Or every school just start using a shot clock who cares what the IHSAA believes. Or tell them everyone will pitch in a nickel if they allow it, that will get them to change their out dated thinking. Ok it will take a dime a piece for the Boone goofs to do what is right. We will even say it was the IHSAA's idea. Lord knows that will help.
Stun everyone IHSAA do the right thing and get a shot clock
- Thread starter StatewidePundit
- Start date
Why do you think there needs to be a shot clock in high school basketball?
In almost every game yesterday, the winning team's defense kept the losing team to a score that averaged around 44 points (what were there- seven games?), the lowest being Waukee's win over Dowling, which scored 35 points. One of the most important stats in basketball is defense. Awards are given for defense. If the Iowa City West- Senior game (39-36) was on a 35-second shot clock, there would have been only a couple of instances in the whole game in which it would have had an effect. We don't need a shot clock. These are not slow-down teams. Senior averaged 71 points in their two previous substate games. Even though it was a fairly ugly game to watch (if you didn't have a favorite) it was ugly because both teams were taken out of their usual play because of the other's defense, and a lot of shots were missed. The shooting percentages were awful (that's why the score was low), and that's what good defenses and sheer nervousness can do.
Last edited:
While I run the risk of being accused of this being an overly simplistic approach, I took about 5 minutes and calculated the number of seconds per shot in each game in the state tournament.
(1920 total seconds/total shots by both teams)
1A Qtrs - 18.8, 19.0, 22.1, 23
2A Qtrs - 21.8, 19.8, 25.9, 24.6
3A Qtrs - 19.6, 24, 18.8, 20.4
4A Qtrs - 20.2, 27.0, 25.6, 25.6
(Hmmm...4A took the most time per game to take a shot per possession in the Quarterfinal games.)
1A Semis - 19.8, 28.7
2A Semis - 19.8, 21
Overall, it would seem the issue isn't about teams standing around and unnecessarily holding the ball and stalling on offense, since none...I repeat none...of the games so far in the state tournament have average possessions lasting longer than 30 seconds.
It would seem it is much more about offensive efficiency combined with the possibility that the teams that make the state tournament are just downright good on defense.
For comparison sake, I also did the math on the last two Iowa and ISU games, where they obviously use a 30 sec shot clock and found the following seconds to take a shot per possession...20.9, 21.2, 17.8 & 22.2...seems pretty similar to Iowa HS basketball at the state tournament without a shot clock, but what do I know.
I think probably the main issue most will point toward is the end of the quarter, half and game situations. I would certainly concede this would improve these situations and strategy if HS had a shot clock. But I also seem to remember a 4A game at the state tournament this year where a team had the lead and was trying stall the game out and get the opposing team to foul them, but they ended up turning it over and giving up the game-winning layup.
So does HS need a shot clock? Maybe...maybe not...but I do think those that want to say these tournament games have been boring because teams are just slowing it down/stalling/holding the ball is completely false. There has been good, if not great, defense being played. Teams have consistently run offensive possessions to score, and as has always been the case, the teams that MAKE more shots, score more points...not the teams that just TAKE more shots. Those are what the facts say!
(1920 total seconds/total shots by both teams)
1A Qtrs - 18.8, 19.0, 22.1, 23
2A Qtrs - 21.8, 19.8, 25.9, 24.6
3A Qtrs - 19.6, 24, 18.8, 20.4
4A Qtrs - 20.2, 27.0, 25.6, 25.6
(Hmmm...4A took the most time per game to take a shot per possession in the Quarterfinal games.)
1A Semis - 19.8, 28.7
2A Semis - 19.8, 21
Overall, it would seem the issue isn't about teams standing around and unnecessarily holding the ball and stalling on offense, since none...I repeat none...of the games so far in the state tournament have average possessions lasting longer than 30 seconds.
It would seem it is much more about offensive efficiency combined with the possibility that the teams that make the state tournament are just downright good on defense.
For comparison sake, I also did the math on the last two Iowa and ISU games, where they obviously use a 30 sec shot clock and found the following seconds to take a shot per possession...20.9, 21.2, 17.8 & 22.2...seems pretty similar to Iowa HS basketball at the state tournament without a shot clock, but what do I know.
I think probably the main issue most will point toward is the end of the quarter, half and game situations. I would certainly concede this would improve these situations and strategy if HS had a shot clock. But I also seem to remember a 4A game at the state tournament this year where a team had the lead and was trying stall the game out and get the opposing team to foul them, but they ended up turning it over and giving up the game-winning layup.
So does HS need a shot clock? Maybe...maybe not...but I do think those that want to say these tournament games have been boring because teams are just slowing it down/stalling/holding the ball is completely false. There has been good, if not great, defense being played. Teams have consistently run offensive possessions to score, and as has always been the case, the teams that MAKE more shots, score more points...not the teams that just TAKE more shots. Those are what the facts say!
Last edited:
Very good post @nwmsbearcat
I've been trying to prove to people that the 30 second shot clock would have VERY little affect on shots per game, and the comparison to Iowa and ISU is a great point to prove that.
I've been trying to prove to people that the 30 second shot clock would have VERY little affect on shots per game, and the comparison to Iowa and ISU is a great point to prove that.
I agree that just because a game is low scoring doesn't mean a shot clock is needed. But the situation I have seen repeatedly down at state goes like this. Team leading starts to stall. Team trailing needs a turnover so plays extra aggressively on defense going for steals. Foul ensues. Team leading makes free throws. Team trailing chucks up a bad shot and misses. Team leading stalls, foul, free throws, bad shot etc until the game ends. It makes for 2 or 3 minutes of horrible basketball. This is the situation a shot clock could fix. It would force both teams to actually play basketball. Trailing teams would need to play good defense and leading teams would still need to run an offense. Teams would not be as desperate throwing up bad shots because they would know that good defense can still give them a chance. A lot of the end of games have been hard to watch and take forever. Shot clocks help with that. Obviously, it is not a necessary thing, but it would provide some better basketball.
Not being sarcasto sarcastico. Good post you nailed it. Shot clock is invaluable near the end of games as you mentioned.
Cedar Falls and Waukee put up a 7th grade basketball score tonight in the semifinals.
So did Iowa against Wisconsin. Hit 40 points just before the game ended. With a shot clock.
Most teams I've seen play this year in person have generally played much stiffer defense than teams did in the past.
There are a few more variables than shots per second. Team takes 60 seconds to shoot, misses, offensive rebound, miss, rebound miss. 20 seconds per shot.
You're right. Iowa should not use a shot clock in HS basketball.
I absolutely agree with you, cid.
This is true...which is why the comparison to the D1 level with Iowa and Iowa State is a good comparison. They also have offensive rebounds and put backs, but you see that the Iowa high schools (outside of the 4A teams) still have more shots per second. Maybe it's just a 4A problem.
It's a solution looking for a problem. Adding the shot clock creates a lot of problems in addition to the obvious drawback of cost. I've outlined that in other posts on the topic so I won't beat that dead horse in this post. It's unnecessary and proponents can't make good arguments that are supported by statistics so they just make the loudest argument in my experience.
I've said this before as well, but the aforementioned charge/block circle and an expansion past the outdated 21 game season are way bigger issues than a shot clock.
I actually think a shot clock could LOWER scoring. More teams may go to zone defenses. It takes an offense longer--typically--to outmaneuver a zone defense and therefore we have more rushed/poor shots as the shot clock is expiring.
I actually think a shot clock could LOWER scoring. More teams may go to zone defenses. It takes an offense longer--typically--to outmaneuver a zone defense and therefore we have more rushed/poor shots as the shot clock is expiring.
STEVENS POINT, Wis. – The shot clock is coming to high school basketball in Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) Board of Control on Thursday approved by a 6-4 margin the use of a 35-second shot clock for varsity games beginning with the 2019-’20 season.
The change, once implemented, would be the second major change in the high school game in the state in recent years. In 2015 the WIAA approved the use of 18-minute halves rather than 8-minute quarters.
The design of that move was to improve the flow of play and eliminate the holding of the ball that sometimes occurred at the end of quarters. The addition of shot clock could also change the flow of play.
Other states that use a shot clock for high school basketball are Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington, New York, California, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Milwaukee Public Schools administrator Eric Coleman, a former basketball coach, was one of the board members who supported the shot clock’s adoption.
“Flow of the game,” he said when asked what he liked about adding a shot clock. “I think along with how going to halves has changed the way coaches have coached, the shot clock will change the way people coach, the way the game is approached, the way the game is played.”
The recommendation to add a shot clock didn’t receive complete support as it worked its way through the WIAA legislative channels. The Coaches Committee supported it unanimously, but Sports Advisory and the Advisory Council did not support the idea. The WIAA executive staff was split.
WIAA associate director Deb Hauser told the board that in a Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association survey, 81% of respondents were in favor of a 35-second shot clock.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/wis-jo...bringing-shot-clock-to-high-school-basketball
The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) Board of Control on Thursday approved by a 6-4 margin the use of a 35-second shot clock for varsity games beginning with the 2019-’20 season.
The change, once implemented, would be the second major change in the high school game in the state in recent years. In 2015 the WIAA approved the use of 18-minute halves rather than 8-minute quarters.
The design of that move was to improve the flow of play and eliminate the holding of the ball that sometimes occurred at the end of quarters. The addition of shot clock could also change the flow of play.
Other states that use a shot clock for high school basketball are Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington, New York, California, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Milwaukee Public Schools administrator Eric Coleman, a former basketball coach, was one of the board members who supported the shot clock’s adoption.
“Flow of the game,” he said when asked what he liked about adding a shot clock. “I think along with how going to halves has changed the way coaches have coached, the shot clock will change the way people coach, the way the game is approached, the way the game is played.”
The recommendation to add a shot clock didn’t receive complete support as it worked its way through the WIAA legislative channels. The Coaches Committee supported it unanimously, but Sports Advisory and the Advisory Council did not support the idea. The WIAA executive staff was split.
WIAA associate director Deb Hauser told the board that in a Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association survey, 81% of respondents were in favor of a 35-second shot clock.
https://usatodayhss.com/2017/wis-jo...bringing-shot-clock-to-high-school-basketball
ON THE CLOCK-Salt Lake Tribune 2/23/19-other sources have the same information.
States that use a shot clock in high school basketball: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Washington
States that are considering adding a shot clock for prep basketball games: Texas experimented with them during its state tournaments in December. Arkansas is currently trying them for one school year.
Also: Wisconsin approved a shot clock in 2017, but then rescinded its decision just a few months later. The change would have taken place in 2019-20 season.
States that use a shot clock in high school basketball: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Washington
States that are considering adding a shot clock for prep basketball games: Texas experimented with them during its state tournaments in December. Arkansas is currently trying them for one school year.
Also: Wisconsin approved a shot clock in 2017, but then rescinded its decision just a few months later. The change would have taken place in 2019-20 season.
I can't find any box scores, and I'm not really that interested in looking at this time, but looking at the California 2018 basketball tournament, they had the following scores (this is Class A...seems to be big class as it has Chino Hills, De La Salle, etc.):
Regional Semi-finals: (531 points)
54-47
84-70
71-54
77-74
Regional Finals: (203 points)
44-41
67-51
Finals:
73-68
Iowa so far this year (4A)
Round 1: (356 points)
63-41
56-38
48-35
39-36
Semis: (174 points)
35-27
57-55
Finals - ???
In this case, seems the shot clock has improved scoring in California. Would be interesting to compare to some of the other states you've mentioned, but I don't feel like looking it up now. Could caliber of player in California be the difference?
Regional Semi-finals: (531 points)
54-47
84-70
71-54
77-74
Regional Finals: (203 points)
44-41
67-51
Finals:
73-68
Iowa so far this year (4A)
Round 1: (356 points)
63-41
56-38
48-35
39-36
Semis: (174 points)
35-27
57-55
Finals - ???
In this case, seems the shot clock has improved scoring in California. Would be interesting to compare to some of the other states you've mentioned, but I don't feel like looking it up now. Could caliber of player in California be the difference?
I doubt Alburnett wins this game ( I hope they do) but as of right now they have a chance to win which I don’t think they would have if there had been a shot clock. Their coach is doing what he thinks gives his team the best chance to win.
When South Dakota implemented the shot clock, scoring only increased by about 2 points/game on average during the regular season. Where it helped, and where it would really help Iowa, is during district and state tournament play. Do you think the college game would be more exciting or less exciting if there were no shot clock?
I agree with the previous post, because I think the college game has evolved to where the shot clock is almost irrelevant. Teams pass until they find the first driving lane or the first open three.
Also, the postseason argument is where I sort of lost this conversation. I don't see low scoring postseason games as a problem. Defense is a big reason why teams advance in postseason play, so to me it only makes sense that the deeper in postseason you get, the lower scoring games become. But, maybe it is only because of no shot clock? Although I will say I've literally only seen one game in the last seven years that sort of left me wishing there was one.
I don't know. Iowa somehow managed to average 100 pts a game in conference play, during the 1970 season, just fine without a shot clock.
The games are eerily similar. Thank you for pointing it out. Heck I looked it up there wasn’t even a 3 point shot. Glad they didn’t add that gimmick.
Yeah who wanted to see the dissolution of the mid-range jump shot from the game of basketball so that we can get kids pulling up from half court because it's worth more points, and looks cooler..................
Something like that is what you had in mind?
Did he really? Nobody gave them a chance to win. Why not go out there, play loose, have some fun and play the game. All the pressure on GVC. I’m not in favor of a shot clock, but let your kids play. You’re unexpectedly in the championship game and you tell your kids to hold the ball? Especially when your team is not used to it? Disservice to your players IMO....but hey...you were only down 8 at half!
And they only lost by whatever it was. As a player I loved it when we lost by only... it was always our goal when we played Western to only lose by single digits. We knew we were big time and well on our way in life when we could keep the loss to single digits. Heck it was basically a win. We had a whole page in our yearbook dedicated to those who came close to being successful but just didn’t quite make it.
I would actually argue that the scoring would be WORSE with a shot clock throughout the games. You'd have more low-percentage shots being taken. So think for 95% of the game, it wouldn't make a big difference. But the last 2 minutes of a close game are brutal. Holding the ball for the final couple minutes, never having to take a shot until the last second. I see both sides.
Similar threads
