14 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

https://www.daktronics.com/en-us/products/sports/basketball/shot-clock-request

I went through this, and the estimate not counting shipping or installation was roughly $4100.  That's a wireless model, and in my experience... those struggle to work properly all the time.  A lot of people seem to think these will be one-time costs but my guess is that they aren't factoring in maintenance or those things dying.  Also, $4100 doesn't sound like a lot, but we're talking about nearly a million dollars if they chose to subsidize that for all schools.  And if they aren't subsidizing, $4100 is a significant bite for a lot of programs. 

$4,100 could be pocket change for some schools, but is an absolutely not doable for many small county schools. It could be done with some fundraising, but why should they have to volunteer their time for a rule mandated? 

3 hours ago, 4 Quarters said:

The fans, check the attendance numbers for the most recent Sweet Sicteen.

People will show up and watch games no matter what, that is why I wouldn't say that it HAS to be in the game, but I definitely believe it would make it more pleasing to watch. Especially at the regional and state level. 

1 hour ago, mcpapa said:

Absolutely, positively. 
 

NOT

Just curious, what is your reasoning behind being completely against it? I used to have this same viewpoint, but my mindset on it has changed drastically over the last couple years. 

The games would undeniably be more entertaining and better off with a shot clock. With that said, still not completely necessary. If you don’t want a team to play stall ball, either don’t let them get a lead or play some aggressive defense. 

Against the shot clock. It hurts teams not as talented. Great part of high school sports is watching teams not as talented beat teams that are because they are better coached or have better strategy. Yes holding the ball. 

1 hour ago, Adrian Woj Burner said:

Just curious, what is your reasoning behind being completely against it? I used to have this same viewpoint, but my mindset on it has changed drastically over the last couple years. 

Many, many reasons.  
 

No shot clock is often what keeps the have-nots (from a talent perspective) in the game.  A shot clock will undoubtedly separate the haves from the have-nots even further.   This is by far my biggest issue.  
 

Basketball teams should be able to play defense as well as offense. The AAU/travel team style of hoops doesn’t do much for me, but that could be because I’m ancient.  Or a blood relative of Norman Dale.  I’d rather see a team work for a good shot than throw up three pointers that clank off the rim every few seconds. 
 

The argument that the shot clock should be implemented to prepare high-schoolers for the next level doesn’t hold water with me.   How many of the roughly 4,000 (just counting the boys, but I assume Title XIX would come into play as well) currently on high-school rosters will be playing college ball?  Ten percent?  Maybe fifteen?   What about everyone else?   Taking the”let’s prepare them for the next level” argument further, why not mandate college-sized courts?  
 

Shot clocks are an added expense, from both an infrastructure and a personnel standpoint.  Many schools teeter on the brink of financial instability as it is.   The shot clock is just one more thing for one more person to get wrong and to add to the difficulties of officiating the game. I was talking last night with a long-time official out in Western Kentucky about this very issue.  He shares these very concerns. 

Don’t like stall ball?   Play some defense.  Or if you’re a fan and don’t like stall ball?  Tell your team’s coach to tell his kids to play defense (but trying to please the fans should be the LAST reason for implementing change). 

43 minutes ago, Hard Work said:

Against the shot clock. It hurts teams not as talented. Great part of high school sports is watching teams not as talented beat teams that are because they are better coached or have better strategy. Yes holding the ball. 

This is a very fair point, and I used to think the exact same thing. However, how are we seeing these HUGE upsets in March Madness (FDU over Purdue for example) when there is a shot clock in college basketball. 

2 minutes ago, mcpapa said:

Many, many reasons.  
 

No shot clock is often what keeps the have-nots (from a talent perspective) in the game.  A shot clock will undoubtedly separate the haves from the have-nots even further.   This is by far my biggest issue.  
 

Basketball teams should be able to play defense as well as offense. The AAU/travel team style of hoops doesn’t do much for me, but that could be because I’m ancient.  Or a blood relative of Norman Dale.  I’d rather see a team work for a good shot than throw up three pointers that clank off the rim every few seconds. 
 

The argument that the shot clock should be implemented to prepare high-schoolers for the next level doesn’t hold water with me.   How many of the roughly 4,000 (just counting the boys, but I assume Title XIX would come into play as well) currently on high-school rosters will be playing college ball?  Ten percent?  Maybe fifteen?   What about everyone else?   Taking the”let’s prepare them for the next level” argument further, why not mandate college-sized courts?  
 

Shot clocks are an added expense, from both an infrastructure and a personnel standpoint.  Many schools teeter on the brink of financial instability as it is.   The shot clock is just one more thing for one more person to get wrong and to add to the difficulties of officiating the game. I was talking last night with a long-time official out in Western Kentucky about this very issue.  He shares these very concerns. 

Don’t like stall ball?   Play some defense.  Or if you’re a fan and don’t like stall ball?  Tell your team’s coach to tell his kids to play defense. 

These are some great points. This was my exact same mindset just a short time ago until I really began to dig into it. 

I just covered my viewpoint on the "less-talented" teams pulling off upsets in the comment above. I still think we could see them, just maybe not as often. But with that would come a lot better overall product that we watch. 

The bad shot idea, I 100% understand. I feel that this is where the less talented teams would hurt the most. They will not have the college-level athleted to just produce their own shot, and you could see a bigger product of bad shots. However, that could be where coaching comes into play. Coaches will need to draw up some quick-hitter plays to avoid those bad shots late in shot clocks. 

I do not really take the "prepare them for college" aspect into consideration at all. I do not feel that these college-level athletes would have any issue adjusting to this when they move onto the next level. This side of the argument is practically pointless in my eyes, it won't affect those kids as much as many think. 

The physical and money stand-point of it is 100% one of my concerns, and my main reasoning behind thinking we will not see a shot clock in Kentucky anytime soon. However, I do not feel that it is a reasoning to be against it, rather than a reasoning to believe that we will not have it brought into the game. 

The stall-ball is my main issue with all of this. People bring up the point "just guard better". The issue is, stall ball only really helps the more athletic teams. We see this in tournament play numerous times. The better team gets up, and begins stalling just to try and win the game. The less-athletic teams can not apply enough pressure on these better teams without giving up wide open layups. The guards are able to create more space and break the counts to avoid turnovers. 

Overall, I see both sides of this topic very clearly. Like I mentioned before, I have been on both sides in just the last few years. 

A shot clock would be nice but I went to 5 games this year when play had to be stopped multiple times because the person running the clock screwed up.  Now take that and double the chances of more screw ups with a shot clock running concurrently.  Not ideal.

No shot clock is extremely outdated.  It is not practical at getting young men and women ready for the next level.

I equate it to little league baseball.  Mound is too close at 46 feet.  Base paths at 60 feet.  No playing off.  After a kid turns 13 he goes to a mound of 60 feet 6 inches and base paths of 90 feet.  Little league has failed to look at what is needed for the next level and is stubborn.  Travel baseball is typically 50 feet mound for 12U and 70 foot base paths.

Holding onto something because it's the way it's always been done....

As mcpapa said, the players moving to the "next level" is probably a very small number.  In addition, you add another duty to a referee group that is already stretched thin.  There's no replay available to see if there was a shot clock violation like there is in college.  Would this be used in JV games where there is only 2 officials?  The challenges outweigh the benefits in my opinion.  

12 hours ago, 4 Quarters said:

Questions, Do they have one in AAU?  Would you volunteer to operate one?  Would you donate money to purchase?

To answer your questions:

1. Not that AAU has anything to do with it but AAU Nationals doesn’t use a shot clock BUT it is used on the Nike EYBL circuit with a 24” shot clock and has been in place since 2019

2. Sure. Just like anything else, with proper training and education it could be done. Personally I’ve ran the clock and the book which required training. By no means is it the same but it could be done 

3. No. If the reported cost is less than $5000 that’s a fundraiser that most programs could raise between boys and girls teams 

Again, like everything else where change is involved, it may or may not be to everyone’s liking and that’s ok. For me, I’m old enough to have watched the G’town vs. Villanova National Championship game of 1985 when Nova held the ball for nearly the entire game and won by 2 and it was tough to watch lol. 

I’m sure it’ll never happen to no one has anything to worry about but it’s a good topic of discussion. 

I think another factor to add to Papa’s excellent list is it would be difficult for small size schools to have personnel available to run a high school shot clock. Our school has around 220 students 9-12 and we have a hard enough time getting people to do the scoreboard and scorebook, much less worrying about operating a shot clock. 

No.  No. No. 

A shot clock is not needed and never will be needed at the high school level.  
 

Forget the logistics of it involving money, volunteers and referees having to be retrained. Those are all other headaches brought on by a shot clock.  
 

Why would anyone want to watch a bunch of high school aged kids have timed offensive possessions?  Is there some high quality basketball being played that I’m missing?  Sure there will be about 20 teams in the state capable of playing under the pressure of getting a shot off in 45 seconds but for the vast majority of schools there will be some awful basketball being played on a nightly basis.  
 

I’m good on that. 

NEED it? No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt the game, IMO.