Geno Likes A High School Shot Clock ...

[junruh07]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The important part is not what He thinks, or what He says, but the point that He brings up. Is the lack of a shot clock in many states holding back the development of Division I caliber basketball players? Do players that play in states with a shot clock make better Division I basketball recruits than players that play in states with no shot clock? Does this apply across both genders? Does this apply for all college players, not just Division I players? Should the NFHS, and/or, individual states, take this into consideration in making shot clock rule decisions?

The other subject that he brings up has little to do with officiating basketball, but is still an important topic, especially here in Connecticut, which has strict rules against out-of-season coaching. Is it worth it for states, like Connecticut, to continue to perpetuate the idea of the three-sport-student-athlete, or should such states just give up and let the coaches coach all year long, leading to one-sport specialists? Here, in the Constitution State, we already have many athletes not participating in high school soccer, or high school gymnastics, to play one sport, on a high level club team, all year long. These athletes, with their families, have decided that if the state won't let a high school coach coach all year long, then the athlete might as well play for a non-high school coach that can coach all year long.

The development of college athletes shouldn't play much into the decision because that is not the goal of HS athletics. It may be a bi-product because some students do play ball in college, but it will affect a small percentage of students who play high school sports.

To your second point, my state allows HS coaches to coach summer teams. It has led to very little, if any, increase in the quality of basketball played in our state.

[crosscountry55]

I don't think the shot clock is the ultimate answer. RI, right next door, has a shot clock, and I would dare say the quality of basketball is more worser than it is in CT. At least that was my observation in 2010 when I was there for a while.

I think making the game better in the northeast, mind you without need for a single rule change, is a matter of better officiating as a whole. Notice CT is a place where IAABO board shenanigans rule the roost and 2-person crews are the varsity norm. Same thing in RI. And no offense, BillyMac (present company accepted; I know that you at least care by the sheer fact that you're here all the time participating in the getting better process), but I saw a lot of old and slow guys in RI, because Board 84 is more interested in letting them keep working than developing new officials. So the game suffers. We set the tempo and the bounds, and coaches and players adapt.

On a separate note, for the purists out there who argue that NFHS basketball is not a proving ground for college basketball, I would counter that I'd rather an organization like NFHS, with an educational underpinning, serve that role than someone else like the AAU. At the very least, the game serves an educational purpose when the teamwork it promotes is fun. Simply winning doesn't always equate with fun. So if we change some rules to speed up the game and encourage more offense, I wouldn't be opposed at all. That would be fun for everyone, players and fans alike. Fun encourages teamwork, and teamwork feeds back to the educational mission to close the loop.

[Mark Padgett]

I'm sure we'd be glad to put in shot clocks here in Oregon if he'll pay for them.