Shot Clocks

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think the officials would be the problem. There would be a lot more bad shots attempted with 30 second than 35 seconds.

Not really. There are already terrible shots taken in high school games with no shot clock. Let's be honest, any given set doesn't take more than 15 or 20 seconds to get an acceptable open look. When teams defend well for 20 seconds and the offense fails to get an open book, that's when crappy shots happen. But that happens every game. This just speeds up the whole process. I am sure coaches can adjust to having to buy your seconds to get a crappy shot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not really. There are already terrible shots taken in high school games with no shot clock. Let's be honest, any given set doesn't take more than 15 or 20 seconds to get an acceptable open look. When teams defend well for 20 seconds and the offense fails to get an open book, that's when crappy shots happen. But that happens every game. This just speeds up the whole process. I am sure coaches can adjust to having to buy your seconds to get a crappy shot.

Yes, but a shot clock brings worse shots sometimes. And a lot of teams IMO at the high school are not capable to take better shots. Also many high school teams can hold and pass the ball a lot. A shot clock is not going to make the scores go up if you cannot shoot.

I did a tournament where there was a 35 second shot clock but those teams played up tempo or played in a way already where they shot quicker anyway. But not all teams I see play that way. And the shot clock is going to just speed up that process.

Peace

[Rich]

We'll make it work.

They still have 2 years to change their minds, too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We'll make it work.

They still have 2 years to change their minds, too.

It can work. Not suggesting that it cannot work overall. I just do not like it if I had a choice. If anything, get rid of quarters and extend the game by 2 minutes per half. I think that would make a better game not the shot clock.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It can work. Not suggesting that it cannot work overall. I just do not like it if I had a choice. If anything, get rid of quarters and extend the game by 2 minutes per half. I think that would make a better game not the shot clock.

Peace

We already play 18-minute halves.

For many schools, this is a solution in search of a problem. An expensive one, at that.

I may see if I can start working the shot clock once in a while, though. Gotta find the next career once I get sick of officiating.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We already play 18-minute halves.

For many schools, this is a solution in search of a problem. An expensive one, at that.

I may see if I can start working the shot clock once in a while, though. Gotta find the next career once I get sick of officiating.

So much for using National Federation Rules strictly. Not sure where that idea of states doing their own thing came from?

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So much for using National Federation Rules strictly. Not sure where that idea of states doing their own thing came from?

Peace

Maybe Massachusetts, where we were early adopters of the shot clock (way back in the early-to-mid 90s) and used halves for years before switching back to quarters 3 years ago.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Rich

We already play 18-minute halves.

Does Wisconsin give up an NFHS vote for doing this? I believe the shot-clock states already give up their votes.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Does Wisconsin give up an NFHS vote for doing this? I believe the shot-clock states already give up their votes.

Yes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro