The Bobcat Nation

What do you all think of having a shot clock in high school?

I'm not totally against it but I think if there is one it should be high--like 1 minute per possesion. It's good to keep the game moving but controlling the ball at certain times is a huge part of high school basketball that I would miss if it were gone completely.

LTown Cat wrote:I'm not totally against it but I think if there is one it should be high--like 1 minute per possesion. It's good to keep the game moving but controlling the ball at certain times is a huge part of high school basketball that I would miss if it were gone completely.

+1

Yes! :45 shot clock would be great. However, I'm not sure the old timey clock operators would be able to handle this brand new technology.

It may end up wasting more time with the refs stopping the game to discuss shot clock operations errors.

I think with 8 minute quarters, passing the ball around for over a minute especially in the first or second quarter takes the game away from the kids. I think 45 seconds would be about right but not any more.

Washington put a shot clock in last year (or the year before), and it really makes for a better game. No question there should be one in Montana. I think Washington's is 45 seconds.

Nope, it's 35 seconds for boys, 30 seconds for girls in Washington.

Not a fan, but I'm also an old official with bad wheels, (And Adverse to Change)

Would love to see at least a 45-second shot clock at the varsity and jv levels which would have a minimal effect on most possessions, but would also love to see 18-minute halves for these levels as well.

Definitely need one! 45 seconds max! The stall game has become so prevalent and just takes away from the game. Not uncommon this year to see teams hold possession for close to 2 minutes before taking a shot.

Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

I think the "taking strategy out the game" mentality of shot clocks is one of the things that has turned me off of the game.

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

I think the "taking strategy out the game" mentality of shot clocks is one of the things that has turned me off of the game.

I guess I'm the opposite, I personally just don't see stalling as strategy. Not playing the game isn't strategy to me. I can understand slowing down to take an up tempo team out of rhythm, but you have to be willing to play and you can still easily slow down a fast paced team with a shot clock. Would love to see one in high school ball, 45 seconds absolute max.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

Agree. The purpose of the shot clock is to make the game more attractive to fans because they like to see scoring and not stalling. That works fine in the NBA, where the difference in talent between the best and worst players is very small. The lower the level of the competition, though, the more variable the talent and therefore the larger the potential difference between teams. Not having a shot clock gives weaker teams a better chance to win games by employing fan-aggravating strategies like the stall. If the shot clock is introduced into HS, I think it will exacerbate differences, even marginal ones.

nevadacat wrote:

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

Agree. The purpose of the shot clock is to make the game more attractive to fans because they like to see scoring and not stalling. That works fine in the NBA, where the difference in talent between the best and worst players is very small. The lower the level of the competition, though, the more variable the talent and therefore the larger the potential difference between teams. Not having a shot clock gives weaker teams a better chance to win games by employing fan-aggravating strategies like the stall. If the shot clock is introduced into HS, I think it will exacerbate differences, even marginal ones.

Great observations; I like to think the shot clock has contributed to the erosion of fundamentals in all aspects of the game including shooting over the last 20-30 years in the U.S. but not as much as the zone defense. I suppose I'm one of the few on this board that loves to watch a team like Princeton use all aspects of the game to negate physical attributes.

Cat Grad wrote:

nevadacat wrote:

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

Agree. The purpose of the shot clock is to make the game more attractive to fans because they like to see scoring and not stalling. That works fine in the NBA, where the difference in talent between the best and worst players is very small. The lower the level of the competition, though, the more variable the talent and therefore the larger the potential difference between teams. Not having a shot clock gives weaker teams a better chance to win games by employing fan-aggravating strategies like the stall. If the shot clock is introduced into HS, I think it will exacerbate differences, even marginal ones.

Great observations; I like to think the shot clock has contributed to the erosion of fundamentals in all aspects of the game including shooting over the last 20-30 years in the U.S. but not as much as the zone defense. I suppose I'm one of the few on this board that loves to watch a team like Princeton use all aspects of the game to negate physical attributes.

I agree with you guys. If there was to be one it needs to be 1 minute--no less. And how would this work with the mercy rule? Because it would definitely come into play way more often with a shot clock...

LTown Cat wrote:

Cat Grad wrote:

nevadacat wrote:

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

Agree. The purpose of the shot clock is to make the game more attractive to fans because they like to see scoring and not stalling. That works fine in the NBA, where the difference in talent between the best and worst players is very small. The lower the level of the competition, though, the more variable the talent and therefore the larger the potential difference between teams. Not having a shot clock gives weaker teams a better chance to win games by employing fan-aggravating strategies like the stall. If the shot clock is introduced into HS, I think it will exacerbate differences, even marginal ones.

Great observations; I like to think the shot clock has contributed to the erosion of fundamentals in all aspects of the game including shooting over the last 20-30 years in the U.S. but not as much as the zone defense. I suppose I'm one of the few on this board that loves to watch a team like Princeton use all aspects of the game to negate physical attributes.

I agree with you guys. If there was to be one it needs to be 1 minute--no less. And how would this work with the mercy rule? Because it would definitely come into play way more often with a shot clock...

In reality, I think the rest of the country does a much better job of eliminating the need for the mercy rule; do you realize how silly it looks to state we have over 420 school districts for about 130k students? With that many schools, we don't have quality coaching, nor competition. The only positive that comes out of an intramural athletic environment is somebody such as Austin Barth who won't have been taught incorrectly by his coaches but his family (the Sweeneys) who have had four division one uncle quarterbacks and a pretty good former Bobcat head coach making sure he is fundamentally sound. Dang...I got off track just like everybody else in this tread Sorry.

Cat Grad wrote:

LTown Cat wrote:

Cat Grad wrote:

nevadacat wrote:

vike_king wrote:Not in favor at all. Sometimes a team with not-so-good players (this is especially common in class c where talent can be very cyclical) and a good coach can make a game of it against a good team by slowing things down....and that is what coaching is about....putting your team in a position to win the game.

Agree. The purpose of the shot clock is to make the game more attractive to fans because they like to see scoring and not stalling. That works fine in the NBA, where the difference in talent between the best and worst players is very small. The lower the level of the competition, though, the more variable the talent and therefore the larger the potential difference between teams. Not having a shot clock gives weaker teams a better chance to win games by employing fan-aggravating strategies like the stall. If the shot clock is introduced into HS, I think it will exacerbate differences, even marginal ones.

Great observations; I like to think the shot clock has contributed to the erosion of fundamentals in all aspects of the game including shooting over the last 20-30 years in the U.S. but not as much as the zone defense. I suppose I'm one of the few on this board that loves to watch a team like Princeton use all aspects of the game to negate physical attributes.

I agree with you guys. If there was to be one it needs to be 1 minute--no less. And how would this work with the mercy rule? Because it would definitely come into play way more often with a shot clock...

In reality, I think the rest of the country does a much better job of eliminating the need for the mercy rule; do you realize how silly it looks to state we have over 420 school districts for about 130k students? With that many schools, we don't have quality coaching, nor competition. The only positive that comes out of an intramural athletic environment is somebody such as Austin Barth who won't have been taught incorrectly by his coaches but his family (the Sweeneys) who have had four division one uncle quarterbacks and a pretty good former Bobcat head coach making sure he is fundamentally sound. Dang...I got off track just like everybody else in this tread Sorry.

Can't say I disagree...