Shot Clock

[hydraman]

And therein lies the problem.

 

Why should a high high school basketball game be about the spectators?

 

This argument seems to fall on deaf ears when it comes to the fact that there’s no Sweet Sixteen seeding. Or somehow figuring out a way to get the 16 best teams to Rupp instead of the current outdated system.

 

But hey it makes for a great game for the fans to watch in the first round. Who cares that it’s unfair to the kids cause one whole team goes home earlier than they should. Or one whole team never got there because they didn’t grow up in some rural area.

[4th&1]

Great response to the thread. General takeaway… high school basketball in KY doesn’t have the talent level for a shot clock if you want to be entertained watch a higher level. Got it!

[GottaLuvFootball]

If you need possessions don’t you have the option to foul?

[DragonFire]

So I see I'm late to this particular thread, but didn't we have a very similar discussion during this season already?

 

These are re-treads, but I see the following problems with shot clocks:

 

1) Cost. Yes, it seems unfortunate to have something like that, but it is a fact. To implement a shot clock you have to have it at every single gym these teams play at. For some teams the cost is easy. For a great many, it isn't. And for those who have talked about the ones you can find for less than thousands of dollars, is that what you want? The much less reliable option? So that, what, fans can complain when they don't work like they do when something goes wrong with the clock? Which brings me to.....

 

2) Clock operators. Many of these people can't even get stopping the regular clock right. I appreciate it's a difficult job, so I'm not trying to slight them, but it is a reality that many are volunteers and aren't the most reliable at stopping the clock now. Do you really want someone at this level trying to properly evaluate that the ball hit the rim and remembering to reset it? Or how about remembering to simply reset it on a change of possession? The suggestion of adding it to the existing clock operator is even more insane to me because, again, so many of them can't operate the regular clock. And the shot clock is much, much more difficult.

 

3) Stall ball is hard. I watch a lot of games, many of them close. When I see one team trying to stall out the game, the amount of mistakes made is almost mind-boggling. It is in no way easy, and if a team has two strong guards like someone suggested upthread, the type who can handle that pressure with no trouble - they probably don't need to stall. I saw just as many circumstances where fans talk about a team taking the air out of the ball and "getting away from what got them the lead in the first place". For a lot of teams they disrupt their own flow, and it costs them when they try to run out the game like that.

 

I remember when I was a freshman in high school, 6-16 Warren East took on 25-0 Bowling Green. East had lost to Bowling Green by 25 and 35 points during the year. They took the air out of the ball effectively, and you had a tense, 17-15 final score with Bowling Green surviving. Do you appreciate how difficult it is to execute that type of game? Teams have been often overmatched against Bowling Green in the years since and it has never come close to that level of execution again. If it was that easy, wouldn't a lot more teams do it? And if they're capable of doing it, why deny a team in that situation the honest chance to pull it off? If the defense is not complicit, holding the ball becomes a skill just like any other on the court. A fair and just strategy.

 

I hope if we ever do see a shot clock it is 60 seconds. Only intended to be a deterrent against holding the ball for four minutes. But I do not see it as necessary - it is harder to hold it 60 seconds under pressure than it is to fire up the first open look you see.

[B-Ball-fan]

In a game between a high level team and a cupcake, how many times is one team holding the ball for more than 45 seconds?

 

Not really sure how to answer this as different cupcake teams strategize differently than others.

 

If you have an answer to the question let's hear it because it's too loose of a question for me to answer.

 

Some cupcakes do choose to let the air out of the ball with hope to lesson the amount of possessions of the high level team in order to avoid being blown out, and to increase their chances to stay in the game.

 

Some teams just get at it, and let the high level team control the tempo, and what we get with that usually is an early exit at halftime for the spectators.

 

With a shot clock you'll have more early exits in these high level vs. cupcake games, and many like myself not even attending for knowing exactly in advance the outcome.

 

Some might consider stall ball boring, I consider no doubt blowouts where the cupcake has no chance to strategize a complete bore.

[sweet16]

This argument seems to fall on deaf ears when it comes to the fact that there’s no Sweet Sixteen seeding. Or somehow figuring out a way to get the 16 best teams to Rupp instead of the current outdated system.

 

But hey it makes for a great game for the fans to watch in the first round. Who cares that it’s unfair to the kids cause one whole team goes home earlier than they should. Or one whole team never got there because they didn’t grow up in some rural area.

 

What tournament has the best teams? NCAA? NAIA? JUCO? Non of them do because of upsets and conference affiliations.

[hydraman]

What tournament has the best teams? NCAA? NAIA? JUCO? Non of them do because of upsets and conference affiliations.

 

First thank you for proving the point of my argument. Sweet 16 purists are “deaf to the” fact that it’s NOT better for the kids. You don’t even address what I was saying, instead try to pick a fight about some detail of the Sweet 16.

 

Second, the NCAA has what’s called “at large bids”, maybe you’ve heard of them? The sole purpose is to ensure the “fairness” of the tournament. It ensures that any team essentially ranked in the top 50 will have a chance to compete for the title. If any top 25 team was EVER left out of the NCAA tournament you better believe the small “conference champ bids” would be the first schools to go.

 

Third, my comment was to work on getting the best teams there. No one is advocating to just do some RPI based Sweet Sixteen. Every team in Kentucky should get a chance at the title. Kentucky has that luxury the NCAA does not have. So if some Cinderella rural team has a good run they can still go at it. (Then Kentucky can make a Hoosiers movie so they stop feeling like they take a back seat to Indiana in basketball).

 

Why not have the top two regional teams qualify for some round of 32 that’s seeded? That’s how teams go from district to region? Then the 16 winners make up the Sweet Sixteen. Any effort to make it more fair for the kids I would advocate for.

 

Lastly, I can’t believe how ironic that your user name is Sweet 16! You would jump on my post first.

Edited March 13, 2019 by hydraman
Spelling

[bamaboy89]

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.

 

To me, it's the worst play in basketball. I will never understand how this is even allowed in the game. My son's wrist still bothers him from time to time from a kid sliding under him while he was in the air. The saddest part is that most of the time a kid is rewarded by getting the charge call.

[bamaboy89]

My few years in the state of Kentucky has shown me that high school basketball does not embrace/welcome change very often.

[GottaLuvFootball]

Is it really that great watching a team run up and down dunking on a weak opponent and running them out of the gym. I put myself in those kids shoes and see no problem watching them holding the game down. Or a team holding at the end and making a victory more likely.

[sweet16]

First thank you for proving the point of my argument. Sweet 16 purists are “deaf to the” fact that it’s NOT better for the kids. You don’t even address what I was saying, instead try to pick a fight about some detail of the Sweet 16.

 

Second, the NCAA has what’s called “at large bids”, maybe you’ve heard of them? The sole purpose is to ensure the “fairness” of the tournament. It ensures that any team essentially ranked in the top 50 will have a chance to compete for the title. If any top 25 team was EVER left out of the NCAA tournament you better believe the small “conference champ bids” would be the first schools to go.

 

Third, my comment was to work on getting the best teams there. No one is advocating to just do some RPI based Sweet Sixteen. Every team in Kentucky should get a chance at the title. Kentucky has that luxury the NCAA does not have. So if some Cinderella rural team has a good run they can still go at it. (Then Kentucky can make a Hoosiers movie so they stop feeling like they take a back seat to Indiana in basketball).

 

Why not have the top two regional teams qualify for some round of 32 that’s seeded? That’s how teams go from district to region? Then the 16 winners make up the Sweet Sixteen. Any effort to make it more fair for the kids I would advocate for.

 

Lastly, I can’t believe how ironic that your user name is Sweet 16! You would jump on my post first.

 

Hey, I was not picking a fight just saying that not the best teams always make it just like in the other tournaments. I am sure teams on the bubble think they deserve to be in over a team that wins a weak conference.

 

Even if you send the top 2 teams and seed them you could have Pikeville playing Paducah. How and where would you play something like that?

 

Fair is subjective. For some it would be to seed. For some it would be something like you said with 32 teams. For some it would be to class the sport.

[hydraman]

Even if you send the top 2 teams and seed them you could have Pikeville playing Paducah. How and where would you play something like that?

 

Fair is subjective. For some it would be to seed. For some it would be something like you said with 32 teams. For some it would be to class the sport.

 

Agree completely about the challenge of where to play the 32 team part of the tourney. Maybe some type of seeding with a regional emphasis like NCAA does?

 

As to your last thought about fair being subjective, I think what you mean is how to make things more fair is different to different people. Again, I agree. The current system is old and outdated. For the kids sake, maybe someone could try to use any of the solutions you suggest to help make the kids have a more fair and better experience.

[Straitshooter]

Why would new scoreboards be needed?

Just put a shot clock on top of each backboard and be done with it. A quick Google search finds them available for significantly less than $2,000.

 

The clocks themselves aren't the expense. It's the electricity that has to get to them. If you hang them on the backboard you have to run wires from the backboard up the poles to the ceiling, and eventually to an outlet. I'm sure that goals that raise and lower require even more detail. Many of the goals in our state have probably been in place since the 80s and it would be difficult to make all this happen.

 

Add in the fact that 95% of the gyms in our state are used for PE classes during the day so the risk associated with something electronic sitting only 13ft off the ground is always there.

 

So yeah, if you could get some shot clocks and sit them on the corner of the court and plug them into the wall (assuming they were wirelessly controlled) then it wouldn't be more than $2000.

[Jumper_Dad]

The clocks themselves aren't the expense. It's the electricity that has to get to them. If you hang them on the backboard you have to run wires from the backboard up the poles to the ceiling, and eventually to an outlet. I'm sure that goals that raise and lower require even more detail. Many of the goals in our state have probably been in place since the 80s and it would be difficult to make all this happen.

 

Add in the fact that 95% of the gyms in our state are used for PE classes during the day so the risk associated with something electronic sitting only 13ft off the ground is always there.

 

So yeah, if you could get some shot clocks and sit them on the corner of the court and plug them into the wall (assuming they were wirelessly controlled) then it wouldn't be more than $2000.

 

You could buy 1000 ft of wire for less than $100 and hang them where ever you wanted. No one wants the shot clock in the middle of a score board, it has to set off by itself. The top of the back board is the perfect location and could be done in a "wired" way that would allow the goal to go up and down all for less than $2,000.

 

I'm not for the shot clock, I just don't think it the expense that is stopping it from happening. Raise ticket prices by .50 cents, that would easily pay for it in a year at 95% of the schools.

[Straitshooter]

You could buy 1000 ft of wire for less than $100 and hang them where ever you wanted. No one wants the shot clock in the middle of a score board, it has to set off by itself. The top of the back board is the perfect location and could be done in a "wired" way that would allow the goal to go up and down all for less than $2,000.

 

I'm not for the shot clock, I just don't think it the expense that is stopping it from happening. Raise ticket prices by .50 cents, that would easily pay for it in a year at 95% of the schools.

 

You obviously don't work in a school system. We can't just go to Home Depot and buy 1000 feet of wire and run a wire from the backboard across the gym. There are standards we have to follow and electricians we have to pay.

 

Additionally, we don't set our ticket prices so raising the prices isn't something we can just do.