Geno Likes A High School Shot Clock ...
 

The Hartford Courant, Saturday, Match 21, 2015
The Oldest Continuously Published Newspaper In The United States

TIME FOR A SHOT CLOCK ... AND OTHER REFORMS

Geno: Make H.S. Game Better

JEFF JACOBS [email protected]  

STORRS — Geno Auriemma is coach of the defending national college basketball champions. He remains coach of the Olympic gold medalists. Auriemma is also a Connecticut resident. And as the NCAA Division I women’s tournament starts this weekend at Gampel Pavilion, Auriemma is well aware that the state high school championships — both genders, all divisions — are at Mohegan Sun Arena.
Sure, he looks at the game from the top. He also looks at it from its roots. And on a Friday when he was asked about John Wooden, he spoke much more demonstratively about the high school game in Connecticut. Auriemma is concerned about the way it is played on the court and concerned about some of the ways the CIAC runs it off the court.
The man who figures to match Wooden’s record of 10 national championships this year worries that the Connecticut high school game in 2015 is too wooden. He hates that there is no shot clock, for instance. And for all the debate that has gone on about those 30 or 35 seconds recently, whose opinion should be better valued?
Yet it goes beyond the shot clock. So let’s step back for a moment, because like many things involving Auriemma, one question evolves into one answer and another and another. The initial question by John Holt from WFSB-TV was about the 20th anniversary of UConn’s first national title and the impact of two decades on young girls and women’s athletics in the state.
“I guess I felt the impact more in the ’90s and up until Diana Taurasi graduated in 2004,” Auriemma said. “I think that’s when it was most evident what was going on and how everyone reacted to it. It was unlike any place in the country.
“Unfortunately, even in spite of all that, I don’t think a lot is done in this state to help girls be better basketball players — guys for that matter. The rules being what they are, the size of the state being what it is, for as popular as girls basketball should be in this state, there are not a lot of high-level Division I players coming out of Connecticut year after year.”
As architect of the premier program in the nation, a Hall of Famer, a businessman, etc., we tend to see Auriemma more as a face on the wall next to Wooden’s in Springfield and a face on a jar of tomato sauce next to his mom. You can forget that Auriemma once coached his son Michael and Aaron Hernandez in AAU ball. You can forget that he once haunted state gyms in search of talent at Storrs. You can forget that his son-in-law Todd Stigliano coaches the New Britain boys’ team. He is invested.
He and Michael, once a star player at East Catholic-Manchester, went to the Weaver-East Catholic Class M semifinal the other night. Maybe that’s what set Auriemma talking Friday about things that clearly have been on his mind for some time.
“Two great teams, two great coaches,” Auriemma said of East Catholic’s Luke Reilly and Weaver’s Reggie Hatchett. “These two guys coached their brains out in that game. Those kids played their brains out. It should have been for the state championship.”
Weaver led 10-9 after the first quarter. East Catholic took only two shots in the second, sinking one. Weaver led 19-11 at the half and went on to win 53-45 and advance to the final against Notre Dame-Fairfield at 3 p.m. Saturday.
“Luke did exactly what I knew he’d do,” Auriemma said. “He held the ball. Just like his dad [Joe, the legendary coach at South Catholic] did before him years ago. Because you can. Just like Dean Smith did at Carolina. Those are the rules. He took advantage of the rules. In the second half, they just played, and it was as good a 16 minutes of basketball as I’ve seen in a long time at any level. I’m thinking why don’t they have a shot clock? You can still do some of the same things.
“Same thing on the girls side. You pick up the paper. Final score, 40-38. What did those kids do for two hours that day? They walked the ball up the court, stood there and listened to their coach call plays. How are they learning how to play? You go to some other states. They have a shot clock. They play.”
Later, Auriemma talked about how he met Oklahoma coach Sherri Coale. She was coaching Norman High and he was recruiting Stacy Hansmeyer. There was Hansmeyer working out. It was September.
“You go to states we recruit in and they’re allowed to get together in September and October,” Auriemma said. “Our kids can’t start until Thanksgiving weekend, and next year I think they’re pushing it back another week [the girls’ regular season will start Dec. 15].
In the meantime, there was St. Francis Brooklyn senior Sarah Benedetti talking Friday about how incredibly special it is to play Saturday night against UConn at Gampel Pavilion. Benedetti was named MVP after the Terriers won the NEC Tournament. She’s from Canton.
“It has honestly been a dream come true,” Benedetti said. “I grew up watching UConn. If someone were to tell me at the beginning of my college career that you would finish as a senior at Gampel Pavilion playing UConn, I would never have believed it.”
As a kid she’d come to UConn games with her travel team. She loved Taurasi. She loved Maya Moore. Her dad would try like crazy to get Sarah into the summer camp, but they’d sell out in 10 minutes. She never made it. One of her most cherished possessions is a photo from a decade ago when she posed with Auriemma after a game.
Benedetti’s high school team, Canton, is playing against Thomaston for the Class S state title Saturday morning at Mohegan Sun. You don’t think this weekend is special for her?
“I remembered when my son played in the state championship against Hillhouse [in Michael’s final high school game in 2007], the first and only time they had the tournament here,” Auriemma said. “He grew up here. I remember how excited he was to get a chance to play at Gampel. It has got to be an unbelievable feeling for her.”
The question that Auriemma has raised is this. Are we doing enough for all the Sarah Benedettis coming along?
“The publicity is there,” Auriemma said. “What you guys in the media do for girls high school basketball, compared to what I see in a lot of other places, I think the kids in this state get a lot of benefit out of us being pretty good.
“Maybe it’s because we’re a small state. Maybe it’s because the schools are small or maybe it’s because people don’t like change. Maybe it’s all those things. I just wished they changed some of the antiquated rules that don’t help the kids get better.”

Oh, that changes everything.

Wait, I almost forgot. I don't give a rat's ass what he thinks.

He Comes Down From The Mountain ...
 

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.

Honestly, who cares what a college coach wants? Good for him that he has an opinion, but that is not what he has to work with.

Peace

I rarely, if ever, see possessions in HS games last as long as they do in NCAA games.

I also do not think that rules for high school should be made for the development of college players. Most players will never play a single minute of college basketball.

Peace

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.

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.

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

I think Rut puts it better than I could have.

I agree that rules should be set to develop college basketball players, but I am still in favor of the shot clock. We have had it in our state for several years and I like that if forces teams to play offense. 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).

I don't think there are any real problems that need solved that would be solved by a shot clock.

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.

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).

Nom De Plume ...
 

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

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......

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.

I'm trying to figure out what a shot clock has to do with building a basketball skillset. :confused:

Everybody is selling something.

Lack of a shot clock below the NBA level didn't stem the basketball IQs Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Bill Walton, etc. LBJ, KD, CP3 seemed to develop pretty well without shot clocks in high school.

The problem is a lack of fundamentals being coached to young ball players.

Not sure if you read the article before responding but I'm not sure what selling has to do with anything.

If you want more fundamentals being taught I would think needing more players who can make plays vs RUN plays would be a positive the shot clock could bring.

Oh and just to be difficult: KD played in Maryland where they had a shot clock.

KD played HS basketball a lot of places...LOL

And I'm quite sure Sefu is selling us something, I just don't know what yet.

The bottom line is this...A shot clock is a significant fundamental change to the high school game. It would have a significant financial impact to all high schools across the country (equipment) and a significant impact on the officiating, in terms of additional rules knowledge and play-calling skills required to administer correctly.

Other than Geno (whom I'm a big fan of), I haven't heard a lot from college coaches bemoaning the fact that HS players are unprepared for the challenge of a shot clock.

I really don't see this changing any time soon.

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.:eek:

My state utilizes the shot clock for HS. Girls were first and boys followed a few years later. Our local AAU organization also utilizes the shot clock down to the 7th and 8th grade levels.

I never heard of even the smallest and most rural high schools eliminating any sport programs due to the implementation costs. In addition, our first/second/third year officials do the majority of the 7th/8th grade AAU games and are handling the officiating duties quite well, including shot clock administration. Now getting table personnel to properly manage the shot clock can be a different story! :eek:

I understand the thought of adding a shot clock may seem overwhelming in many different aspects, but I'm not sure realistically if those concerns would truly pan out to have the impacts you are imagining.

It really comes down to the fact that there's no problem in HS basketball that would be solved by a shot clock.

And regarding the cost: school funds are finite, money spent on a shot clock would have been spent elsewhere.

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.

Finances ...
 

Delay the replacement of uniforms for one season and you've got yourself a shot clock.

CEI Ultrak T-200 Basketball Shot Clock - Shot Clocks - Scoreboards - Basketball - Sports and Fitness | Dazadi.com

Paying someone to run it over a period of twenty games each season? That's another story.

Someone competent to run it. I have run into enough problems in my college games.

And partners who will know WTF the rules are in regards to the shot clock at the HS level.

Please, No Shot Clock In Connecticut ...
 

Connecticut only uses a shot clock for private prep school games at the varsity level, not at lower level games. Even though I review the shot clock rules before each private prep school game that I work, I always hope that my partner is a college official.

It doesn't help that the shot clock operator is usually a student, and is often female student for a boys game. Her secondary job is to operate the shot clock after her primary job of flirting with the cute prep school boys.

I wonder what the average cost was to lay down 3 point lines and what problem existed so that it had to be implemented? I'm guessing there wasn't much resistance to that particular change.

Point is, as past has shown, sometimes things are implemented regardless.

I am sure a 3 point line was a lot easier to add than a shot clock. And a shot clock that works properly and is easy to use.

Again, I would never cost is the only issue. I just think that it takes another level of game awareness to use that device and to catch mistakes. As stated, I see enough mistakes at the lower level college level. And the good teams that I see, do not often need a shot clock anyway. What I think we might see is more forced shots or bad shots because there is a shot clock. I still see scores in the 30s in many cases because not all high school teams can shoot.

Peace

How much does it cost to pay a three point line operator and how often do the lines need to be maintained?

Maintenance ...
 

Back when I was coaching middle school basketball, the gymnasium floor would be stripped, sanded, lines repainted, and varnished, every several years, or so. And, if I remember correctly, it wasn't cheap. The floor was simple revarnished every year, or so.

Welpe and Rut said it well. I'll just add that there's far more involved with implementing a shot clock than a three point line. They're both fruits, but it's still apples and oranges.

But that was and is being done regardless of adding new lines. For a lot of courts the lbs could have been added at a normal repaint time.

I referee in North Dakota and we have had a shot clock (10 years) for quite few years (we also adopted the 3 point line in the 1982-83 basketball season...as you can imagine ND hasn't had a voice on the NF rules committee for quite some time). It started with our bigger school classification and is now implemented for both divisions (yes, we are that small and have only 2 classes of basketball:):)).

I agree with both Pantherdreams and JRuts original comments on the issue.

As an official (and a parent), this is what I have experienced:

1) Games are much more enjoyable to work. Constant action is dictated by the shot clock and coaches have adjusted.

2) More kids are playing and therefore coaches are developing and spending more time with kids. Even the smallest schools are better at developing players because the constant action requires deeper benches. Historically, we saw teams with shallow benches slow play down to help keep their players fresh.

3) I officiated college basketball for 20 years and the number of problems with shot clock operators at the varsity level isn't a whole lot different than the small college level. We use the shot clock in subvarsity contests (soph and JV) and just like we train players, coaches, timers, and scorers....shot clock operators learn the trade as well at this level.

4) In my opinion, the shot clock has made the game different and for the better. I also live in a border city and our group covers Minnesota as well. Most of us would like to see Minnesota adapt the shot clock....it is more fun to officiate.

5) The vast majority of our games are covered with 3 officials....primarily because the coaches and administrators saw the need with the additional constant action both offensively and defensively.

6) The initial resistance due to cost was relatively short-lived, as it was seen that the benefits far outweighed the negatives. Around here it meant that a team delayed new uniform purchases for 1 year.

Just some thoughts from a guy who has lived and continues to live both worlds. The game of high school basketball is fine either way, no right or wrong...it is just my opinion that the games are more fun work and more kids are being developed and playing. We are here to make our game the best that it can be, I don't care if that benefits the college game or not...only interested in the impact on our game.

PS

North Dakota also implemented the Restricted Arc this year for our bigger shcools. I, personally, was not a big fan in the beginning. But, I was proven wrong....absolutely loved it, coaches loved it, and the players loved it. Really improved the game under the basket....I didn't think high school kids could adjust, but I was wrong. It is here to stay in our small part of the world.

The next question I want to know NDref, do you have more college players playing high school than other areas?

I only ask because we have plenty from my area and we have not had a shot clock. Even AAU games do not have a shot clock for the most part either (actually I have never done and AAU game with one in this area).

If they changed I would adjust just like any other rule, but I do not think it is necessary for what Geno was talking about. Or maybe that is for the women's game, and we have a lot of college players even in his program that seem to be doing just fine.

Peace

Jeff,

No, we do not have more college players...probably less due to population, geography, and demographics. I agree with your comments regarding Geno....I see them as mostly self-serving on his part.

I was just sharing my thoughts and experience as it relates to high school basketball in my part of the world. I would say, however, that the shot clock has improved girls basketball overall more than boys basketball in our state. It has made it harder to "hide" players and rely on star players....hence my earlier comments regarding developing players and extending the bench.

We all take pride in our avocation and adjust to what is asked of us....it is just what we do.

Take care.

I was only trying to relate to Geno's synopsis. I am sure the population is not that big, but just in my immediate area, we have a lot of good D1 players who are making a difference in both genders. Because if there are not more coming from your area at least related to the population, then it must not be working the way he suggest.

Peace

Jeff,

You are correct, it is not working in the way he sees it; but adding value in other ways that I feel help the game at the high school level. Thanks for the positive dialogue.