrollment is why Elder hasn’t seen a final four in almost 20 yrs, why lasalle has fallen so far, and why X has not had but a couple decent teams in 20 yrs.
Click to expand...
When you get to roughly the sweet 16 in tournament play the talent advantage no longer dominates who wins or loses. There are exceptions of course. It’s at that point that the GCL grind it out, slow tempo strategy results in victory more often than not. And, I’m talking about all four of the South schools employing that approach, not just Moeller. St Xavier would be the normal exception and they have been the least successful GCL team in this century. Teams that turn the ball over a lot vs more talented teams don’t upset anyone. Tempo matters so much that sometime running time off the clock and not getting the shot you want still contributes to an upset.
 
?????? said:
I would have to disagree on the shotclock. The less talented team simply struggles to to get any decent look once the superior team sits down in a half court defense.They end up turning it over before the get a good luck. The inferior team has a much better chance at getting loose to shoot jumpers in a transition offense. Pat Kelsey has battled teams like North Carolina with D2/D3 guys by getting transition 3s, not half court. Carl Kremer slowed it down with huge succes for years because he had superior athletes to do it with. The past few yrs he hasn’t had talent and hasn’t done as well with that tempo.
I would also disagree with your reasoning on the GCL south success. Its because they’ve always had superior athletes, it’s the same reason they’ve always had success in every other sport. They’ve always got to pull kids from 6-10 different school districts. I would argue that their style of play and the publics getting open enrollment is why Elder hasn’t seen a final four in almost 20 yrs, why lasalle has fallen so far, and why X has not had but a couple decent teams in 20 yrs.
Click to expand...
Completely agree on the GCL schools. Their coaches run the sluggish style of play when they have the athletes to open it up. And it's holding them back. Not sure why these coaches feel the need to slog it up when they have these athletes.

What's perplexing is that these coaches feel they have to play this way to win. It's very strange that they GCL schools are taking this approach as they are constantly looked at as the top tier in athletics in the city.
 
Last edited:
@AllSports12 do you have anything to add to the conversation outside of laughing emojis and "well people just want it for their entertainment".

As I said, your level of depth in this conversation is the shallow end. You can't even articulate any type of logical approach to an argument. You are the type that always whines and never has a solution.

But then again, you think we all must respect your authority as a self-righteous ref.
 
Doublehelix said:
@AllSports12 do you have anything to add to the conversation outside of laughing emojis and "well people just want it for their entertainment".

As I said, your level of depth in this conversation is the shallow end. You can't even articulate any type of logical approach to an argument. You are the type that always whines and never has a solution.

But then again, you think we all must respect your authority as a self-righteous ref.
Click to expand...
Playing the babe in the woods role again I see......You are an admitted liar and somehow can't understand why someone won't take anything you say seriously :ROFLMAO:

Your latest gem..... "but me and people like me have 150% been consulted on examining the true reasons for adoption of this at the HS level in Ohio."

You stated under a prior username that you were an assistant JV coach years ago. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
AllSports12 said:
You are an admitted liar and somehow can't understand why someone won't take anything you say seriously :ROFLMAO:

Your latest gem..... "but me and people like me have 150% been consulted on examining the true reasons for adoption of this at the HS level in Ohio."

You stated under a prior username that you were a JV coach years ago. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I'm still involved in the game, I just don't coach anymore. I've coached in the NE and the SW.

And current and former coaches have been asked to provide input on adoption as part of their due diligence. You seem to be the one out of the loop here.

And again, I couldn't care less if you don't believe me.
 
They've also run this by some refs as well. You obviously didn't make the cut.

But you're an all-knowing ref, so I'm sure you knew that already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top