- Final health wrap-up, glad to get to vote early, new job going well (10/13/20)
- The COVID battle continues in our house; four-car pileup in a drive-thru (10/2/20)
- LIVIN’ THE COVID LIFE: The Aftermath (9/23/20)
- LIVIN' THE COVID LIFE: DAYS 7-9 (Monday-Wednesday, Sept. 14-16) (9/16/20)
- LIVIN' THE COVID LIFE: DAY 6 (Sunday, September 13) (9/14/20)
- LIVIN' THE COVID LIFE: Day 5 (Saturday, Sept. 12) (9/13/20)
- LIVIN' THE COVID LIFE: DAY 4 (Friday, September 11) (9/12/20)
Common sense prevails as high school federation rejects shot clock
In this day and age when common sense seems to be lacking in many decisions from all parts of life, the National Federation of State High School Associations made a logical one recently when it voted down a proposal to add a 35-second shot clock to high school basketball in every state.
The rules committee confirmed its position on the is sue by also voting down a proposal to allow each state to add a shot clock if it wanted. Eight states currently have a shot clock any way -- Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington, New York, California, North Dakota and South Dakota. Those states give up their membership on the NFHS rules committee by choosing to add the shot clock.
Common arguments against a shot clock often include the cost of adding an extra piece of equipment and the ability to find someone to run it correctly. I agree with both of those sentiments, but a way could be found if needed. One of the biggest problems I often see is with the size of current scorer's benches. Often there is just enough room for four people -- an announcer, the regular scoreboard keeper and the official scorekeeper from each team. Many of those would need to be redesigned or expanded. Each of those has some validity, but are not ones that can't be overcome.
The bottom line to me is that I just don't see the point in terms of play on the court. The reasons people often give for wanting a shot clock are ones that, to me, can be easily argued against:
* The game has changed -- I don't really see that at all. Scoring may be down a little bit, but I attribute that to better defense and a generation of players of which too many spend less time working on repetitive shooting drills and more on dunking mini-balls on eight-foot baskets.
* We need to get people ready for the next level -- The number of high school players who eventually play at any collegiate level is very low, and the ones who do take that step are skilled enough to adjust to a shot clock in college for the first time. Division I teams have far more possessions that go down to the wire on a shot clock than any of the lower levels. Junior college basketball, for example, really doesn't need one with its fast-paced style.
* Too many teams "hold the ball" -- People say this all the time online, and when I ask them to list scores of such games they never respond back. I would be on board if half the games had a 15-7 final score and were scoreless at halftime because of one team "holding the ball" to limit the possessions in a game. That is boring, and no one wants to see that on a regular basis. Not many people go to more games than I do, and I just don't see it. Ever. The class state tournament (we do not have "class basketball," just a class system for the state tournament) has made competition in the tourney more even. Schools who don't have enough students to offer football no longer have to play against schools with thousands of students, so the need/desire to "hold the ball" due to inferior athleticism is lessened greatly. Is it zero? No. When used correctly, "holding the ball" is an effective and necessary strategy in some cases that shouldn't be eliminated. One game this year in which teams effectively slowed down the game was the Putnam County boys' tourney finals between Greencastle and North Putnam. If you get key players in foul trouble, as both teams did in this game, it's just normal basketball strategy to want to do things to shorten the length of time remaining in the game. Also, putting in a shot clock would require teams to have even more depth than now -- and the number of players realistically ready for the varsity level is just not that high. I rarely see a junior varsity player who I think is far too good for that level and should definitely be on the varsity.
If anything, I see far more games where we need a "you can't shoot the ball until after X number of seconds" clock than one requiring teams to shoot more frequently.
High school basketball is not perfect by any means, but the current rules provide for a good product that is designed to benefit its current players. Future college players can deal with a shot clock when they get there.
- -- Posted by beg on Wed, May 13, 2020, at 4:16 PM
Posting a comment requires free registration:
- If you already have an account, follow this link to login
- Otherwise, follow this link to register