Georgia Adopts Shot Clock

 
Not sure how they can supersede NFHS--National Federation--until they say so--maybe they are allowing states to experiment!!
 
Most teams shoot within 35sec anyways so it’s not that big of adjustment except for tournament time
 
Don't like it. That's stating "You have to play the brand of basketball I like". Don't like it one bit. If you don't like stall ball, play hard nose defense and get the dang ball back!
 
Talk some sense said:
States can do what they like although I believe they then forfeit their voice in national rule matters. This has been discussed to death over and over in this forum for sure.
Click to expand...

They lose their opportunity to have a seat on the Rules Committee.

Good things can come from having a seat on the committee. Not guaranteed, but good things can happen.
 
Talk some sense said:
States can do what they like although I believe they then forfeit their voice in national rule matters. This has been discussed to death over and over in this forum for sure.
Click to expand...
Yes states can do what they want, yes they lose their voice and yes it has been discussed to death for years. The losing your voice matters only if it matters to the state association itself which I always wonder about.
 
AllSports12 said:
The proponents use the less than 5 games every year (out of 18,000) in Ohio where a teams "holds the ball for a quarter" as a reason for the clock.

The real reason is they don't like the style of basketball that can occur without the clock.
Click to expand...

The uneducated proponents use this reason.

Those in the coaching and administrative corners that know and move basketball forward are proponents because a shot clock provides the opportunity for all programs to build a more complete basketball player.

If you’re going to continue to call out the proponents, at least get their argument right. It has nothing to do with not liking a slower pace. A game can be played at any pace, in fact very impactfully, using a shot clock.

Those arguing about “speeding the game up and scoring more” are the armchair point guards on here who don’t have a clue, as well as the coaches that are scared to death this change takes away their complete control. The holding the ball for a quarter issue is just an ugly byproduct of that control.
 
Last edited:
carefree93 said:
The uneducated proponents use this reason.

Those in the coaching and administrative corners that know and move basketball forward are proponents because a shot clock provides the opportunity for all programs to build a more complete basketball player.

If you’re going to continue to call out the proponents, at least get their argument right. It has nothing to do with not liking a slower pace. A game can be played at any pace, in fact very impactfully, using a shot clock.

Those arguing about “speeding the game up and scoring more” are the armchair point guards on here who don’t have a clue, as well as the coaches that are scared to death this change takes away their complete control. The holding the ball for a quarter issue is just an ugly byproduct of that control.
Click to expand...
You can only hold the ball if the other team let’s you
 
If you’re 20 points better then me. I’m holding the ball if you let me. That’s the other coaches problem. I get paid to win !
 
AllSports12 said:
The real reason is they don't like the style of basketball that can occur without the clock.
Click to expand...


carefree93 said:
The uneducated proponents use this reason.

Those in the coaching and administrative corners that know and move basketball forward are proponents because a shot clock provides the opportunity for all programs to build a more complete basketball player.

If you’re going to continue to call out the proponents, at least get their argument right.
Click to expand...

Ok, got their argument right. They're wrong. Someone is not more complete by removing a skill set. There is nothing you can or cannot do without a clock that you can do with. But there are many things you cannot do with a clock in place. Fewer skills needed.

The clock is about entertainment only, at least get their argument right. And they're still wrong.
 
Two questions....

- How is a "more complete basketball player" measured or defined? (if it's measured by recruits, the clock isn't working)
- Is building that more complete player the overall goal for HS athletics?

For the people on here advocating a shot clock, the vast majority don't like the current style of play. They want to be entertained, which is not the mission of HS athletics.
 
Last edited:
In over 30 years of officiating, I have had only one game where a shot clock would have came into play (other than holding the ball late in the game). I really do not see the need for a shot clock. I have enjoyed "run and gun" games, I have enjoyed games where possession and defense were big. One of the big attractions to me is that you might see a different type of game each night as compared to a NBA game where the style is the same every night and the draw of the game is the individual player - not the team.
 
So then the mission of HS athletics is to make sure the coach wins at all costs? And that’s good for HS basketball?

And lets stop saying holding the ball is a skill. It’s not.

Shot clocks would force coaches to develop more well rounded skill sets for more players, because those skills would be needed in situations where the shot clock is winding down and you need to make a play, and you can’t just reset motion to get 1 or 2 guys a shot.

And yes, I would say development should be the primary mission of HS basketball. Of course winning is important, but development is at the core of winning.
 
I think the game itself is already trending to quick possessions and more offensive attempts at all levels. We dont need a shot clock to get there. The extreme cases of stalling are out there, but such a small percentage it is not worth adding another moving piece in the game at the HS level.

Anyone know the average possesion time for a H.S. game in Ohio? I doubt that metric exists, but my guess is it is much lower than 20 years ago. I think it would be rather close to what some of the shot clock times are being proposed today.

I would rather see a tweak to the closely guarded/5 sec count to get the team moving. Lets increase the space it takes to keep the count on, thus getting more opportunities for turnovers for teams stalling. Add 2 ft to whatever it is today and we have made progress which is easy to enforce. I would also like to see a total of 15 seconds once a count is started to get the ball out of one players hands. This is harder to enforce, but you only get 3 5 counts with one ball handler before a turn over.
 
Last edited:
carefree93 said:
So then the mission of HS athletics is to make sure the coach wins at all costs? And that’s good for HS basketball?

And lets stop saying holding the ball is a skill. It’s not.

Shot clocks would force coaches to develop more well rounded skill sets for more players, because those skills would be needed in situations where the shot clock is winding down and you need to make a play, and you can’t just reset motion to get 1 or 2 guys a shot.

And yes, I would say development should be the primary mission of HS basketball. Of course winning is important, but development is at the core of winning.
Click to expand...

Playing defense is part of the game, no? Play defense and get the dang ball back!
 
I would say development, is important. So is teaching the team on how they can do better and beat Goliath too, no? Your babbling seems to be your preference of basketball to me.
 
El Indio said:
Playing defense is part of the game, no? Play defense and get the dang ball back!
Click to expand...

absolutely- both coaches are at fault in situations like that. As I said, when that happens, it’s absolutely a junk swinging contest. Has nothing to do with basketball when it gets to that point.

My two biggest arguments for a shot clock is 1) development of more kids skills and 2) limits coach control and ego and allows the kids more freedom to play the game.

in my perspective, HS basketball has turned into a sport where coaches initiate offense through 1-2 guys and everyone else is at the mercy of whatever coach tells them to do to get these 2 guys open, completely defeating the purpose of having 5 capable basketball players on the floor.

this isn’t a knock on role players, they are important. But when the majority of the team are role players, you’re doing something wrong. This is why I think the game has turned so ugly at the high school level. Kids are limited to what they are allowed to do on the court through systems or coach control. It’s not that these kids don’t have the skills, it’s that they are not allowed to utilize them on their high school teams.

individual skill training is at the highest it’s ever been. Let these kids use them. A shot clock would allow for more of that. My argument has zero to do with higher scoring or a preferred style of play.

my joy is with well played basketball, not fast (or slow) paced basketball.
 
carefree93 said:
absolutely- both coaches are at fault in situations like that. As I said, when that happens, it’s absolutely a junk swinging contest. Has nothing to do with basketball when it gets to that point.

My two biggest arguments for a shot clock is 1) development of more kids skills and 2) limits coach control and ego and allows the kids more freedom to play the game.

in my perspective, HS basketball has turned into a sport where coaches initiate offense through 1-2 guys and everyone else is at the mercy of whatever coach tells them to do to get these 2 guys open, completely defeating the purpose of having 5 capable basketball players on the floor.

this isn’t a knock on role players, they are important. But when the majority of the team are role players, you’re doing something wrong. This is why I think the game has turned so ugly at the high school level. Kids are limited to what they are allowed to do on the court through systems or coach control. It’s not that these kids don’t have the skills, it’s that they are not allowed to utilize them on their high school teams.

individual skill training is at the highest it’s ever been. Let these kids use them. A shot clock would allow for more of that. My argument has zero to do with higher scoring or a preferred style of play.

my joy is with well played basketball, not fast (or slow) paced basketball.
Click to expand...
That is your personal opinion. I like when hard nose defense is played and they steal the ball from an opponent who is trying to stall. That's what I like. Just sayin'
 
I agree, if you’re the better team, why would you ever let a team stall? Go get them!!

It’s even worse when a superior team stalls, or an inferior team allows it (the Harrison example this past year). That was nothing but a coaching junk swinging contest.
 
carefree93 said:
absolutely- both coaches are at fault in situations like that. As I said, when that happens, it’s absolutely a junk swinging contest. Has nothing to do with basketball when it gets to that point.

My two biggest arguments for a shot clock is 1) development of more kids skills and 2) limits coach control and ego and allows the kids more freedom to play the game.

in my perspective, HS basketball has turned into a sport where coaches initiate offense through 1-2 guys and everyone else is at the mercy of whatever coach tells them to do to get these 2 guys open, completely defeating the purpose of having 5 capable basketball players on the floor.

this isn’t a knock on role players, they are important. But when the majority of the team are role players, you’re doing something wrong. This is why I think the game has turned so ugly at the high school level. Kids are limited to what they are allowed to do on the court through systems or coach control. It’s not that these kids don’t have the skills, it’s that they are not allowed to utilize them on their high school teams.

individual skill training is at the highest it’s ever been. Let these kids use them. A shot clock would allow for more of that. My argument has zero to do with higher scoring or a preferred style of play.

my joy is with well played basketball, not fast (or slow) paced basketball.
Click to expand...

I am all for getting the coaches out of the games more. Your time is at practice, let the kids play the games. If your PG has not been taught to read the defense and get the team in the right set to bad. If they person taking it out of bounds cant tell its a press, to bad. You could argue it takes a better coach to just sit there and let his team go than trying to micro manage the games. Lets see who can really coach when players have to make quicker/more decisions. But, I don't feel the shot clock is that solution,.

I have always hated micro manager coaches and its all over the HS level.
 
Unfortunately, when coaches are hired and fired based on wins, they must be allowed to try to win the best way they can. There is a big reason for the high turnover in coaching. The day of the 25 year coach has past.
 
I don't mind the shot clock from the game perspective, I just know the logistics of high school ball and now you need to find another person to work at the game, and they actually need to know what the heck is going on. Also, and this never comes up, but what happens if the shot clock malfunctions? Do you just play regular or is the game postponed? I'm just saying that because you are going to have clocks installed by who knows and issues can arise.

I do like that they are bringing it in over 3 years. That's more than plenty of lead time to get it done.
 
Dragon72 said:
Unfortunately, when coaches are hired and fired based on wins, they must be allowed to try to win the best way they can. There is a big reason for the high turnover in coaching. The day of the 25 year coach has past.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some of these people don’t get it. Been part of many 35-34 games when the other team was definitely better. We won more than our share of those games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top