Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The_Rookie]

Currently only 7 states use some form of shot clock...43 say no way