It doesn't matter what the score is, or if it is entertaining, basketball is about winning and if it works then use it. If the other team is good enough then they should still be able to win despite the stalling of the ball.

 

Stalling the ball is not basketball. Dean Smith did it for a long time and eventually the NCAA said enough is enough and went with a shot clock.

 

Another example is when UK was #1 in 84 and came up to play UC and Tony Yates stalled the ball the entire game. Joe Hall said after the game that Yates was a coward and he would never schedule a game with UC again.

 

We will see a shot clock eventually in high school and this will force teams to play basketball, not keep away.

Stalling the ball is not basketball. Dean Smith did it for a long time and eventually the NCAA said enough is enough and went with a shot clock.

 

Another example is when UK was #1 in 84 and came up to play UC and Tony Yates stalled the ball the entire game. Joe Hall said after the game that Yates was a coward and he would never schedule a game with UC again.

 

We will see a shot clock eventually in high school and this will force teams to play basketball, not keep away.

 

 

The bold speaks volumes..............

Stalling the ball is not strategy. Any dummie can come with this kind of coaching.

 

So let me get this straight, you don't mind watching a coach stall the ball the entire game and the final score being in the low 20's.

If you have a kid that plays basketball on a good team and they go up against a team that stalls the ball, you will be the first one to scream at the opposing coach for not playing real basketball.

 

 

I do hate to watch it, but I would never fault a coach for doing it.

I disagree, maintaining possession for 3 or 4 minutes without committing a turnover isn't exactly easy. In the 3rd region, Tony Hopper has used this tatic when needed and his team usually run it to prefection.

 

If your good player is so good than he will find a way to steal the ball create a turnover. It works both ways Basketball consist of both offense and defense, problem is hardly any kids want to play defense anymore.

 

 

Good post!!:thumb:

I hate to watch it too, but it's great. Disciplined teams can beat the most talented teams on any given night. Stall ball really levels the playing field.

I thought in this state there was no interest in leveling any playing fields.

A shot clock would be fine.

Adapt to the game.

 

Plus, it would prepare kids for college ball since it is used there.

 

 

Are there shot clocks in AAU??

 

In the past, girls AAU has used shot clocks in the National tournaments! 30 seconds just like college (women's that is)!

:walk:

People complain that it would force a hurry up offense and force bad shots but that just is not true. If you take Princton in college the way they play is still slow and they find a good shot it all comes down to coaching. Bottem line in my opinion a shot clock would be a good thing.

People complain that it would force a hurry up offense and force bad shots but that just is not true. If you take Princton in college the way they play is still slow and they find a good shot it all comes down to coaching. Bottem line in my opinion a shot clock would be a good thing.

 

Your post makes an outrageous assumption: That all Ky HS coaches are as good as Princeton's, and that all Ky HS teams are as disciplined as Princeton's.

 

Shooting percentages are already awful in HS. I don't want to watch games every night where teams are connecting at a blistering 26 percent from the field and 14 percent from three-land.

I thought in this state there was no interest in leveling any playing fields.

 

 

Oh My!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A shot clock would further erode the quality of shooting in HS games. Most teams that have to stall the whole game to stay in the game will not have the talent to keep from turning it over anyway. Nothing wrong with good ball handling and scores in the fifties. I can count on one hand the number of games the past few years with scores in the twenties. Don't fix it if it aint broke.

A shot clock would further erode the quality of shooting in HS games. Most teams that have to stall the whole game to stay in the game will not have the talent to keep from turning it over anyway. Nothing wrong with good ball handling and scores in the fifties. I can count on one hand the number of games the past few years with scores in the twenties. Don't fix it if it aint broke.

 

Good post

Stall ball is boring but so is running the ball 95% of the time in football. If we are going to make a decision on the strategy of a game based upon excitement, then let's limit how many running plays and offensive team can run in football.

 

I disgree with both.

 

I soooo have to disagree with you there. I would love to watch a strong, agile running back maneuver his way through the defense!

I don't think it's necessary, most of the games I see only have "stalling" at the end of each quarter, I think that could be fixed with two 16 minute halves, I honestly can't think of more than one game I've seen that's been bad enough to mention a shot clock.

A shot clock would further erode the quality of shooting in HS games. Most teams that have to stall the whole game to stay in the game will not have the talent to keep from turning it over anyway. Nothing wrong with good ball handling and scores in the fifties. I can count on one hand the number of games the past few years with scores in the twenties. Don't fix it if it aint broke.

 

AMEN TO THAT!!(IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!!):dancingpa :flame:

I feel that it is needed at the high school level. players at this level need to be taught how to foster a lead and then how to protect that lead. not build a lead and hold the ball until the horn blows. its not good basketball. you can only call so many timeouts and foul so many times. a shot clock will give teams that are down guaranteed possessions.