KHSAA survey: high schools don't favor a 35-second shot clock
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
As someone who played KY high school basketball this bums me out. It’s sorely needed….and the smaller schools are hiding behind “administrative costs” as justification but it’s really about the ability to play 4 Corners. Smaller schools think that tacit is the best way to beat the bigger schools.
Somewhere Dean Smith and Digger Phelps are smiling.
I'm surprised this is still even a debate. Playing keep away is a bullshit tactic. Shoot the ball, make baskets, that's basketball, not hiding.
I like in soccer if you try to stall and obviously play keep away the ref will just tack on extended time.
Football you've got a play clock so you can only milk it so much.
I like in soccer if you try to stall and obviously play keep away the ref will just tack on extended time.
Football you've got a play clock so you can only milk it so much.
I hate 4 corners basketball, but that being said, I hate shot clock basketball too. Plus it removes a strategy for less talented teams to beat more talented teams. If we continue to remove coaching strategies that counteract talent, then how boring will basketball become when we can predict who wins 90% of all matchups. I don't actually hate the idea of a shot clock, I just think 35 seconds is way to short. The college game is awful compared to what it used to be before the shot clock.
College game is bad for many reasons and the shot clock isn't one of them.
They really did not ask the question correctly. I think a large majority of Coaches are in favor of the clock. But a majority of the schools do not have the resources or personnel to purchase and properly run the clock. So the general consensus is that unless this becomes a function of a 3rd referee, small schools in particular cannot implement the clock.
It is bad for many reasons, but the shot clock is definitely one of them. The shot clock forces offenses to move quickly which results in a lot of bad shots. It has caused the creation of one dimensional players. In today's game, you are either ultra athletic and rely on driving the basketball, or you are a three point shooter. Watching athletic kids continually drive the ball against lesser athletic kids who can't stay in front of them is about as boring as it gets. Watching teams jack three after three is not much better. I realize the three point line is what has caused the emphasis on three point shooting. I'm just saying the shot clock has changed how the game is played, and not for the better. If I'm not mistaken, scoring has gone down since the shot clock was initiated. I would much rather sit through a horrible 4 corners game or two and have the rest of the games more balanced and entertaining than watch what we are seeing today. That being said, the best option, in my opinion, is a shot clock around 45 seconds to a minute. That would allow for a variety of styles and also allow for some strategy for how to beat a team more talented than you are.
Completely disagree, did you enjoy a 4 to 2 halftime score or a 21 to 14, or even a 11 to 10, some games didn't score 30 points combined, it was the worst.
Most games weren’t like that even when NC was playing 4 corners. The games not using stall tactics (the majority of games), were far better than what we see today. Also you ignored where I said I’m not opposed to a shot clock, just not a 35 second one.
We're headed in that direction if schools don't wake up.
FYI, I live in Somerset and we have three high schools here. All three have just installed artificial turf football fields. That's a significant amount of money. Not saying the poorer small schools will ever afford a artificial turf football field but, I also find it very hard to believe they can't afford a couple of 35 second shot clocks.
The amount of money available to public schools now is ridiculous compared to when I graduated in 1986.
Even Knott Co Central is investing in turf for their field.. They've never put more than 20% in winning on the football side.. $500,000 is what they're wanting to invest..
You seem to be discussing this in good faith, so I’m not going to ridicule you, but can you elaborate on how you feel like the shot clock created one-dimensional players and leads to decreased scoring? That argument doesn’t make much sense to me.
Let me start by saying I think strategy is an extremely important part of what makes sports entertaining. As you limit coaching strategy, the game gets less interesting because talent almost always wins out. So I'm generally against things that limit strategy. Like I said, I'm not against a shot in general. I'm against the current shot clock or something shorter. Clearly, as you shorten the shot clock, in theory, you create more possessions per game. So in theory scoring should increase somewhat. I think the highest year in scoring came shortly after the 45 second clock was implemented, which makes sense. However, I think shooting percentage has fallen since they shortened the clock to 35 seconds. As the clock gets shorter, shot selection suffers and shooting percentage declines. There will be a point, that even though you are creating more possessions by shortening the clock, that the decline in shooting percentage offsets it, and scoring doesn't increase. Also watching poor shot after poor shot is just unbelievably boring basketball.
I remember the days of motion offenses before the shot clock. It was much more interesting basketball in my opinion. Teams had time to run their sets and work for a high percentage shot. If they didn't get it the first time through, they reset the offense and went through their progressions again. Today you don't have time to do that. That will especially be true if they lower the clock to 30 seconds like some want. It leads to jacking threes because those are shots you can get easier than other shots. It also leads to recruiting players who aren't necessarily great basketball players, but are extremely athletic. Again, it's quicker to drive the ball than it is to work the ball for open shots. I just think the less time a team has, the more it will resort to three point shots and driving the ball. If you watch the results of that style of play, it's a lot of poor shot selection, and frankly boring basketball. Personally, I think a clock between 45 seconds and 1 minute is about right. It allows for purposeful playing and gives coaches some options if they feel slowing the game down benefits their team without the extreme of a 4 corner offense. 30 and 35 seconds, in my opinion is poor quality basketball. Other factors are also contributing to that, but I think the shot is part of the problem as well.
How does basketball get more boring than watching someone stand near mid court and just hold the ball.
It doesn't get much more boring than that, but the 4 corners was never the dominant style of play. I could count on one hand the times I've seen the 4 corners used in a game.
There were many games that were in the 40s and low 50s, when games got close insid5the last 5 minutes teams would go into a stall, happened a lot in the SEC and the ACC, even in National Championship games NC St.
I hated NC and hated their style of play, so I didn't watch a lot of their games. Plus back then, most games weren't on television. From memory, most televised games did not play 4 corner basketball. A few did. I'm still not getting your point. I think a shot clock between 45 seconds and 1 minute probably makes sense. It would not be possible to hold the ball with the lead in that situation unless there is less time remaining than the length of the shot clock. As an aside, there has to be some room for strategy. While slow down basketball may be boring, there has to be some room for a coach to strategize in order to beat a more talented team. If you have to shoot every 30 seconds, there isn't much room for strategy outside of playing zone instead of man. What is exciting about teams with the best talent winning 95% of the time? No need to even play the games because we know who is going to win.
Is 35 seconds (I could even live with 45 seconds) not enough time to run a few sets to get up a good shot? I don't see 35 seconds as creating rushed shots much at all.
Depending on the offense you run, I think it's enough time to go through your progressions, but from watching college basketball, it looks like teams are taking a lot of bad shots. I know shooting percentage dropped when they went from 45 seconds to 35 seconds. The time constraint has to play into that. I think the time constraint has contributed to the creation of offenses that are much more simple and improvised than the motion offenses you used to see. Bellarmine still runs an old school motion offense. Those take longer to develop. When you don't get the shot you want, you bring the ball back out and start over again. It takes time. These modern offenses rely more on a player being athletic enough to create his own shot. I think this is partially out of necessity because the compressed time to run an offense.
But just as important to me is the strategy. Let's say you are coaching EKU playing UK. Do you really want to shoot every 35 seconds. Is that in your best interest to win the game? I would think being extremely patient and working hard to get a high percentage shot would give me the best chance to win. A 35 second clock, and many want a 30 second clock, really limits what you can do there. I guess people don't appreciate strategy anymore but it's one of my favorite parts of sports. A shot clock, in my mind, should be used to prevent holding the ball with no intention of shooting. It should not prevent a team from employing the strategy of playing very deliberately, even if some fans don't think those games are as entertaining.
Definitely some merit to what you are saying and I do appreciate strategy as that certainly benefits coaches who can actually coach moreso than those who can’t. I’m not sure what the proper balance would be for high school ball in regards to the shot clock but :45 seconds certainly seems reasonable to me and possibly even a full minute as a starting point to see how well it works. Anything longer than that however not sure why you would even bother. Just leave the game as it is without one.
Can’t say I’m surprised, unfortunately. High school basketball in Kentucky is littered with guys who’ve been coaching since the late 90s and early 2000s. Very few teams play a modern style. Bet if they surveyed the kids actually playing, the results of the survey would be overwhelmingly in favor.
It is, but most possessions don't last that long anyway. You're just adding unnecessary cost... $2000-$5000 each and you need 2. Plus you'd have to have a trained official running it, which adds another $100 per game. And I can tell you that Paying $100 each for 5 officials (JV and Varsity) plus another $200 per night for shot clock operators isn't feasible for a lot of counties in Kentucky
"Modern style"... tell me you don't understand small school or rural school basketball without actually telling me.
1. You can't recruit players to play "modern style' basketball
2. Most of these type schools have multi sport athletes and you only get them in your season. So spare the "development" spiel
We kind of got off the original post refering to high school and went to the college game. I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were opposed to any shot clock, I am in agreement that high school should have a shot clock but longer than the college one, as you say maybe 45 sec or a minute.
Tell me you haven’t actually coached in a small rural area without telling me. Graduated from a Rural Class A School myself over 20 years ago. Have been an assistant coach at class A small schools and still coach AAU in a small rural area. Not to mention, I watched a rural Class A school play a modern uptempo style and have several guys in the state 3point leaders and team scoring stats. If they’re still walking the ball up the floor, making passes for minutes or stalling out front before shooting, then they’re a terrible excuse for a coach or team.
The problem is, Kentucky is stuck in 1986 in more ways than one.
Agreed. I recall several teams during my KY high school playing days who would basically force opponents to play 1-2 mins of half court defense.
The best counter was to extend full court pressure in hopes of speeding up the game and creating more possessions. Otherwise, you were forced to chase your man and fight through the numerous screens of a flex offense.
I don't understand the voting consensus on this one. I think it would be a net positive to implement the 35 sec shot clock. Ultimately, makes the game flow better and prepares players for the next level.
Currently coach in a school with 650 students in NE KY near the Ohio River. Try again. It's all about personnel. By all means, Shoot me a DM. Bring your team. We can test your theory.
For the life of me I don't understand why. But when archaic coaches who love to take the air out of the ball are voting what do you expect.
45 seconds is good for Highschool. I wish College would go back to 35. You have time to run offense. The shortened shot clock has led to nothing but iso ball like the NBA. The problem is college guys aren’t generally good enough for it to be entertaining. I’d even be ok with 40 in college. I’m not sure what the right number is but it’s the amount of time where the PG doesn’t can’t stand and dribble looking at the bench waiting for a play but long enough they don’t have to go straight to iso ball. All I know is 30 seconds has made offense all iso ball or 3 pt shots.
Because the numbers don't support it. HS teams get as many or more shots per minute than college teams, and the scoring is nearly identical, all without a bunch of high ball screens and isolations, as well as terrible late clock shots.
I don't get the "archaic" or "modern basketball" argument. Coaches are paid to win games. You adapt the style you play to the personnel you have available, especially in high school. If you personnel is more suited to playing more slowly and deliberately, why would you try to run, create one on one situations to drive the ball, and shoot threes? If every coach played the same style, how boring would that be?
Considering my team right now is either 15U or 14U guys made up from regional players, I doubt they’d be very successful against a 3A high school team of 16-19 year olds regardless of a shot clock or not. Still doesn’t change the argument. Survey your players and ask them how they’d feel about a shot clock similar to college between 35-45 sec and tell me which they’d enjoy playing. If you’re not pulling the ball out and holding for minutes at a time every possession then you’re already playing at that pace anyways. Which is why the argument against doesn’t make sense. If you are playing like that, I can assure you the kids hate it, even if they don’t say so.
Similar threads
