Shot clock
- Thread starter LukeFeddersen
- Start date
Will never happen in Iowa. The IAHSAA is one of the most behind the times high school sports unions in the country.
They will never REQUIRE it because it will never financially be feasible for all schools to do.
History says otherwise. The IHSAA & IGHSAU have long been innovators in high school sports (3 point rule, bench decorum rule, football safety changes, et al). If a poor as dirt state like South Dakota can afford shot clocks, so can we.
1. This is laughable by saying innovators. Maybe at one time experimenters, but that is no longer the case.
2. South Dakota, the state, is not paying for shot clocks. Each school district is paying for them. There are much not nearly as many school districts in South Dakota. I think Iowa more than doubles the amount of districts in SD.
The onus is on those advocating for a shot clock to make an argument FOR. No one should be burdened with an argument against. What is the logical, objective reason for a shot clock? What are the real, tangible benefits/improvements we can expect to see? Those questions must be answered with actual data/information, and not nebulous/mythological narratives.
I would say finding intelligent people to do them would be one. How often would play be interrupted by someone not resetting it and causing game flow to come to a stand still. I know at smaller schools its hard enough to find people to do book properly anymore and to go to all the games. I wish state had a shot clock but I don't think money is the real issue. Why not have an integrating process start it at 4A for a year see how it goes. Then do a trickle down affect. Add a class each year in 4 years I'd say 10-15 more schools will have consolidated by then so less 1A schools need to worry bout.
Expound on that. Yes, there was one game with an extreme example. That's hardly sufficient data to make a fundamental change to how the high school game is played.
It made Sportscenter that they held the ball the entire OT period. The moral of the story if that it did help them to win.
The fans want a shot clock....it's more entertaining watching an quick paced game verses all that dribbling....but do the players and coaches want a shot clock....I am for the shot clock....the shot clock benefits the teams who can score....but will the shot clock have a negative effect on those who have good handles?...will some HS turn into local Grinnell College type teams with shots every few seconds of offense...the selfish fan in me says we need a shot clock....one other reason for getting a SC is ball beyond HS has the SC so players who want to play beyond HS need to get use to the SC....also does having the SC lend it self to playing poor defense?
I have talked to a couple of coaches who both would like a shot clock, so it isn't just fans. Look at the NCAA this season. They saw an 11% increase in scoring by reducing the shot clock a mere 5 seconds. You can't tell me it doesn't make a difference. The shot clock provides more possessions, a faster pace of play, and more scoring. The future of basketball is all about pace and scoring. As the game changes sometimes the rules have to change with it. The NCAA understood that and made the changes towards that direction. Why shouldn't high school ball as well.
Iowa is falling behind here. Again look at the state tournament, and it wasn't just that one example.. Let us look at the 4 championship games. Out of the 8 teams only one scored over 60 points with 5 not even breaking 50. Worse than that there were two teams who didn't even score 40 points in a championship game! Even though the games were close which made them somewhat exciting, it was not great basketball. We need a shot clock.
Iowa is falling behind here. Again look at the state tournament, and it wasn't just that one example.. Let us look at the 4 championship games. Out of the 8 teams only one scored over 60 points with 5 not even breaking 50. Worse than that there were two teams who didn't even score 40 points in a championship game! Even though the games were close which made them somewhat exciting, it was not great basketball. We need a shot clock.
Thanks for the thoughts. My first reaction to the claim that "fans like fast-paced games" is" So? Why do the fans' personal preferences matter in high school? They shouldn't. And, do fans really want to see "faster" (as defined by more shots I guess) games with more misses and more turnovers? And, why is faster considered better? Those terms are not synonymous. As a sporting culture, we praise football teams that shut out opponents; we love no-hitters and pitchers' duels, yet we criticize a basketball team's ability to limit the other team from scoring. if a team wins 47-22, we call it ugly. But, if a team wins 77-52, we'll praise it. Defense is 50% of a team's possessions. Why isn't it valued as much as offense? That makes no sense. Further, no data exists that shows a shot clock increases scoring or offensive performance at all. I'm not sure why so many assume a shot clock will lead to more entertainment value or more points. There's just as much, if not more, reason to believe a shot clock will lead to poorer performance, poorer shot selection, and sloppier play. In other words, LESS entertaining basketball.
Nevermind the fact that very, very few (probably less than %) possessions in a typical high school season last more than 30 seconds. I charted possessions over two of our seasons a few years ago (and we have a mythical reputation of "playing slow" because we do play good defense), and we would have had 6 unintentional shot-clock violations (on a 35 second clock) over the course of 47 games. We did have 6 intentional possessions longer than 40 seconds over the same time frame. Now, we would have forced over 20 violations, so the clock would have helped us, assuming teams didn't shoot the ball at the end of clock.
The point is: it's a false narrative/myth that we have this dire problem of teams playing "stall ball." And yes, I understand what West Des Moines did. PV could have guarded them and changed that situation too. I've coached in about 500 games the past 15 years at all high school levels, and I've seen about 10 games where teams' game plan was to stall. In reality, it's a high-level skill to run offense for 30+ seconds while being guarded. That takes discipline and fundamental skills. Most teams don't to stall because they can't.
As far as preparing kids for college, that's a fallacy as well. About 1% of high school players in Iowa will play college ball. I've never heard of any struggling with the adjustment to the shot clock, and I'm not sure we should implement fundamental system changes to benefit 1% of the population. Besides that, it's illogical and misguided to assume that because one WILL be doing something later in the future, that one SHOULD do it right now in order to prepare. It's why every professional walk of life has apprenticeships and scaffolded pathways to improvement along the way. Kids that talented enough to play in college are talented enough to adjust to a shot clock. There's never been any evidence to suggest otherwise.
So again, what is the problem that has to be "fixed" with a shot clock?
While scoring did go up in the NCAA, it's way too early to attribute that to the shot clock. The expanded charge circle and year number 2 of an emphasis on freedom of movement were major factors as well. I DO absolutely feel the high school game needs the charge circle and a major overhaul of how we call fouls, however. You can basically bear hug and waltz a guy where you want him away from the ball. And you have to remember, NCAA players are 1%ers; they are amongst the most talented players in the world essentially.
As far as our state tourney scores, they are no different from state tourney scores across the country. In California, a shot clock state, two teams scored in the 30's. of 12 teams in 6 classes, only 4 scored 60+. We could cherry pick hundreds of scores if we wanted. Again, I think we could do some things officiating-wise and rules-wise that would open up offenses much more and create betetr play as opposed to a shot clock.
And for the record, I've coached summer tournaments and internationally with shot clocks, and they're fun and I enjoy them. I just don't think we need them in our game here.
Want vs. Need?
Good posts by Red87. It is unfortunate that with the current game structure there are incidents where teams will hold the ball and stall to control a lead. However, as a defense, you have tactics at your disposal to combat this as well. While WDM was stalling is there a reason they weren't fouled? I understand it's a pick your poison situation, but you do have a choice. You also have the choice to play more aggressive defense, trap, etc.
That said, I am no fan of the stall tactic, but it is not enough to warrant whole-sale changes to the sport. The game stoppages themselves would be cumbersome and I can only imagine the number of posts on here about horrible shot clock operators costing teams games. It never ends...
Good posts by Red87. It is unfortunate that with the current game structure there are incidents where teams will hold the ball and stall to control a lead. However, as a defense, you have tactics at your disposal to combat this as well. While WDM was stalling is there a reason they weren't fouled? I understand it's a pick your poison situation, but you do have a choice. You also have the choice to play more aggressive defense, trap, etc.
That said, I am no fan of the stall tactic, but it is not enough to warrant whole-sale changes to the sport. The game stoppages themselves would be cumbersome and I can only imagine the number of posts on here about horrible shot clock operators costing teams games. It never ends...
Money is the absolute reason why. There are only 8 states out of 50 that use the shot clock. The argument against having a shot clock would get overwhelmed by most in the opinion that there should be one. Money is the reason there is not.
I guess I don't fully understand the reasoning behind not wanting a shot clock besides the potential cost. Maybe it is just a generation gap thing. It seems to be that the nostalgia factor and a fear of change are the driving force behind it. How in particular do you feel a shot clock would make the game worse? I get it, some people love old school basketball. But as I said, the reality is the game is changing and I for one would like to see Iowa change with it. There doesn't have to be a specific problem that needs fixing for Iowa high school basketball to want to make changes that they think could benefit the game. After all we are just talking about a game whose primary function in to provide fun and entertainment. In my opinion a shot clock would just be a positive step in ensuring we have the most entertaining form of basketball possible. It would provide more offensive chances as well as better reward good defense, which I do also enjoy watching. Again, what specifically are you so opposed to?
I don't talk to anyone that is opposed to it. Thats what is crazy. I would like to sit down with the people who are opposed. I think they are in the minority. Its all about money in my opinion.
Well Red you kind of swayed me more towards a shot clock then away from it. You said yourself, very few possessions last longer than 30 seconds in a high school game. Therefore having a 30 second shot clock shouldn't harm the kids or games. The games shouldn't become sloppy because of the clock, they already shoot within 30 seconds. But now with that shot clock, they can't stall the game for 4 minutes in the 4th quarter.
My stance comes down to this: If we're going to fundamentally change how the game is played in high school, we need a reason as to why we're changing it. We need a real, tangible reason in my opinion. And, I wholeheartedly disagree that high school sports serve a primary function of "entertaining" anyone beyond the participants. That people are entertained by local kids competing is a beneficial side effect, but fan interest and entertainment should be irrelevant in determining what's best for the game. And that's the key, there is no evidence, no real evidence, that a shot clock is better nor a benefit.
If someone is going to advocate for something being beneficial, he/she needs to be able to provide real evidence-based reasons as to what those benefits are and who benefits from them. Every consequence must be thought out and anticipated.
A shot clock will benefit some kids and some teams. I don't dispute that at all. Again, I've coached with it; it can be fun and enjoyable. However, I had teams of very good players who were advantaged because they were automatically going to get more possessions. In other words, coaching, strategy, and skill were automatically diminished somewhat because we were going to have more possessions (on offense AND defense) for our talent to overcome any mistakes. That's a real side effect of the shot clock, especially in rural public basketball teams/leagues.
I firmly agree/believe we should always be looking for ways to improve the game. The easiest way we could improve quality of play, especially offensive play, would be to start the season at the first Monday of November and give teams 3 weeks to prepare vs. 9 days. Basketball has the least amount of practice time of all high-school sports in Iowa before the first game date. That's just wrong, on a moral, ethical, practical level. 95% of kids (especially 9th-10th graders) are finished with football by then. Likewise, why is the transition between football-basketball the only transition where sports don't overlap? Basketball is effectively discriminated against by the state in an institutional, systemic way. But, I digress.
We have to understand exactly how changes will impact the game for the most kids possible. Only 8 states have shot clocks in some capacity, and we don't have any data as to how it's benefited their games or systems. Once a major change is made, it won't be changed ask regardless of its outcome. I just want to make sure we know, without fail, what the results will be.
It seems the two arguments against a shot clock are cost and finding someone to run the clock without mistake during the game.
I would then ask, how were we able to get the play clock installed in high school football. It would seem that the play clock in football would have been more expensive to install years back. All schools installed them, big or small. They even found someone to run them. I don't believe these are valid reasons not to install a shot clock. They appear to be excuses. Most schools have active Booster clubs that will help get this accomplished.
I would then ask, how were we able to get the play clock installed in high school football. It would seem that the play clock in football would have been more expensive to install years back. All schools installed them, big or small. They even found someone to run them. I don't believe these are valid reasons not to install a shot clock. They appear to be excuses. Most schools have active Booster clubs that will help get this accomplished.
I don't think all schools have installed play clocks in football.
Assuming most schools have Booster Clubs at all or Booster Clubs that raise money is a bad assumption. Don't think you realize how many districts are cash strapped, especially in the athletics realm. I would say well over 60% of the schools in Iowa are 1A and 2A classification. You can't look at these things statewide through the lense of 4A schools.
I guess the same could be asked in return.
What would you have against never using a shot clock?
If the answer is nothing....then what are we talking about here?
The only issue I have at all with shot clock in high school basketball is how it will effect teaching at the youth level. The youth level is already going south because there is too much focus on games and winning then there is fundamentals and teaching. Not what adding the shot clock to the mix in high school would do to youth teaching, but I do wonder if it would accelerate learning even more. Which is a bad thing at that level. Teach the kids to master the boring first.
I just talked to a friend who is an athletic director at a school in South Dakota's smallest division. He had indicated the shot clock addition is for all classes. It had been brought up by the member schools each of the past few years and it finally passed.
His concern was financially, but also to find someone competent to run it. I am sure there will be an adjustment period for everyone involved, but eventually it would smooth out.
His concern was financially, but also to find someone competent to run it. I am sure there will be an adjustment period for everyone involved, but eventually it would smooth out.
I would agree to a certain point. Teaching a kid to run the clock out for the final few minutes of the quarter, half or game isn't really doing much for their development either.
You mean teaching them how to have patience and not turn the ball over?
There is a clear difference between running the offense for a minute until you get the optimal shot and running a four corners stall tactic where players stand around the entire time waiting for the clock to run down a few minutes.
How often have you ever really seen this though? I mean, honestly, within the course of a normal game, how often in a high school season have you seen intentional possessions that last "minutes?" I've seen/coached in over 500 games, and I've seen that less than 1/10th of 1% of all possessions probably. It's a myth that all these teams are playing this stall ball type offense. It's just not reality. Number 1, most teams aren't good enough to do that; it takes a measure of skill to run a possession for that long if you're guarded at all. Number 2, the overwhelming majority of coaches simply don't play that way.
And for the record, we have 8 shot clock states currently, and only 1 of those 8 cracks the top-10 in average scoring (and they did before their shot clock as well).
An old coach from Dowling used to tell me that to attempt to stall for a minute in a high school game is one of the more difficult things for a team to accomplish. So if shot clock isn't the answer to the 42-37 game what is? Or is a 42-37 game considered to be a quality game by two strong defensive teams? Personally 42-37 bores the heck out of me, give me 75-68 most any day.
A 42-37 game could be an intense game with two good defenses, much like a defensive battle in football or pitcher's duel in baseball. Why is defensive basketball the only sport that gets relegated as "ugly" for good defense? It could also be two bad offenses. Or, a combination thereof.
The easiest answer to improved offense, in my opinion, is twofold. One, we (coaches) need more access to coach kids. We get basically 9 practice days before the first game. There's no good reason we can't start practice the first Monday in November. Offensive skill and cohesion is much more difficult and time consuming to teach than defense. Defenses are always much further along than offense because teams simply don't have enough time to prepare, and more preparation time would lead to much better overall quality of play, especially for freshmen thru JV kids. Some will argue "Football!!!" My response is: why is this 3 week gap/transition between football to basketball the only transition that we (the state) seem to think must be protected? And besides, the vast majority of 9-12 basketball players are done with football or cross country by this date. Every other season has overlap. Baseball started this week, almost 3 weeks before state track, and 3 weeks before their first game. Do basketball players not deserve preparation time? Allowing an earlier start would only benefit the game and kids.
The second major issue is officiating. Teams are simply allowed to play organized-fouling defense across the board. The NCAA's emphasis on cleaning this up is as much to do with their offensive trend than anything, and this is certainly true in the NBA. It takes no skill, zero, to bump cutters, forearm chuck dribblers, grab big guys, ect., and these are all taught and allowed far too much. The state send their empahases memos which say all the right thing, but their is zero follow through or teeth in these. Our training and licensing of officials is a joke as well. We really have a crisis, I believe, in high-school level officiating in Iowa.
The easiest answer to improved offense, in my opinion, is twofold. One, we (coaches) need more access to coach kids. We get basically 9 practice days before the first game. There's no good reason we can't start practice the first Monday in November. Offensive skill and cohesion is much more difficult and time consuming to teach than defense. Defenses are always much further along than offense because teams simply don't have enough time to prepare, and more preparation time would lead to much better overall quality of play, especially for freshmen thru JV kids. Some will argue "Football!!!" My response is: why is this 3 week gap/transition between football to basketball the only transition that we (the state) seem to think must be protected? And besides, the vast majority of 9-12 basketball players are done with football or cross country by this date. Every other season has overlap. Baseball started this week, almost 3 weeks before state track, and 3 weeks before their first game. Do basketball players not deserve preparation time? Allowing an earlier start would only benefit the game and kids.
The second major issue is officiating. Teams are simply allowed to play organized-fouling defense across the board. The NCAA's emphasis on cleaning this up is as much to do with their offensive trend than anything, and this is certainly true in the NBA. It takes no skill, zero, to bump cutters, forearm chuck dribblers, grab big guys, ect., and these are all taught and allowed far too much. The state send their empahases memos which say all the right thing, but their is zero follow through or teeth in these. Our training and licensing of officials is a joke as well. We really have a crisis, I believe, in high-school level officiating in Iowa.
I agree, 42-37 could be a good well played game, more often than not it isn't, good offense can come from good defense. The officiating is poor at best quite a bit. Increased pre season practice may be the answer, with 9 practices you are fortunate to get a few solid sets in, a defensive concept or two and that is it. Red, do you think the proliferation of AAU has helped or hurt in this area?
Similar threads
