Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals

[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 . .