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.It creates consistent pace for both teams, and creates more time-expiring shot situations.
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.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.
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.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.
Prepare for the circular arguement.So we agree?
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.Prepare for the circular arguement.
This is strictly my opinion based on what I see as the main reason for some of HS basketball's fall: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.
“Literally”?I think there is way too much coach-controlled offense literally every second of the game.
I gave my opinion, and it has merit. You may not agree, but that's fine.“Literally”?
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.“Literally”?
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.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.
I respect your opinion and liking the style of play you like.Shot clock favors the team with the best players.
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!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.
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 offenseI'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.
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.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
This is a good point.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
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.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.
The vast majority of upsets result from controlling tempo to one degree or another.I respect your opinion and liking the style of play you like.
But the sport of basketball in general favors the team with the best players. This has nothing to do with the shot clock.
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.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.
And those qualities come with depth, which GCL schools have traditionally been afforded.Fair enough, you just better have 2 or 3 guys with a great handle and some lenght to shoot and get passing angles.
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.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.
And it happens about as much as stalling does. Upsets of that magnitude are very rare in HS basketball.The vast majority of upsets result from controlling tempo to one degree or another.
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@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.
I'm still involved in the game, I just don't coach anymore. I've coached in the NE and the SW.You are an admitted liar and somehow can't understand why someone won't take anything you say seriously
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.![]()
I've coached in the NE and the SW.
They don't ask JV coachesAnd current and former coaches have been asked to provide input on adoption as part of their due diligence.
Apparently, you do.And again, I couldn't care less if you don't believe me.