Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
That is a big reason. I work in a state where they do not even have a play clock in high school football games. A shot clock is a huge cost and I was told that it might be around $4000-5000 to add to any school. I know many schools that might not be able to pay that let alone pay more to officials. Schools in my state are crying poor about a lot of things that have nothing to do with sports. So I can only imagine this is a hard sell across the country. But the cost is not my major concern with this rule, the application is my concern.
Peace
|
Schools always cry poor. It is what they do, even when they're flush with money. The Portland school district is on a binge to rebuild ALL of their HSs. Some needed it for sure but they're rebuilding a HS about every two years. They've finished 2. Three more are on the schedule for the next couple of years. They only have 9. They have the smallest class sizes in the state too, by a lot. They all still complain about the money even when they are in good shape financially.
As for shot clocks, I just saw something very interesting...
Form
Sautter: The time is now for a shot clock in Nebraska high school basketball | Boys basketball | omaha.com
Quote:
|
The most recent publicized statistics by MaxPreps in 2014 show the national average winning score in states without a shot clock is 60 points. In states with a shot clock it's 58.5 points. Total scoring averages are higher in states that do not use a shot clock (104.2 combined points per game) versus those that do (101.4).
|
The shot clock apparently leads to fewer points scored???? That says to me the shot clock, while it increases the number of shots, increases the number of missed shots more than the number of shots it creates. Hmmm.