Shot Clock

[Mmgord77]

I saw where this has come up elsewhere and have been meaning to start a discussion about it since the end of January.

I would love to get our members' opinions, who are coaches or who have coached basketball.

What are your feelings on having a shot clock in high school and why?

[Dorman12]

i think they should, because most teams hold the ball, and stall and give the other team a less chance of trying to get back in the game, and it is boring, but its a good break for the players..

[parkplace]

I would love it!! Up and down the court play would be great. (Just think the amount of pounds that would be lost by all of us fat guys.):eek: Can my "YMCA" afford all the technoogy and will the hardware fit on those metal back boards.

As for implementig this for HS ball? I don't think many of the smaller schools can afford to get the shot clocks. They can't even afford the endzone 25 second clocks for football.

[elk3730]

We played (our kids) in some AAU tournaments where they were using the shot clocks. I liked the game and the players adjusted well. I believe you will see the shot clock in high school in the future.

The why: Offensive sets are executed quickly and your options are few. I believe it would teach better fundamentals on position, shot placement & time management. Better overall strategy & coaching. Better for fans, more excitment.

[DusterDad]

I don't like the idea at all. It takes away a lot of coaching maneuvers that can keep a less talented team in a game where it makes a good team "earn it" rather than just run up and down the floor with more athletes. I've seen Beaver have the personel to be on both sides of the "loaded with athletes" issue so I don't have any bias as to why I don't like the idea. As far as consideration towards the fans, I could care less if they don't like a defensive battle and a slow tempo. If they can't appreciate a good coaching job by the less superior team, then they need to attend something else they might understand.

[Mmgord77]

I would like to see a 45 or 60 second shot clock. I feel like that would not punish either the O or D. I have noticed, in the last 2 years especially, that a team can play great D for a full minute, minute and a half, even two minutes, but have a breakdown after that and get scored on. I do not think a shot clock this long would swing the competitive balance. I think a 35 sec shot clock would do that, though. I do not care about seeing teams run up and down the court (although I love to watch that style of play). I don't think a shot clock of this length would force teams to do that. If you can't find a decent shot in a minute's worth of time, you've got bigger problems than the shot clock.

The one drawback would be the cost to implement. Some schools do not have the scoreboard and time keeping equipment that you could integrate a shot clock in with. So, it would have to be seperately kept, which costs more and requires another volunteer. Neither of which is too exciting to coaches or ADs, I'm sure. I would like to see the OSSAA step up with a financing program or grant program to help with the costs of instituting a shot clock. Also, if the OSSAA were to step in as middle man, I'm sure a pretty good bulk discount could be worked out with the shot clock making companies. Of course, that would probably be too easy of a way to handle the situation... :)

[j's_on_my_feet]

Watching most of the state tournament games you see that very few teams that get to that point play the slow it up kind of game. Most teams run the ball. Thats the way to win. Unless you have incredible discipline your team wont be able to hold it and beat a team that runs. So therefore the shot clock would do no good. And 45 to 60 seconds? that would be pointless!

[Mmgord77]

Oh, it would be far from pointless. I've watched a good 20 regular season 2A and 3A games over the last few years that would've benefitted from having a shot clock...

[DusterDad]

If you can't find a decent shot in a minute's worth of time, you've got bigger problems than the shot clock.

I picked this out because it's simply not true. The whole point of holding onto the ball is to keep it out of the hands of your opponent and slow them down. It's a great coaching philosophy that's used alot. It's not necessarily just to find a good shot. Keep the score close and give your team a chance to win. Case in point, a few years back where the oppossing 3A Alva team, rated in the top ten, had 2 fella's 6'8" and a third one 6'6". There was no chance of us (Class A team) scoring in the middle with our tallest being 6'3". As well, most rebounds would definately go their way. So, without shooting 80% or better(never happens) we'd have to hold the ball, keep it from their offense, make them play defense, be smart and only take high percentage shots. We had to stay on top of the score or at least make it a one possession game. It worked with a brilliant coaching job by Don Sinclair which kept it close by using a 4 corner offense throughout the game. We were content to hold the ball and make them extend their D. It was a slow methodical game but we were able to make it a contest rather than a blowout which is what a shot clock would have produced. We stood a chance because there was no shot clock as this method was our only hope of being in the contest. As far as teams that reach the state tournament you won't see the necessity of the states best to use a stall tactic. But, that's not the point and not always what needs to be considered when making decisions that affect everybody. Even so, when considering the states best, when you have the lead with 2:00 minutes left, I like the fact that a team can pull back and run a four corner offense and put the pressure on the other team. That's a huge intracal part of the game. Taking away these coaching options is not a good move. As of matter of fact, I don't think I have ever heard anyone say we need to make high school games more exciting because of their lack of production. That's a stupid statement because for a fact, the majority of games far exceed the expected excitement level. I think the shot clock is just plain silly for small town USA and will only bring about more boring 82 to 40 outcomes.

[Mmgord77]

Can't really argue against your example there, Dusterdad. In that case, Beaver vs. Alva, a shot clock would've definitely hurt the Duster's chance of winning.

I have to admit, I'm definitely more offensive minded, when I coached 2 years of AAU ball. I'm definitely for rules that help offense. Kind of a counterpiont to offenses holding the ball... how many games have you seen where a coac decides to hold the ball and after about a minute and a half, the team turns the ball over? All a shot clock would do is put more pressure on coaches to be more offensive minded. It forces kids to take there first open shots. I've heard many coaches teach (Billy Tubbs included) that kids now pass up too many good shots trying to use up clock. I've heard them present statistics backing up there stance that teams who shoot a quicker, open shot shoot a higher percentage than those that pass up those early shots. I don't know how much I believe those stats, but its interesting to think about.

I would love to get some of our coaches' views on this subject.... please post your thoughts.

[DusterDad]

I've got a lot of experience in the sport of basketball myself and I can't really argue with anything you have said in the last post. I'm sure most of that is true. However, I just think that there is more to the game than just quick transition scoring of two top notch teams. At this time, all of your examples include having two equal teams going at it, each and everytime you hit the floor with state tournament teams, AAU teams, and College teams. However, in actuality, that isn't the case with most of the games in high school basketball. I believe that taking a page of checks and balances from a coaches playbook isn't such a great idea.