We don't need a shot clock in my opinion.

Try to look at it like this, let's say your kid is having some trouble with grades and not understanding his or her homework. So you come up with this brilliant plan to make them do their homework faster and shorten the time on each problem or question. Do you think they would make for a better outcome.

 

You and I have the same thought process on this. Excellent analogy.

I have no problem with the strategic option to play a slower game.

 

For a team playing a faster dynamic team it's the only way they even stand a chance to be able to try to control the tempo. A shot clock takes this option away from making the faster team always have a definite advantage. I like for a smaller team to be able to design a game plan that gives them a better shot at making a real game out of it against a stronger opponent.

 

I also like for a team who has worked hard to gain a significant lead to be able to work the clock in the later part of the game to their benefit.

 

A shot clock removes so many strategic options, and I would be disappointed to see that go. A shot clock to me would instantly make the game a bore, and going into a game you will more than you do now know who's going to win. The element of surprise or upsets will be gone.

I want a shot clock purely to stop 4 corners type of stalling. For that, a 40 or 45 second shot clock should work.

 

Same for me. I watched a game recently that went four corners with 4:00 left on the clock. Drove me insane.

 

A disciplined, pressure defense will fix that.

A disciplined, pressure defense will fix that.

 

No it won't. Good teams with a couple good guards are very difficult to stop from stalling a game out.

 

The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is a nascar race. If 2 teammates got in the lead and decided that they were going to slow down and weave back-and-forth on the lead over the last couple of laps of a race to ensure they finish 1st and 2nd, that would make for a terrible ending. It also goes against the grain of what the race is all about. It is a race to the finish.

 

Stalling in basketball does not reward good oftensive players nor good defensive players. Why is there a five second rule when players are not trying to score? Isn't that a quasi shot clock rule to try and prevent teams from stalling? The fact that the higher levels of basketball have a shot clock proves to me that stalling is a "loophole" in game rules that should also be closed at the high school level.

If a team wants to play keep away from me, they’re going to have to navigate five second calls. If they can do that, they obviously take care of the ball, and probably deserve to beat me anyway. But I’ll not sit in a 2-3 and let a team hold the ball on their hip. I’d prefer to get blown out forcing the issue over letting a team nurse a ten-point lead, but as previously mentioned, a disciplined pressure defense should be able to keep me in the game.

 

I don’t like stalling. At all. I think going from an attacking offense for 3.5 quarters, then trying to slow it to a halt the last four minutes is problematic. I think Scott County tried pumping the brakes a little too early Sunday and paid the price due to Trinity’s solid defense.

 

A team like Walton, which plays at a slower pace (when they aren’t scoring off turnovers), and plays tough defense, can have some success with it, but I’d never advocate for it. Just as I’d never advocate for a shot clock.

No it won't. Good teams with a couple good guards are very difficult to stop from stalling a game out.

 

The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is a nascar race. If 2 teammates got in the lead and decided that they were going to slow down and weave back-and-forth on the lead over the last couple of laps of a race to ensure they finish 1st and 2nd, that would make for a terrible ending. It also goes against the grain of what the race is all about. It is a race to the finish.

 

Stalling in basketball does not reward good oftensive players nor good defensive players. Why is there a five second rule when players are not trying to score? Isn't that a quasi shot clock rule to try and prevent teams from stalling? The fact that the higher levels of basketball have a shot clock proves to me that stalling is a "loophole" in game rules that should also be closed at the high school level.

 

Realistically speaking how many teams are there in the whole state that has two good guards capable of playing keep away from a disciplined, pressure defense for more than a minute without turning the ball over?

 

Maybe 10 out of how many?

We should be more focused on changing the rule that allows defenders to slide under an airborn player to draw a charge than a shot clock. The slide under charge ruins the game and it is amazing more people aren’t getting hurt by it.

Realistically speaking how many teams are there in the whole state that has two good guards capable of playing keep away from a disciplined, pressure defense for more than a minute without turning the ball over?

 

Maybe 10 out of how many?

 

I think a lot more than that can turn a 5 point lead with 4 minutes left into a win.

I think a lot more than that can turn a 5 point lead with 4 minutes left into a win.

 

 

I can't. Can you prove I'm wrong?

I watched a 5 OT in the 12th Region final where neither team scored in the first OT, and there may have been 3 total possessions for the whole OT. Someone please tell me how that's fun to watch as a spectator?

I can't. Can you prove I'm wrong?

 

I don’t have to, and that’s not how argument/debate works.

 

What I’m saying is, I’ll make those backcourts prove they can before I just assume they can. If I don’t have faith in my guys to do the job, I shouldn’t be their coach. Same goes for the coach and his guards holding the ball. He believes his guys can take care of it, I believe my guys can force a turnover/missed shot.

 

If not, I’m using my fouls and getting a possession at any cost.

My four main proponents of why having a shot clock is a good thing:

1. More Possessions=More Scoring

2. Eliminates stall ball at the end of quarters and games (I know a lot of veteran coaches would not like this)

3. Brings in 2 for 1 strategy at end of quarters

4. Allows for the possibility of more comebacks throughout the season (I.E. the 3 point line when it was brought into to play)

I don’t have to, and that’s not how argument/debate works.

 

What I’m saying is, I’ll make those backcourts prove they can before I just assume they can. If I don’t have faith in my guys to do the job, I shouldn’t be their coach. Same goes for the coach and his guards holding the ball. He believes his guys can take care of it, I believe my guys can force a turnover/missed shot.

 

The problem is you need to force 3 turnovers, not just one.

The problem is you need to force 3 turnovers, not just one.

 

Can’t force three on one possession. One at a time VoR. One at a time.