Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals

[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?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by asdf

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?

They play better defense in those states????

Why would you use scoring stats as the basis for the quality of the game?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

They play better defense in those states????

Why would you use scoring stats as the basis for the quality of the game?

That is one of the points being used in favor of the shot clock....that it will increase scoring which will make the game more interesting. That, of course, doesn't mean it does or does not really increase quality, just that the point being used in favor of it is not really true.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is one of the points being used in favor of the shot clock....that it will increase scoring which will make the game more interesting. That, of course, doesn't mean it does or does not really increase quality, just that the point being used in favor of it is not really true.

OK. But...Whether it will increase scoring or not really has nothing to do with the "quality" of basketball. The two do not necessarily go together. If they did, then the Hank Gathers/Bo Kimble led Loyal Marymount teams would have won NCAA championships.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

OK. But...Whether it will increase scoring or not really has nothing to do with the "quality" of basketball. The two do not necessarily go together. If they did, then the Hank Gathers/Bo Kimble led Loyal Marymount teams would have won NCAA championships.

I agree, 100%....but some, perhaps many, of those pushing for it are using that as one of the arguments in favor.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is one of the points being used in favor of the shot clock....that it will increase scoring which will make the game more interesting. That, of course, doesn't mean it does or does not really increase quality, just that the point being used in favor of it is not really true.

The use of a shot clock is generally considered to do what Camron mentioned -increase fan interest because of increased scoring.

The 24 second clock, in the NBA, was supported by the mathematical formula that in 48 minutes, with 50% FG accuracy, the average scores would be 100 per team, which would increase fan interest - or so goes the story.

Whether the quality of play is increased is a constant debate. Again, in the NBA, scores in the play-offs are expected to be lower than in the regular season. Different parties assign differing causes - better teams play better defense, officials allow more contact in play-off games (let 'em play, ref!), more structure and more frontcourt offense/defense rather than fastbreak scoring, etc.

I doubt that the NFHS or its member state assn.'s use similar criteria in such decisions.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The use of a shot clock is generally considered to do what Camron mentioned -increase fan interest because of increased scoring.

The 24 second clock, in the NBA, was supported by the mathematical formula that in 48 minutes, with 50% FG accuracy, the average scores would be 100 per team, which would increase fan interest - or so goes the story.

Whether the quality of play is increased is a constant debate. Again, in the NBA, scores in the play-offs are expected to be lower than in the regular season. Different parties assign differing causes - better teams play better defense, officials allow more contact in play-off games (let 'em play, ref!), more structure and more frontcourt offense/defense rather than fastbreak scoring, etc.

I doubt that the NFHS or its member state assn.'s use similar criteria in such decisions.

NBA.com - History of the Shot Clock

Biasone chose the unusual number of 24 seconds by figuring that the average number of shots two teams would take during a game was 120. He divided that number into 48 minutes or 2,880 seconds, the length of a game, and ended up with the magical number of 24.

[Rob1968]

Thanks, APG.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The use of a shot clock is generally considered to do what Camron mentioned -increase fan interest because of increased scoring.

That's fine for higher levels but is "increasing fan interest" what HS basketball is supposed to be about? I always thought it was supposed to be about teaching the kids.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

That's fine for higher levels but is "increasing fan interest" what HS basketball is supposed to be about? I always thought it was supposed to be about teaching the kids.

I agree.

[asdf]

Agreed as well....... and is my point for the scoring reference......

The mission for Interscholastic Sports is clearly stated.....It's participation. Nowhere does it reference the minimal number of players that go to the next level. (many of whom do not continue to compete in those 4 years that they attend classes)

The stall-ball non-epidemic is exacerbated by the internet. It's been going on for years, yet only recently does it make headlines. Because those headlines are repeated on every sports website available, it leaves the perception that it is a common occurrence.

Leave the clock out. As stated prior, it's a solution for a problem that has not been found at this level.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by asdf

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?

Don't want to hi-jack the thread because now we really aren't talking about officiating issues. I haven't got the stats you are speaking to so I'm just guessing, but right off the top of my head:

1) Quality doesn't mean more scoring. Defense gets better and more adept too and now needs to concentrate effort, instensity and communication into shorter periods too.

2) Length of the shot clock is also an issue with a 40-35 second shot clock that is still enough time for teams to walk the ball up the floor, and run sets for the 1 or 2 skilled players and pull out and reset again. Even in NCAA men's games with the 35 second shot clock you see a large nubmer of big athletic bodies but that don't shoot it well or create that are just there to rebound and defend other teams athletes and skilled players. You don't see a lot of teams fielding multiple players who are universally skilled and can make plays with and without the ball. SO defense gets some advantage as well in that they only have to defend the skilled plaeyrs and stuff for a window. Article i cited is talking about a rules set with 24 second shot clock, 8 seconds to advance the ball and adds in the removal of timeouts during liveplay.

3) Population density? Rhode Island vs Texas shot clock or no there are just going to be more larger, athletic, skilled players competing agaisnt each other and creating urban vs rural styles of play in one vs the other.

4) Lack of coaching/development? Adapation?Shot clocks have not been around forever in these settings. I'm sure you've still got coaches that try to instill a style of play that works at ages/in places without the shot clock and then when these kids play with a shot clock coach is trying to find systems that fit sqaure pegs into round holes. In addition defense and hard work are infinitely easier to develop then skills so coaches and programs concerned with winning teach kids to do things offensively that limit turnovers and shot selection, while encouraging high levels of defense. If you look at clubs or countires that have Long Term Athlete Development models where fiba rules (aka shot clock exist at higher levels) youth and adolescent development are slanted towards shooting, passing and sport movement with very limited emphasis on defensive or team tactics.

5) Not basketball states? Without the names in front of me environment and history could make an area more or less of basketball skilled player hotbed and more of a hockey/baseball/football. ANd that could impact high school scoring stats far more then any clock when comparing regions. If we give 24 Alaska a shot clock for example and no shot clock in California. Would I expect basketball players in Alaska and programs there to become more skills focsued and produce more well rounded players than they currently do sure. Would I expect them to produce better basketball players with athleticism and ability to score more then larger states with urban centres for more growth, opportunity, access to play and environments where kids can get outside and compete. No. Not sure what the out door court culture in Anchorage is like . .