Geno Likes A High School Shot Clock ...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Remington

Personally, I feel it makes the game more enjoyable to watch.

It probably does make the game more enjoyable to watch. But, how much is "enjoyment to watch" one of the goals of HS basketball? That's what the question comes down to (plus, money and training, of course).

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It probably does make the game more enjoyable to watch. But, how much is "enjoyment to watch" one of the goals of HS basketball? That's what the question comes down to (plus, money and training, of course).

I don't think "enjoyment to watch" is the only benefit. Granted finances, training, are things that need to be overcome but the shot clock does more for high school athletes then just making a more enjoyable game.

- Increases player autonomy. Makes the game more player driven someone is going to have to make a shot, play, create more times per game.
- More possessions require more players to play.
- More possessions need to end when you get a good shot vs working until you get the perfect shot for the best player. Need for kids to be better shooters and take/make more shots.
- Increased number of skilled players since more players need to play more and need to be able to create or make plays.

More players playing with greater need to train and develop more universally skilled players.

Now these aren't officiating concerns as much as state of the game concerns. From a strictly officiating stand point adding a shot clock just adds a layer of rules and management.

[Welpe]

Of course a college coach wants this because it will directly benefit him and his program. What's good for him isn't necessarily what's good for high school basketball and its participants (the vast majority of which will never play in college).

[SCalScoreKeeper]

It's definitely an interesting debate-statistics report that the difference between scoring in states with the shot clock and states without is negligible (at least according to an analysis from MaxPreps.com sometime last year). Those who cite the need to prepare kids for college have a legit argument,but if that's the argument then shouldn't all travel ball tournaments be using the shot clock? Since after all that's where a vast majority of the recruiting occurs.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

It's definitely an interesting debate-statistics report that the difference between scoring in states with the shot clock and states without is negligible (at least according to an analysis from MaxPreps.com sometime last year). Those who cite the need to prepare kids for college have a legit argument,but if that's the argument then shouldn't all travel ball tournaments be using the shot clock? Since after all that's where a vast majority of the recruiting occurs.

Are you kidding? That would interfere with the profit margin.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

It's definitely an interesting debate-statistics report that the difference between scoring in states with the shot clock and states without is negligible (at least according to an analysis from MaxPreps.com sometime last year). Those who cite the need to prepare kids for college have a legit argument,but if that's the argument then shouldn't all travel ball tournaments be using the shot clock? Since after all that's where a vast majority of the recruiting occurs.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Are you kidding? That would interfere with the profit margin.

All the upper level girls' AAU tournaments here use a shot clock, as does the boys' Nike Elite League that comes through town. Shot clock violations are never an issue; these kids seem to adapt rather easily.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

- Increases player autonomy. Makes the game more player driven someone is going to have to make a shot, play, create more times per game.
- More possessions need to end when you get a good shot vs working until you get the perfect shot for the best player. Need for kids to be better shooters and take/make more shots.
- Increased number of skilled players since more players need to play more and need to be able to create or make plays.
More players playing with greater need to train and develop more universally skilled players.

Are we really allowing Geno Auriemma to post on the Forum using Pantherdreams' user name? Does Geno really need another soapbox?

[Remington]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It probably does make the game more enjoyable to watch. But, how much is "enjoyment to watch" one of the goals of HS basketball? That's what the question comes down to (plus, money and training, of course).

Bob, you are right of course. I am simply a realist in that people won't attend games if it isn't enjoyable to watch as some point and there certainly is a money factor. The "gate" and concessions help offset the cost of having the teams, paying referees, etc... So although it isn't a goal of NFHS, it certainly is a factor to many schools in my opinion. I officiated a game many years ago that ended 6-4. The game was horrible and everyone in the stands that I knew told me how much they hated it, except for the final 2 possessions which were exciting of course. I know this is a horrible example, but I don't think that was "basketball" in my mind......

[Rob1968]

Years ago, I read a study that said that 2% of all basketball players that ever make the team in HS, will ever make a team at the college level. And that included the stars, the role players, and the kids at the other end of the bench, and all levels of NCAA b-ball.
And even with those numbers, many more of the parents, and players, will tell their peers that they think that their child or they can go on to "the next level." Unrealisitic expectations by parents, and misguided aspirations by players, too often cause some players to neglect their studies - the real reason to attend HS - and harm their future oppotunities in society.
The trickle-down from pro to NCAA to HS to JrHS and AAU levels, is a constant subject of scrutiny. And rarely are the effects of that strata considered to be a positive.
To mold the game and rules - the playing format - to aid the college game and its coaches, seems misguided. Even so, we see the tendency of the lower levels of play gradually adopting the elements of the higher levels. It's easy to chase the attitudes, by following the dollars.
Why does a college coach want the HS's to do his job? Of course, its to enhance his status at his level. I don't think that's what HS athletics should be about.