Series of Articles on NFHS Proposals
 

Basketball rules committee talking points with Theresia Wynns, NFHS Director of Sports & Officials Education - cleveland.com

From cleveland.com.

I am in favor of 18-minute halves to keep the game moving and take away two intermissions where everyone is considered bench personnel. I am not in favor of a shot clock. My main reasons...

1) Check out the article on that link about the cost of shot clocks
2) It's not high school basketball's job to get its +/- 3 percent of future college players ready for the next level.
3) The game flows well enough without a shot clock, and it would put less skilled teams at a tremendous disadvantage.

I would only favor the move to 18-minute halves if the officiating fees were to also increase by the same percentage (12.5%).

I would be an advocate of 18 minute halves as well for no other reason other than it could help the game. But I do not see pay increasing like that either, at least around here.

I still see no reason to have a shot clock in HS.

Peace

I would be willing to bet she misspoke and meant 16 minute halves.

I think the argument that the kids will get tired playing four more minutes is a little bit ridiculous. Four minutes more or less than 32 is not going to have a major impact on their fatigue. These kids want to be out there. Are we saying that we should limit the number of overtime periods to not tire the kids out? Basketball is innately a tiring activity, and upping the length of the game by four minutes will not make it a "more tiring" activity or more dangerous.

The other argument that I don't like is the one about kids getting done even later on a school night. If we take away two 1-plus minute intermissions by going to halves, that's a net addition of a mere two minutes, an extra four minutes of playing time minus at least two minutes of intermissions. If those two minutes are really that big of a concern, take less time in the locker room after the game.

I don't think these arguments should be reasons not to change to halves.

The players may not get tired playing an extra four minutes but I sure will if I have to officiate an extra four minutes, especially on days when I do not get my pre-lunch nap and my post lunch nap. :p

MTD, Sr.

I'd be happy with an inflation increase every year.

As far as halves, if they go to 16 minute halves, I'd be fine. I just see this as yet another solution in search of a problem.

Not to mention getting in the bonus and double bonus more often, which further slows down the game and frustrates players and coaches.

Who knows? 18 minute halves are used here in Minnesota and have been since the 2005-06 season. Don't know about official pay though.

They can adjust just like they do at the college level. Not a big deal if you ask me.

Peace

Regarding FTs, one of the questions on the NCAAW rules survey this year concerns returning to 1+1 on the 7th foul with no double bonus.

Thoughts on this at the HS level?

Awful idea for game flow. No reason to just keep pounding until the bench is empty. I like the idea of triple bonus after 13.

I'd be thrilled to go to halves.

Give each team 5 timeouts as now. 1 60, 4 30s. First stoppage after 8:00 (16 minute halves) or 9:00 (18 minute halves) in each half becomes an uncharged 60 second timeout.

Things wouldn't change much, but we'd eliminate 2 last second shots, which is the best reason to go to halves, as far as I'm concerned.

I am not sure she misspoke. In the NFHS survey this year, they had a question about 18 minutes halves. I was confused as to why it wasn't 16. I am not sure why they wouldn't go to 16 instead of 18, but hey, that's two places the NFHS has used the 18 minute half talk now.

Once again, Minnesota went to 18 minute halves originally as an NF experimental rule. Minnesota like the rule and kept it. This has been several years this half proposal has been suggested as a new rule. It is not a new thing and of course has not passed. I actually do not see it passing this year either for the reasons we have stated like pay and players being tired. I guess we will see.

Peace

I've used the "will they raise officials pay 12.5%?" line myself, semi-jokingly.

That said, I really don't care. Two more of our conferences have moved to 3-person and both of them are paying the same rates as they did when 2-person (and that doesn't happen everywhere). I'll gladly work 4 extra minutes if we're working 3-person everywhere.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Four Periods, The Way That God Intended Basketball To Be Played ...
 

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).

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.

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. :)

We have 7 classes in my state and only the top 2 require 3 person mechanics. If the shot clock comes, in my opinion they would have to go to three man in all classes, and we just don't have the bodies to do that. I know I wouldn't want to have to worry about the shot clock while working 2 man.

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?

They play better defense in those states????

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

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 . .

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks, APG.

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

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.

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.

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