you are missing the point...having a shot clock isn't about winning or not winning. You can win or lose under either approach. You are just complaining that you don't like how you have to win in a world with a shot clock because you can't opt to bore your team to tears.
HS Shot Clock
- Thread starter Green&Black
- Start date
I didn't miss your point. I do not bite my team when we feel the need to slow the ball down. Point is, you like a certain style of play and the strategy of holding the ball you do not like. That's fine. Like I said before, we do what we need to win. We have played up tempo against certain teams and we have slowed the game down against others. If you don't want a team to slow the ball down then come out, pressure us and make us shoot or turn us over. When an opponent "stands" there and allows an offense to hold the ball then it's just as much fault on the defense not playing defense than it is for the offense to slow the game down.
The shot clock is for entertainment, which is your interest (and there is nothing wrong with that).
Good luck
Hopefully they finally catch up to the times and get a shot clock soon. Bring an end to the stall game and bad teams winning games.
I guess only good teams play the style you are most interested in. I guess you would call Coach Dean Smith's four corners offense a "bad team." Getting with the times? Coach Smith ran this back in the 1980's. Holding the ball to control the tempo was and still is an art of the game. Only a well disciplined team can do it consistently. I would not call a team who executes during a particular game "bad." The point you miss is if a team holds the ball against another team, then by all means pressure the ball and make the offense shoot or turn it over. I don't see how hard this is to figure out. The only thing I can figure out is defense isn't taught like it used to be. Therefore, in theory if a team is more athletic than their opponents and the less athletic team is "stalling," then the more athletic team should apply defense pressure to force their opponent into playing a different tempo. It seems simple to me. I don't need shot clock for that. I don't understand why a shot clock fixes "stalling." Defense defend, don't stand there and look at the offense hold the ball. Defense get out, get all over them and force the offense to do what the defense wants them to do. That theory, the game of basketball ends "stalling" not a shot clock that will just add more confusion to the game and one more thing for officials and scorekeepers to mess up. There will be arguments on when the shot clock was started and when it should have been started. This would happen well over a 100 possessions a game. What's next? Instant replay?
Last edited:
The argument can easily be made that it is not the better teams but the more athletic, less disciplined teams that you want to benefit. If I am slower but am fundamentally sound and disciplined and can run my offense until the right shot opens up (even it that is two minutes) shame on you for not being able to force me into a mistake to take the ball away from me. Teach the kids to play D instead of worrying about the entertainment of it. I always thought that students of the game could appreciate good defense and all around play as much as caring about getting a lot of shots up.
Thank You. The more possessions, the more shots a team takes. With this philosophy a team doesn't have to shoot a high percentage to be successful. They can even turn the ball over more and get away with it a little because of the number of possessions they will get.
Proves that the "times" are teaching less fundamentals, less defense, and less discipline. That's a shame.
I'm sure all of these same arguments against a shot clock were used by traditionalists in the 1970's and 80's, too. And it hasn't exactly ruined the NBA and NCAA games. I don't think there's anything that confusing about the concept of a shot clock. It's only a matter of time. No doubt it would create a more entertaining game.
We haven't been discussing NBA and NCAA. Play defense and stalling isn't an issue. Why are we afraid of a disciplined team who takes the best shot within an offense? The simple solution is playing defense, not relying on a shot clock so I only have to defend for 40 seconds (or whatever the time is). Sounds like you want a shot clock to bail out the defense for not wanting to defend and penalize a fundamentally sound, well disciplined team for running an offense so you can be entertained.
Good luck
Obviously we don't agree and we won't. But here is my main reason why I do not feel in my opinion a shot clock is needed.
Example: I watched a team almost pull off an upset of a #1 seed team in districts. This team was beat 30 the two previous times they played. They slowed the game down and held the ball. Lost by 11 but gave his kids a chance to win because the two previous times they played they lost by 30. If they play the same style as they did the previous two games, they probably get the same result in a 30 point loss. In this case the style they played gave their players confidence in their play by changing style of play for one game to keep the game close enough to give them a shot at the end of the game. Those players ended their season with an 11 point loss vs a 30 point beat down. If there is a shot clock, they probably get beat 30 because his team is less talented. In this particular game, the defense stood in a zone and allowed their opponent to run off time when they would not defend? So who is at fault for you not being entertained? Offense? Defense? The team with the better athletes and skilled players stood and looked a the less athletic, less skilled team while on defense. Their decision to not defend in this game allowed their opponent to almost pull it off. I don't see how that is not entertaining.
I don't see how you find a shot clock entertaining your opinion to "speed the game up" when in this particular game the game was close until the end. If there were a shot clock, the team gets beat 30 and the turbo clock is running in the fourth quarter. I DO NOT see entertainment in 30 point blowouts but in this case and the case of other games where a team was disciplined and patient, it WAS ENTERTAINING.
Good Luck
I know the players will never have a say in this debate, but I wander what the players would like: shot clock or keep it the same. Just curious!
I know my players want to win and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. Most players I know and I can only speak for a few don't care one way or another.
Glad you enjoyed a tight game between the teams. I'm sure it was a lot of fun to watch. So were James Naismith's PE classes.
Good luck.
You said entertainment and I gave you an example of an entertaining game that was not your up tempo style you like. As for Dr Naismith, I have heard they tried the shot clock in one of his classes, but it didn't work out because he taught defense and the defense didn't allow the offense to hold the ball. Therefore the shot clock was not needed because they defended the ball and forced the offense to play their style.
Have a nice day.
Rufus needs to tell us what team he supports and backs in HS basketball. I'm guessing an athletic team that gets up and down the floor and wants to win with more possessions, less fundamental offense and defense. I would also argue that the NCAA and NBA recruit and draft based on offensive ability. HS coaches don't have the luxury unless they are a private school and can pick and choose who they want. If a coach can teach strategy and get his less athletic players to be fundamentally sound it sounds like a pretty good coach to me.
Don't think they need a shot clock, it works fine with the 5 second rule that stops a player from holding the ball. If a team can play good defense and trap the ball, it won't matter much. I rarely see a high school team that can delay too long without either turning it over or finding a good shot that they just can't pass up.
