Any chance for a shot-clock yet?
- Thread starter allworld
- Start date
eastisbest
Well-known member
It has been decided that each coach has the right to tell their players to shoot within x seconds. No penalities will be called.
I would be in favor of a shot clock. I think they would have to vote on it at the state level. In my opinion, a shot clock would make the games more fun to watch and force some teams' hands. Some would argue, but I don't want to go to a game that the final score is 24-16.
It wouldn't be cheap for all of the schools to add shot clocks to all of the playing venues.
It wouldn't be cheap for all of the schools to add shot clocks to all of the playing venues.
Vet Observer
Well-known member
Please no shot clock. Lack of one is the underdog's last best chance. You want the ball? Come and get it.
Doublehelix
Well-known member
Shot clock allows more kids to be involved in creating offense. It's a developmental tool to increase offensive skills, and it's needed. It would put some empowerment in the hands of the kids, and not be so entirely coach scripted. Not saying coaching isn't needed, but a swing to allowing some offense creativity when needed is a skill alot of coaches don't coach. Alot of coaches want to keep that control.
Yes, it would eliminate to blatant stalling that occurs, but that's simply a by-product and not the main reason for adoption.
Yes, it would eliminate to blatant stalling that occurs, but that's simply a by-product and not the main reason for adoption.
OH_sportsfan
Member
I think I would disagree. Creativity comes from being in situations where you have to figure it out. You never know who may have the ball late in the clock and have to make a play for themselves or someone else to get a shot. No shot clock causes more robots running action after action after action IMO. @Doublehelix nailed it above
It's tough because I think in HS there is such a talent level disparity between D1 and (most) D4 schools. Yeah, the 3rd guy off the bench on a D1 team might be able to do something late in the shot clock, but most average D4 schools have a couple guys who maybe could play at a bigger school and then kids who fill out the roster that the coach recruited in the hallway. So bigger schools I could see a benefit, but small schools could lead to some really ugly possessions.
OH_sportsfan
Member
Everyone enjoys an underdog story but why do we have to cater to the less talented teams?
I would argue the shot clock can allow for underdogs to have an equal or better chance. Shot clock means more shots at the basket, more shots at the basket is potential for more points. You can set your defensive game plan to jam up the opponent for 30-35 seconds and then it comes down to securing a rebound. It's obviously not perfect but that is where coaching/scouting comes into play to put their team in the best position for success.
OH_sportsfan
Member
Isn't that the point though? Developing the whole team? The coaches of those smaller or less talented teams that rely on 1-2 players will need to improve their skill development programs so all kids are able to contribute. Not all will become double digit scorers but they can develop the skills to create something as opposed to standing and watching or just continuously screening for 1-2 players
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
Limited possessions make the game more interesting. What football does so well is that every possession matters. Each team might get 6-10 possessions in a reasonably close HS football game and a turnover or missed scoring opportunity can change the outcome.
In NBA basketball, the first three quarters are mostly boring. Just a 3-point shooting contest with mild defense. It reminds me of ping-pong, same thing over and over. The fourth quarter could be interesting depending on the score at the time.
High school basketball is closer to football. Limited possessions make the game more interesting. I could maybe accept a 1:00 shot clock as it wouldn't interfere with 99% of games being played. That would prevent the stalling where neither team attempts to make a play. But that is less than 1% of HS basketball games.
I would much rather see a 50-45 HS basketball game than a 90-70 game. Taking away the slow, deliberate style of basketball means less creativity. Now everyone has to play the same exact style...run the court and hoist up a shot.
In NBA basketball, the first three quarters are mostly boring. Just a 3-point shooting contest with mild defense. It reminds me of ping-pong, same thing over and over. The fourth quarter could be interesting depending on the score at the time.
High school basketball is closer to football. Limited possessions make the game more interesting. I could maybe accept a 1:00 shot clock as it wouldn't interfere with 99% of games being played. That would prevent the stalling where neither team attempts to make a play. But that is less than 1% of HS basketball games.
I would much rather see a 50-45 HS basketball game than a 90-70 game. Taking away the slow, deliberate style of basketball means less creativity. Now everyone has to play the same exact style...run the court and hoist up a shot.
One thing the least talented team could do is put on a light press to cut into the clock. Then fall back into a sagging man or a zone which makes the better team eventually have to shoot it from the outside. A lot of times when a better team gets up and a team goes to zone. The better team just throws it around the outside and wait for their overwhelming talent to get them an easy shot. A shot clock puts pressure on that. Last 3 minutes you can’t just hold it if you are a better team and which gives the team that is not as good more options than just fouling or running around with no ability to really stop the better team.
goshengophers
Active member
I'll take Beating A Dead Horse for $100, Alex
Smarty2022
Well-known member
No$$$
winbypin
Well-known member
I believe the average time of possession in Ohio HS basketball is already less than 30 seconds. Don't see how a shot clock is going to improve that.
Pace of play is not the biggest change.
Doublehelix
Well-known member
Shot clock enables flow - that's it.
It doesn't mean kids do whatever they want. It doesn't necessarily mean more or less points. It doesn't mean you still can't run speed up or methodical offenses. All of that is still 100% possible with a shot clock.
It eliminates the moronic and purposeful stall, you know, the kind where coaches bleed entire quarters, and it puts more kids into situations where they have to create vs. coaches just pulling it back out and running the same or another set until they get a shot for their preferred shooter.
Coaches are the ones making the game ugly at times. The kids are more than capable of adapting to this.
Not just game flow. End of game strategy. Different pressing strategies. Ability for bad teams to have more options outside of stall ball. More effective to use multiple defenses
Doublehelix
Well-known member
All very good points. It definitely changes game strategy.
My point was that all of the naysayers for a shot clock always bring it back to a preferred faster pace of play and increased scoring. It's completely independent of both.
NCAA has a shot clock and there are teams that have success that average 60 points per game, up to 95 points per game, and everything in between. Shot clock is scoring agnostic. The argument is moot.
Doublehelix
Well-known member
What does it have to do with the NBA?
The NBA has alot of one-on-one sets because they have players with the talent to excel in those situations. If there was no shot clock, you'd still see the same thing in the NBA.
A coach that lets HS kids play like NBA players is a moron. That's on the coach, not the shot clock adoption.
winbypin
Well-known member
Maybe but I was specifically responding to his comment that it would result in more shots.
Talk some sense
Active member
I disagree. The best player would have the ball the last 10 seconds and go 1 on 1 a lot.
Redandgold
Well-known member
Agreed, but holding the ball is part of he game. The goal is to win. Without that there is little reason for it be part of HS. Trying to win emphasizes all the lessons it’s supposed to be teaching.
Redandgold
Well-known member
That’s what was predicted for college when they got the clock. Never really happened.
AllSports12
Moderator
When you take the time it will take to get the ball across the division line against pressure along with the time it will take to get into a set..... There's not much time to run said set and virtually zero time to run a continuous set.
Hello, one on one offense.
Bad for the high school game.
Hello, one on one offense.
Bad for the high school game.
Doublehelix
Well-known member
Huh? What does a shot clock, or what I posted, have to do with jacking 3's at the buzzer?
Doublehelix
Well-known member
Shot clocks don't erase players taking stupid shots. There are also not alot of upsets in HS basketball either. The better team almost always wins.
Shot clock improves pace of game, that's it.
If you take a bunch of bad shots without a shot clock, you'll take a bunch of bad shots with a shot clock. That's a coaching issue, not a shot clock issue.
Doublehelix
Well-known member
It's hilarious the excuses the opponents of the shot clock use to explain why a shot clock isn't needed. Most, if not all of them, have nothing to do with the shot clock.
Literally, the discussions for adoption are for pace and developmental reasons, not for any of the reasons the opponents say (increased scoring, more entertaining, etc). Yet they continue to say they're right when the needle is inevitably moving towards it - and for the right reasons. It's hilarious how off they are thinking they are so right.
A shot clock will force coaches to change, it will create a better pace, and it will force development of more kids on the roster. All things that are needed to improve the overall quality of the game. I have no clue why people are against that. The bad teams will still be bad, and the good teams will still be good.
Teams that shoot bad shots will still shoot bad shots. Pressuring the ball is no different. If you're good at it, it's an advantage, if you're not, it's a disadvantage. You can still play slow or fast with a shot clock. Literally none of these points change with a shot clock. If you suck, you still suck with a shot clock. People act like a shot clock is this magic wand that changes everything. It doesn't. All it changes is the pace of the game.
Those that can't comprehend that, or continue to make excuses against it, are void of a deeper understanding of what's going on in the HS game.
Literally, the discussions for adoption are for pace and developmental reasons, not for any of the reasons the opponents say (increased scoring, more entertaining, etc). Yet they continue to say they're right when the needle is inevitably moving towards it - and for the right reasons. It's hilarious how off they are thinking they are so right.
A shot clock will force coaches to change, it will create a better pace, and it will force development of more kids on the roster. All things that are needed to improve the overall quality of the game. I have no clue why people are against that. The bad teams will still be bad, and the good teams will still be good.
Teams that shoot bad shots will still shoot bad shots. Pressuring the ball is no different. If you're good at it, it's an advantage, if you're not, it's a disadvantage. You can still play slow or fast with a shot clock. Literally none of these points change with a shot clock. If you suck, you still suck with a shot clock. People act like a shot clock is this magic wand that changes everything. It doesn't. All it changes is the pace of the game.
Those that can't comprehend that, or continue to make excuses against it, are void of a deeper understanding of what's going on in the HS game.