Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals

[Pantherdreams]

Seems like pretty standard fair nothing really earth shattering.

Checked out the breakdown of the costs for installing shot clocks. Based on personal experience and somle research. The costs in the linked article are inflated. Depending on what you want the clock to do and if you need it to interface with your current system are all factors in cost. In reality though the claim of 5,000 minimum cost is erroneous. You can get two portable/mountable clocks and the operating tablet/device that is wireless for anywhere from 800-1500. Most of the schools where we work have these sorts of devices and shot clocks. They aren't mounted on backboards/ tied into the scoreboard or connected to a jumbo tron or even hard wired in. They just hang them from the walls or roll them out at game times. Plug in the wireless consule next to the game clock and Bob's your uncle. I can't speak to upkeep costs or costs of minor officials since all the schools we work minor officials, AD's etc are primarily volunteer. But to be clear we've got schools making an invenstment in equipment that wll work at games for 4-6 teams per school for x number of years at a cost that is 1/2 or 1 full set of uniforms for 1 team that may last 3-5 years.

Now that isn't a reason to go to shot clocks but I don't think the cost is as big as a deterent as some think.

The issue with the shot clock is that as officials there is little/no upside for us specifically. More possessions, more broken plays, more rules, more responsiblity, more horns, whistles, interruptions and errors.

So from an officiating stand point it would be easier to not have a shot clock then to have one. It would also be easier to have no fouls, no out of bounds, just have us there to throw the jump ball and start/end games. So the real debate about shot clock has to
be a state of the game sort of debate. Schools have to calculate costs obviously but really it has to come down to what is better for the high school game and basketball in general.

So as the only really "for the shot clock guy" here I will post a token defense for the benefit of having a shot clock below as a greater good of the game thing. Have a great day.


How The Shot Clock Improves Player Development - theLLaBB

[JRutledge]

Yes cost is a big factor to this issue when schools in my state could not get new uniforms when the IHSA made a big deal out of enforcement of uniform rules to the letter. That is why Board of Directors had a special meeting to eliminate the enforcement of these rules a couple of years ago. These schools could not afford a few thousand dollars just to comply with the NF Rules. So the BOD took action and realized that these were not going to solve a problem when schools are being asked to play more money for all kinds of unrelated things not associated with sports. $800 is a lot to come up with when you might have to pay for other increase in fees.

Heck there were colleges that could not come up with the money to put a marking on their court for the restricted area when the rule came in place and now we expect high schools to come up with more money too for this rule?

Peace

[Bad Zebra]

Playing halves would be interesting at the HS level. I think it would shorten the total length of each game by a few minutes...not to say that's even an issue now.

The shot clock idea looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. In 15+ years of HS officiating, I can only think of ONE team that played a "stall" offense and tried to hold the ball for lengthy periods...and that was at a summer camp. Is the "slow down" type of grind-it-out game REALLY being played with ANY degree of frquency, anywhere?

And let's be honest...the shot clock would be a nightmare from an administration standpoint. Schools (around here anyway) are challenged to run a regular clock and scoreboard correctly. Adding a shot clock to the mix would a huge problem...and probably lengthen the games (stop the game, meet with partner(s), walk over to the table and correct it multiple times a game)

My vote is thumbs down

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes cost is a big factor ...

All the head coaches in every varsity sport in Hampton, VA are getting their stipend cut by 25%.

No way that school district will be able to afford shot clocks anytime soon.

[BillyMac]

We use halves (sixteen minutes) for our private prep school games, and I prefer quarters. I like the guaranteed "time out" at the eight minute mark. It give me a chance to catch my breath, and to get in some "quiet time" to reflect on the previous eight minutes, and to plan to make any necessary adjustments for the subsequent eight minutes. I may also use that time to meet with my partner for a few seconds to discuss any significant situations that we may have had in the first eight minutes, and how we should handle them if we see any similar situations in the second eight minutes. The first intermission can be a kind of mini halftime conference.

Just my two cents. Of course, now that I'm an esteemed Forum member, my two cents is really worth about four cents. By the way, now that I'm an esteemed Forum member, just mention my name at any Starbucks and you can get a tall cup of coffee for about $1.75. It's true. Of course, it's a limited time offer (until their next price increase).

[JetMetFan]

The wireless shot-clock thing? Bad idea. Wireless clocks, IMO, are more trouble than they're worth.

You can go cheap on shot-clocks - as many NYC schools do - but when they're not linked to the game clock you have to worry about two people starting/stopping timing devices: the game clock operator and the shot-clock operator. Again, IMO, more trouble than it's worth and I deal with it on the HS level every year.

Improving player development? 3% of HS players go on to play any form of collegiate basketball. Essentially the shot-clock is "developing" the 97% who go on to play...intramural basketball or rec ball.

[ODJ]

How many possessions actually get near 30 seconds in a game? Two?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ODJ

How many possessions actually get near 30 seconds in a game? Two?

Depends. It would eliminate the ball holding for 2 minutes at the end of quarters as happens occasionally.

I'd rather see more money ensuring we had 3-person crews for each game with each official paid a better rate.

[biz]

Originally Posted by ODJ

How many possessions actually get near 30 seconds in a game? Two?

MA uses a 30 sec clock for boys and girls and has for quite some time (1997 or 1998 for boys and before that for the girls). I would say that a defensive game on the boys side will result in a couple or 3 shot clock violations and at least a handful of rushed shots to beat the clock. It definitely comes into play more than a couple times a game and as a HS coach it certainly changes the way you coach.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The wireless shot-clock thing? Bad idea. Wireless clocks, IMO, are more trouble than they're worth.

You can go cheap on shot-clocks - as many NYC schools do - but when they're not linked to the game clock you have to worry about two people starting/stopping timing devices: the game clock operator and the shot-clock operator. Again, IMO, more trouble than it's worth and I deal with it on the HS level every year.

Improving player development? 3% of HS players go on to play any form of collegiate basketball. Essentially the shot-clock is "developing" the 97% who go on to play...intramural basketball or rec ball.

Again I'm not saying its great for officials. But worrying about stopping the game to correct table errors, more things for us to track, etc is not an impact on the quality or growth of the game its a job performance issue for the only people being paid to be there in a lot of cases. I don't think there is any good argument from an officials stand point to consider adding shot clocks. The shot clock is more of a fan/player/coach growth and change in the game sort of thing.

You are improving and developing players to have better player with a better experience and understanding of the sport. The 97% that don't go on to play at a higher level still end up being coaches, citizens, officials, fans, and workers. Would you rather have basketball developed their decision making, manipulative skills, love of sport, communicationetc do the greatest degree the rules and situation allow? If having to play more players, shoot more shots, make more decisions communicate and problem solve on their own more often improves the players and capacity and reslienece of the people that makes more sense to do it.

But as you say from a simple logistics point, its not a problem that needs solving and may cause more problems. In terms of how many games are stall ball low scoring games very few. But I can tell that in the NFHS girls/guys games I do across the border. The pace of the games is lower/slower then the FIBA games I do with the 24-8. I also know that if a key player in an NFHS game gets in foul trouble or has to sit for rest; suddenly the sets become noticeably more deliberate and start to chew up 30-40 seconds, even whole minutes if they are trying to get to the end of the quarter up or down a certain margin with Sally or Joe out of the game. Also at the end of games you get into a 4th quarter down 12 or into the last for minutes up 6-8 or less I can almost assure you that its time to consider getting out and fouling because they might not stall entirely but you definitely aren't getting enough possessions to get back in the game just getting stops unless you start being perfect from the field.

I'm not saying thats bad but in the games I do with the 24 unless its a blowout teams are playing, attacking and creating/running their stuff to score every possession until you are basically under a minute before you need to start consdering fouling or making dramatic tactical changes. Games can have more swings and turns of momentum which (as an official) has no impact on me but as a parent/coach/fan seems better for the kids involved.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Again I'm not saying its great for officials. But worrying about stopping the game to correct table errors, more things for us to track, etc is not an impact on the quality or growth of the game its a job performance issue for the only people being paid to be there in a lot of cases. I don't think there is any good argument from an officials stand point to consider adding shot clocks. The shot clock is more of a fan/player/coach growth and change in the game sort of thing.

You are improving and developing players to have better player with a better experience and understanding of the sport. The 97% that don't go on to play at a higher level still end up being coaches, citizens, officials, fans, and workers. Would you rather have basketball developed their decision making, manipulative skills, love of sport, communicationetc do the greatest degree the rules and situation allow? If having to play more players, shoot more shots, make more decisions communicate and problem solve on their own more often improves the players and capacity and reslienece of the people that makes more sense to do it.

But as you say from a simple logistics point, its not a problem that needs solving and may cause more problems. In terms of how many games are stall ball low scoring games very few. But I can tell that in the NFHS girls/guys games I do across the border. The pace of the games is lower/slower then the FIBA games I do with the 24-8. I also know that if a key player in an NFHS game gets in foul trouble or has to sit for rest; suddenly the sets become noticeably more deliberate and start to chew up 30-40 seconds, even whole minutes if they are trying to get to the end of the quarter up or down a certain margin with Sally or Joe out of the game. Also at the end of games you get into a 4th quarter down 12 or into the last for minutes up 6-8 or less I can almost assure you that its time to consider getting out and fouling because they might not stall entirely but you definitely aren't getting enough possessions to get back in the game just getting stops unless you start being perfect from the field.

I'm not saying thats bad but in the games I do with the 24 unless its a blowout teams are playing, attacking and creating/running their stuff to score every possession until you are basically under a minute before you need to start consdering fouling or making dramatic tactical changes. Games can have more swings and turns of momentum which (as an official) has no impact on me but as a parent/coach/fan seems better for the kids involved.

If the clock improves the quality of the game, then how do you explain the fact that out of the seven states that use the clock, only one ranks in the top ten in scoring?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Seems like pretty standard fair nothing really earth shattering.

Checked out the breakdown of the costs for installing shot clocks. Based on personal experience and somle research. The costs in the linked article are inflated. Depending on what you want the clock to do and if you need it to interface with your current system are all factors in cost. In reality though the claim of 5,000 minimum cost is erroneous. You can get two portable/mountable clocks and the operating tablet/device that is wireless for anywhere from 800-1500. Most of the schools where we work have these sorts of devices and shot clocks. They aren't mounted on backboards/ tied into the scoreboard or connected to a jumbo tron or even hard wired in. They just hang them from the walls or roll them out at game times. Plug in the wireless consule next to the game clock and Bob's your uncle........

I would expect that the cheaper shot clocks are probably lacking in durability where the permanent install models are built like tanks, meant to last for a very long time. Aside from bulbs going out in older clocks/scoreboard, they tend to last for decades, reliably, even with some amount of abuse in the handling of the control unit. With portable units, I'd expect them to fail a long time before the permanent units, if only from the constant movement. So, while they may be cheaper at the start, the need for replacement would be sooner.