Shot clock

[atomic87]

Having a shot clock in the news again. The CR Gazette had an article right after Christmas, and now a former high school and college coach is starting a campaign to have it added in Iowa.

https://t.co/3gcDxY5ThG


I was originally in the camp of "we don't need it, just play better defense" but after watching games since Christmas with thought of how the shot clock would affect play, I've changed my mind. I think it would be good for both the boys and girls games, mostly for end-of-game situations. I've seen too many dribbling/passing exhibitions to stall out games, even when the defense is attempting to guard. Not that the opinions of fans, or even coaches, will cause the Association to change their mind, although his idea of a corporate sponsor for the shot clock might get the attention of the Boy$$$ in Boone.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Having a shot clock in the news again. The CR Gazette had an article right after Christmas, and now a former high school and college coach is starting a campaign to have it added in Iowa.

https://t.co/3gcDxY5ThG


I was originally in the camp of "we don't need it, just play better defense" but after watching games since Christmas with thought of how the shot clock would affect play, I've changed my mind. I think it would be good for both the boys and girls games, mostly for end-of-game situations. I've seen too many dribbling/passing exhibitions to stall out games, even when the defense is attempting to guard. Not that the opinions of fans, or even coaches, will cause the Association to change their mind, although his idea of a corporate sponsor for the shot clock might get the attention of the Boy$$$ in Boone.

There hasn't been a single point this season, in the games that I have watched (mostly lower classes) where I felt...."This game needs a shot clock."


Also nobody is referencing girls basketball when they talk about whether to add a shot clock or not. Wonder why that is?.............

 

[mtdew_fever]

If people want a change to be made, it will have to run through the member schools and/or coaches association.

The "Boys of Boone" wont proactively make a change like that unless the schools as a whole request it.


QUOTE="atomic87, post: 169349, member: 6054"]Having a shot clock in the news again. The CR Gazette had an article right after Christmas, and now a former high school and college coach is starting a campaign to have it added in Iowa.

https://t.co/3gcDxY5ThG


I was originally in the camp of "we don't need it, just play better defense" but after watching games since Christmas with thought of how the shot clock would affect play, I've changed my mind. I think it would be good for both the boys and girls games, mostly for end-of-game situations. I've seen too many dribbling/passing exhibitions to stall out games, even when the defense is attempting to guard. Not that the opinions of fans, or even coaches, will cause the Association to change their mind, although his idea of a corporate sponsor for the shot clock might get the attention of the Boy$$$ in Boone.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pinehawk]

I think I would like it overall. But, it would be adding expense/infrastructure and personnel demands to every school district.
And, a lot more could go wrong with inadvertent buzzers, missed resets, incorrect resets, etc.

 

[rk#5]

I think I would like it overall. But, it would be adding expense/infrastructure and personnel demands to every school district.
And, a lot more could go wrong with inadvertent buzzers, missed resets, incorrect resets, etc.

Not to many of those issues here in South Dakota with it...teams have said they enjoy having it when they come to SD and play. Fans from Minnesota who were in SF playing in a tourny loved it.

 

[mtdew_fever]

My relative who is an athletic director in SD would argue against your broad statement.

However, as a whole they voted for the shot clock in South Dakota, so that is why they have it. Definitely was not just one person voting for/against it.

Not to many of those issues here in South Dakota with it...teams have said they enjoy having it when they come to SD and play. Fans from Minnesota who were in SF playing in a tourny loved it.

 

[rk#5]

My relative who is an athletic director in SD would argue against your broad statement.

However, as a whole they voted for the shot clock in South Dakota, so that is why they have it. Definitely was not just one person voting for/against it.

What school are they the AD for? The conference we play in hasn't had major issues with this. Now, some of the small B schools probably have an issue with some of those things, but for the majority they like it. I worked in one of the smallest schools in SD (Graduating class of 4 when I was there)...issues were mostly the cost but not with inadvertent horns or anything.

 

[mtdew_fever]

I will just say he is an AD in a small school conference north of Brookings. The cost is the main issue.

What school are they the AD for? The conference we play in hasn't had major issues with this. Now, some of the small B schools probably have an issue with some of those things, but for the majority they like it. I worked in one of the smallest schools in SD (Graduating class of 4 when I was there)...issues were mostly the cost but not with inadvertent horns or anything.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Not to many of those issues here in South Dakota with it...teams have said they enjoy having it when they come to SD and play. Fans from Minnesota who were in SF playing in a tourny loved it.

Yeah well,

Iowa > South Dakota

 

[rk#5]

Yeah well,

Iowa > South Dakota

And it's not even close...wife and job have me here

 

[Reasoned]

Yes

 

[Saywhat2]

A shot clock? There are more important issues than a shot clock. The number of teams that can’t even field a JV team baffles me. A few years ago it was primarily on the girls side. Now, there are so many teams unable to play a JV schedule ( at least in the smaller schools) because of numbers on the boys side that it’s ridiculous. Never thought I’d see the day when you couldn’t get enough kids out for basketball that you couldn’t field a JV team. Address the issues of club and AAU teams and declining participation before another gimmick that’s adds nothing to the game.

 

[makelovenotwar]

Saywhat I agree totally! I see the shot clock as both wrong but also one of those issues that is like "why is this the issue you are worried about?" Aside from the whole lack of kids going on (An aside, who doesn't have a JV team now? Been an issue in girls basketball, I know. But boys I've just noticed the lack of depth of players.) I know the lack of officials is starting to worry AD's. No one wants to officiate games anymore.

People want to add another paid person at the game. Seriously?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Saywhat I agree totally! I see the shot clock as both wrong but also one of those issues that is like "why is this the issue you are worried about?" Aside from the whole lack of kids going on (An aside, who doesn't have a JV team now? Been an issue in girls basketball, I know. But boys I've just noticed the lack of depth of players.) I know the lack of officials is starting to worry AD's. No one wants to officiate games anymore.

People want to add another paid person at the game. Seriously?

Do people who run the scoreboard and do the official book get paid?

If not, then why would someone running the shot clock? Because they need "training"?.......

 

[PNation]

I think the main argument for a shot clock is not due to normal games. Most games teams "play" the entire game, or only slow it down with a bigger lead in the 4th quarter.

The argument comes from situations like when Valley essentially stood with the ball for 4 or 5 minutes at a time in the state tournament a few years ago. There was an example in Minnesota where two highly ranked teams both drove over an hour to play and then multiple times during the game the teams stood and held the ball for minutes at a time.

To me this is not in the spirit of the game, that is why I would be in favor of a shot clock. It does not bother me one bit if a team plays slow however when it is just hold the ball something needs to be done.

 

[basketball777]

Just Do It!

 

[dj1432]

How long is being talked about?

 

[mtdew_fever]

Well...not sure every school pays, but I ran the official book for DSM metro school and got paid.

Do people who run the scoreboard and do the official book get paid?

If not, then why would someone running the shot clock? Because they need "training"?.......

 

[mtdew_fever]

I would agree, the stalling to hold the ball for the final 2-3 minutes of a qtr is really annoying.


QUOTE="PNation, post: 169377, member: 6206"]I think the main argument for a shot clock is not due to normal games. Most games teams "play" the entire game, or only slow it down with a bigger lead in the 4th quarter.

The argument comes from situations like when Valley essentially stood with the ball for 4 or 5 minutes at a time in the state tournament a few years ago. There was an example in Minnesota where two highly ranked teams both drove over an hour to play and then multiple times during the game the teams stood and held the ball for minutes at a time.

To me this is not in the spirit of the game, that is why I would be in favor of a shot clock. It does not bother me one bit if a team plays slow however when it is just hold the ball something needs to be done.[/QUOTE]

 

[wolverine55]

To go with an earlier post, I haven't seen a game in several years that has left me clamoring for a shot clock. If I were to prioritize things, number 1 for me would be a way to get the regular season allotment of games up to 25-26, whether that includes holiday ball or not. Maybe this is because I come from Illinois and don't have many other states to compare it to, but a 21 game regular season is embarrassingly short on games.

 

[SSG T]

Well...not sure every school pays, but I ran the official book for DSM metro school and got paid.

I've done the book for our team 3-4 times, I got free concessions. Considering I just have water and popcorn, I'm pretty cheap.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

To go with an earlier post, I haven't seen a game in several years that has left me clamoring for a shot clock. If I were to prioritize things, number 1 for me would be a way to get the regular season allotment of games up to 25-26, whether that includes holiday ball or not. Maybe this is because I come from Illinois and don't have many other states to compare it to, but a 21 game regular season is embarrassingly short on games.

That would be something interesting to look into, why the state is set on 21 games, and if there is anyway to expand the schedule.

They do allow for teams to play a 22nd game.

I do think an issue that would keep the schedule down is the simple fact that participation is struggling at many schools, especially in the lower levels.

A lot of schools either barely have enough for a JV team or don't even have a freshman team. Some conferences opted to form either freshman/sophomore or "JV reserve" games.

And while extra games does mean potential revenue for home games, it also means extra expenses, especially for road games. Might not seem like much, but it would require all schools to rework their budgets with more games.

These are, of course, just some things I'm throwing out there as possible reasons why the State wouldn't add more games.

 

[wolverine55]

I agree that those are legitimate concerns and yes a 22nd is allowed if a team is stuck with 20 and needs some help finding an extra game. A team with 21 already scheduled is allowed to add them. I'm sure the state has to approve it.

It just seems out-of-whack that basketball is so limited given the plethora of games/matches volleyball and baseball are allowed.

 

[CIML_Ref]

Adding a shot clock because of teams that are truly anomalies is a bad idea. I have not had a game in a few years where I felt like it was necessary. Case in point, the one game referred to in this thread was from a few years back. If you could show me concrete evidence that supports the idea that it is needed because there are a lot of stall ball games, I would support it. The fact is that it is just not something that we see often.

I would also add to this that you're adding one more person at the table, one more person to mess something up, one more person to find for lower level games. Think about who is running the clock and scoreboard for 9th/jv games, and then imagine needing to find more more person. Usually, that's another student.

I don't think cost is an argument against shot clocks. Most systems are around $1000. SD gave schools a few years notice that they'd be implementing it so that they could be prepared for that cost and I would expect Iowa would handle it the same way.

At the end of the day, it is a solution looking for a problem in my opinion.

 

[atomic87]

I would not use shot clock at the lower levels. Do they in South Dakota?

Maybe it's another thread, but what are your opinions as to why JV numbers are declining? My 2A town has 35-40 kids out 9-12, so numbers aren't a problem on the boys side. Getting enough games/playing time is (which will probably eventually reduce the participation numbers.) Kids only getting a couple minutes in a freshman/JV game aren't likely to stay out. Gym space for practicing is also a challenge.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I would not use shot clock at the lower levels. Do they in South Dakota?

Maybe it's another thread, but what are your opinions as to why JV numbers are declining? My 2A town has 35-40 kids out 9-12, so numbers aren't a problem on the boys side. Getting enough games/playing time is (which will probably eventually reduce the participation numbers.) Kids only getting a couple minutes in a freshman/JV game aren't likely to stay out. Gym space for practicing is also a challenge.

If you are in a growing community or a bigger city, then participation numbers might not be so bad because everyone is flocking towards urban communities.

I should say that this seems to be more of an issue on the girls side than the boys side.

 

[VanderHoops]

I think shot clock makes for better basketball:

1. It often shortens the game (fewer FT stoppages)
2. Coaches have to coach more (foul or hard D until the shot clock runs down?)
3. I'd rather watch action than free throws.
4. More fan-friendly when offense has to press the attack, and it rewards good defensive teams (Cascade should LOVE a shot clock).
5. Better for garbage time: The bench players would rather play normal game scenarios than play keep away for 5 minutes.

Downside:

1. Cost/manpower to run the clock
2. Blow-outs could be larger if teams can't slow their offense down.

Personally, I don't think its that big of an issue. There are other things I'd fight harder for.

 

[EastIowaHawk]

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper just to have a "no stall" rule in which a team has to shoot in the last five minutes of a game withing 60 seconds or something like that?