threeball

I'm not in favor of the shot clock... for the reason of I don't believe it's needed or will improve the high school game. That being said, it is a misconception that adding a shot clock will improve scoring and pace. I see the value in defense more than offense... Also, ,states that have implemented the shot clock, data shows that their points per game averages have decreased... not increased as one would think. Again, it's not NEEDED... it may be WANTED... but not NEEDED. Changes in the rules should be for safety and consistency in fair play.

I hope Luke Smith has all the success that he can handle. I do know that he has an impressive resume on the court and in the classroom. My biggest red flag is the comments people saying about him such as, "This kid...." Not saying he is a kid. I'm just saying that coaching where you went to high school at an early age is a tough thing... and it may be hard for him to get seen as a coach instead of the player he was at that school. I'm very surprised he wasn't an assistant coach for a few years to learn the profession. Again, I hope he finds success, and wish him and the Catholic program the very best. Big boots to fill!

Not sure the playoffs are the best time to "implement" something.........

Although I am not a fan of the shot clock, I think the Elam Ending is very intriguing.

This is certainly true, and an option. However, with the shot clock, there comes the issues of malfunction, paying a worker to do it, training that worker, also no replay to make certain of the time that should be up there... with the backcourt call/line, there is none of these issues...so if i was to make a change in one way or the other, it wouldn't be to add a shot clock and eliminate the backcourt call. "Seek significant change." ~ John Wooden.

It's a good thing that rarely happens, then...

I also hear some people say in these posts about a shot clock would separate good coaches from bad coaches... are bad coaches the only ones not wanting a shot clock? I believe, that a shot clock actually would take an element of coaching away from the good coaches. A shot clock would force all teams to play within a boxed pace of play.... which eliminates parts of strategy that is beneficial to the game. Before 1933, there was no 10-second rule for the ball to cross half court. The rule has been beneficial for defenses. In the early 2000's the NBA and FIBA changed it to 8 seconds while college, high school, middle, and elementary have kept it at 10 seconds. Should all basketball levels also change that to 8 seconds? I don't think so. What would be the benefit? We don't need to box players and coaches into a certain pace of play. Various styles and strategies are what makes our game unique, fun and beneficial to the masses. It also allows good coaching strategies (either fast or slow pace of play).

I like the shot clock for the defensive purposes of it... there is no doubt that it will benefit defense much more than offense.... however, it is precisely these scenarios that make me think otherwise... Why would the offense "have to" give up possession.... that is the benefit of being up at the end of a game... you get a chance to control to ball (well coached, fundamental teams, with a good strategic plan will do just this). If the defense wants it, then they must do to get it. They must earn the possession of the ball. I don't think a rule should punish the team that has earned the lead in the first 31 mins and 15 seconds of the game, yet benefit the team who is behind... so they don't have to "extend" they defense for the last 45 secs of the game.

The game is not broken. I hear on this post about growing the game... i question is our game dying? Is the point about growing the game for more student-athletes to play? If not, in what way are we trying to grow the game? I'm not sure players quit playing basketball because they don't play with a shot clock. Nonetheless, I see the value in all the points that have been made. Both sides. I, however, am not in favor due to the question that still yet to be answered: Why change the game for 3% when the 97% will not need it. The major reason that most people want to establish a shot clock to "prepare kids for the next level". There are other places for that... and only 3% get that chance anyway. Also, the great John Wooden once said in his 12 lessons of leadership: " Seek significant change." I'm good with change... but not all change is good. The other biggest reason for shot clock is to quit allowing teams to stall the ball. First, the team that is stalling is most likely a lesser talented team and using that strategy to have a better chance of winning (which about 85% of the time that doesn't happen anyway, but gives a closer game). Stalling only occurs in about 1% of games nationally. That's not enough for me to decide to change a rule. Also, shouldn't the defense try to "steal" the ball if another team has it? If ateam is getting stalled on, shouldn't they turn up the pressure and trap more. The offense shouldn't "have" to give the ball away to the other team... if you want, take it. European players are seemingly more fundamentally sound that American players. I wouldn't say all of them however. We onlysee the better teams, leagues, games, players on film/video... not the majority of them. Captnoname said it right though, they practice much more than Americans... they routinely put in 6-8 hours daily vs 2-3 for Americans. That is probably why they are more fundamental much more than implementing the shot clock. Someone mentioned that coaches who don't want the shot clock are just being lazy and scared of change. Not a good assumption... I don't want a shot clock, I coach in a very tough league, and I consider myself to be a very diligent worker. I am always trying to be creative and innovative... to give my teams the best chance they can have to win. We have played multiple different styles... and we have won games in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 100's, and even 110's all in the same year. We play a style that gives the best chance of winning vs our opponents. I'm all for change and innovation, however, I don't feel this would be the best case. I would rather have a 4 point line than a shot clock. Less variables that could go wrong, plus the spacing would become so much better in the game, thus allowing more skilled players to make greater impact. Just a thought.

I have a question, maybe I'm missing something... but how does a shot clock improve fundamental skills, coaching, team defense, or anything like that? If I'm not mistaken, the good teams are those proficient in those areas already. In my observation, the professional and college game have many poor possessions because of the shot clock winding down. These are guys who are the top players, and coaches, and still they struggle to get better than 50% of quality shots; not make those shots... most of those shots are not by a set play or some grand design, rather give the ball to your best player and high ball screen. Let's look at the numbers... In the NBA, according to nba.com/stats, there were 516 total players who took a shot at the end of the shot clock (4 secs or less). Of those 516 players (some who only shot 1 time for 100%) only 69 were over 50% makes (that is 13.4% for you math nerds). Even deeper, the 50 players who took the most shots at the end the shot clock, obviously the best players on the teams, (thus the world) averaged only 36.32% FG shooting (2's and 3's combined). I'm not saying I have all the answers, but by the evidence, it doesn't seem like the shot clock helps any player with fundamentals, shooting %, preparation for late game situations, etc... which all of those should be practiced during the actual practice anyway. Good coaches and teams are practicing those. What I do see, is the best coaches in the world, resort to giving their best player or playmaker the ball with a high ball screen near the end of the shot clock. Also, the average per game scoring has actually been down from the previous averages for the states that have implemented the shot clock. The reason is that the defense can take advantage of the clock and do some creative things to hinder the offensive flow. Thus, the fact again, at the end of the shot clock, the best players get the ball in a high ball screen and are relied upon to make a play. If the best players in the world average 36.32%, what do you think an average high school player will shoot? While I like the idea of being creative defensively, and causing some havoc that way, I must question whether or not the rules should change to hinder the 97% of players.

There are arguments on both sides. 1) There is strategy with and without the shot clock. Strategy without is shortening the game by keeping the clock running and in your possession. Nothing wrong with that. There are definitely times for it. Strategy with a shot clock would be packing defense in (zone or packline man) until the shot clock gets down (under 10) and then playing defense from that point. Neither are good or bad. Just strategy. 2) The average scores will actually be lower with a shot clock. The reason is there will be more poor quality shots attempted because the offense has to shoot it. Thus, the defense knows when they will shoot. Also, goes back to the strategy I mentioned earlier. 3) More 1v1 high ball screen.... late clock situation, NBA, college, FIBA, EUROLeagues, any basketball league..... late clock, give the ball to your best player and PNR to try to free him up or exploit a mismatch. 4) Cost would be an issue... but not as much as people think. The real issue is the quality of control with the clock operator itself. Many times NBA and college games have to have replay to determine the shot clock reset, etc. HS doesn't have replay.... unless that's the next thing they decide to put in place for HS to be more like college/NBA. 5) NBA is different than college. College is different than HS. I think it's good. No need to change to make it the same. Yes, HS basketball is entertaining, but no need to make it all about the entertainment or money. It's about the kids. 6) Lastly, and most importantly.......... scores like 6-4 are more on the defense than the offense. The ball is the most important thing in the game. If a team is holding the ball, and you want it, you must do something to try to get it. If not, be content to let them hold it. It's on the defense. I don't like the thought that the defense doesn't have to do anything to make the offense shoot... just stay in a zone and the time will run out... that's not good basketball. Guarantee there will be more zone played in basketball if there is a shot clock.

Depends... did the team i was rooting for have 6? haha

Football going to the spring wouldn't be such a bad idea... it makes more sense in more ways than just the COVID-19 pandemic. The only down side is that some football coaches would want the footballers to be lifting during baseball and basketball seasons... I'm sure they will work with the basketball coaches; I mean, basketball and baseball coaches have always had to work with them to share athletes... so they will return the favor...

Question: what about when a more athletic and obviously better team is in the lead, and they pull it out to run clock late in game... knowing that the other team can't guard them in man-man defense... I guess that isn't good basketball? Is that bad coaching? I'm pretty sure that's a strategy that could help the team win.... so why is it looked down upon if someone does the same thing throughout the game? Isn't that a strategy to help their team win? Also, it happens so rarely.. this shouldn't be a discussion... TO THOSE WHO CONSTANTLY SAY THAT ITS IN THE NBA AND NCAA, GET READY ITS GOING TO HAPPEN IN HIGH SCHOOL SOON: Not all rules trickle down... There is a defensive 3 second rule in NBA... but that's taught as a good defensive strategy in other levels of basketball. Also, the lane is wider... should that trickle down as well? Should we allow this changes to trickle down to Middle School level, or Elementary level... or rec ball? Could you see an elementary game with a shot clock... little Johnny going 1v1 (or 1v5) to get a shot off every trip... the team game wouldn't be taught at all... it would be to get the ball into your best players hands every possession, and let him/her try to make a play, most likely from a ball screen. (kinda sounds like the NBA) There is nothing wrong with the game not having a shot clock. We don't need to change just for the sake of change... in the words of the Great Coach John Wooden as one of his 12 lessons of leadership: "Seek SIGNIFICANT change." I'm not sure it enhances the high school level game.

Many good points in both ways. I can see value in it both ways. However, one of biggest reasons that people are for a shot clock is that "holding the ball ins't basketball". You hear it in every argument for a shot clock. My response is that if a team is holding the ball for minutes at a time... that's on the defense, not the offense. The defense is allowing that to happen. Also, this happens very rarely. I also wouldn't make changes to rules (or laws for the matter) for a small minority of the population. 3% roughly will go on the play college basketball. Those players are already playing aau with shot clock and thus are being prepared for it... the better way to prepare the player for the next level is by helping become a well rounded player and person through fundamentals, accountability, and hard work. In coaching, the object is to give your team the best chance they have to win. If keeping the ball in your favor gives your team the best chance to win, then do it. I know that many will think I'm an old school and don't like to play an exciting style of ball. I've been a part of teams that have won games in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60', 70's, 80's, 90's, and 110's (yep, skipped 100's) in the same year. I believe teams can win in multiple different ways. Teams that typically make double digit three pointers on any given night. However, play styles that help your team win...that's what smart coaches do. I feel with a shot clock, it will become more of a game about who has the most athletic players.. and coaching will be less influential. A question I have is this: why is forcing a team to shoot part of basketball? Isn't basketball about defending your own goal and trying to score in the other person's goal. Why should I have to take a shot that I don't want to. Possession of the ball is very important. Look at how many bad shots are taken at the end of quarters now... there are only 4 opportunities in a regulation high school game to shoot when the clock is winding down (unless overtimes). Of those 4 opportunities, how many high quality shots are taken? Very few. Most come down to a 1v1 contested shot or a long 3...each with poor offensive movement. The ball is very precious...the most precious thing in the game... without it you can't play... possession of it is the key.