Shot Clock

[JPW4Heisman07]

Just give your opinion....Yes or No?In many ways I see it has positive and negative effects on the game.Negative:Many schools don't have the money to install 2 shot clocks,that and finding a clock operator is hard enough.Positive:It takes keep away style of play away,so the games won't be as boring when you play a team that likes the keep away.Overall,I think a 35 second shot clock could work,but the negative I mentioned,really does bite this idea in the behind.

[muffin]

No.

[N2Choctaws]

Just give your opinion....Yes or No?In many ways I see it has positive and negative effects on the game.Negative:Many schools don't have the money to install 2 shot clocks,that and finding a clock operator is hard enough.Positive:It takes keep away style of play away,so the games won't be as boring when you play a team that likes the keep away.Overall,I think a 35 second shot clock could work,but the negative I mentioned,really does bite this idea in the behind.

 

At high school level? No

 

1. You already have the 5 second closely guarded rule.

2. Scorers have enough trouble keeping up with the alternate possession arrow.

3. Allows more options for coaches to develop a style of play that matches their level of talent.

[JPW4Heisman07]

Good answer muffin.But why?I also think it wouldn't work,but no explaination?

Edited January 7, 2007 by JPW4Heisman07

[greenwheel]

I say no.

 

I don't think it's needed. I see over 100 games a year and I seldom see a team hold the ball for long periods of time.

[JPW4Heisman07]

Yet I can't help but wonder,what some scores could look like.I honestly think,the scoring would go up.But,I still keep my opinion at no.

[muffin]

Good answer muffin.But why?I also think it wouldn't work,but no explaination?

He wanted a yes or no answer,no comment.

[greenwheel]

Yet I can't help but wonder,what some scores could look like.I honestly think,the scoring would go up.But,I still keep my opinion at no.

 

 

I'm not sure they would. In the games I've seen the shot clock would have seldom come into play. And remember a shot clock won't make the teams shoot better, they are still going to hit about 30% of their shots.

[Rangerbook06]

Actullay, I would like to see a shot clock. But i wouldn't want it any shorter than 45 seconds... Maybe a 55 second or a minute long shot clock would be good. Just enough to keep a team from holding it forever... You see alot of that here in the east.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Rangerbook06

[Guest dare_2_dream]

I would like to see one. 35 seconds is plenty long I think.

[midstateAPvoter]

I say no.

 

I don't think it's needed. I see over 100 games a year and I seldom see a team hold the ball for long periods of time.

I agree But the use of a shot clock would hurt the weaker teams. Weaker teams sometimes try to shorten the games.

[sum1uno]

I say no...It's hard for small schools playing schools with taller players if they have a shot clock. Some well coached kids will pass the ball around for well past 35 seconds looking for the open shot. Coaches with taller players will just sit back in a zone waiting for the rebound. When you force them to play man to man they will get beat alot of times. If you place the shot clock in then you've taken away the only equalizer a smaller team has against a zone defense.