Basketball NFHS votes to allow shot clocks by state adoption beginning in 2022-23

[Alum-Ni]

Shot clocks could be coming to Nebraska high school basketball

Shot clocks could be coming to Nebraska high school basketball after the national governing body announced that state associations can decide whether to adopt their use.

omaha.com

Shot clock coming to high school basketball. But probably not in Indiana.

IHSAA commissioner Paul Neidig said the shot clock discussion will require further study. But his personal opinion on making a change seems unfavorable.

www.indystar.com

NFHS says states can adopt shot clocks for high school games. How soon can it happen in Nebraska?

Some states, including South Dakota and Texas, have shot clocks, which have become a hot topic in recent years at state tournaments.

journalstar.com

Today the National Federation of High Schools voted to allow state associations, such as the NSAA, to adopt the use of shot clocks, beginning in 2022-23. Currently eight states (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Washington) allow and use shot clocks, but forfeited their seats on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee by doing so. Georgia recently voted last June to adopt a shot clock in 2022-23.

The NFHS will allow states to implement a 35-second shot clock. In Nebraska, a shot clock proposal would have to begin with a request for use by a member school, and then the proposal would have to go through two rounds of legislative district voting before the NSAA Board of Directors could approve it.

Guidelines from the NFHS include using two shot-clock displays that are connected to a horn that is distinctive from the game-clock horn, and using an alternative timing device, such as a stopwatch at the scorer's table, for a shot-clock malfunction. The guidelines allow for corrections to the shot clock only during the shot-clock period in which an error occurred and the officials have definite information relative to the mistake or malfunction.

 

[fbnut999]

Not for this. Maybe I'm just an old guy, but I don't think this helps the game at all. In fact, it hurts it. We're going to see a ton of terrible 25-foot shots thrown up with the shot clock winding down. Or we'll have guards who think they need to create themselves in the last five seconds of the shot clock and they'll end up turning it over or throwing up some crazy, terrible shot.

In addition, how many possessions actually last more than 35 seconds in Nebraska high school basketball? Not very many--and if you take out the last minute of each half, I'd say that number is VERY small.

And I know that schools already have a tough time getting volunteers to run the clock or keep the book. Now, they'll need another person to run the shot clock?

I don't think it's worth it.

 

[nenebskers]

Not for this. Maybe I'm just an old guy, but I don't think this helps the game at all. In fact, it hurts it. We're going to see a ton of terrible 25-foot shots thrown up with the shot clock winding down. Or we'll have guards who think they need to create themselves in the last five seconds of the shot clock and they'll end up turning it over or throwing up some crazy, terrible shot.

In addition, how many possessions actually last more than 35 seconds in Nebraska high school basketball? Not very many--and if you take out the last minute of each half, I'd say that number is VERY small.

And I know that schools already have a tough time getting volunteers to run the clock or keep the book. Now, they'll need another person to run the shot clock?

I don't think it's worth it.

Not sure it will create a ton of 25 foot shots. Hopefully it will however increase ball movement and force teams get into their offense quicker. I think we may see more zone defense as many teams in the lower level classes don't have enough shooters or skilled enough players to know how to attack it and they end up passing the ball around the perimeter without ever really attacking.

I'm not necessarily a fan or not a fan of the shot clock at the high school level. I think one easy change to help with the flow of the game could have been to switch to two halves instead of four quarters. Limit the opportunity for teams to hold the ball for the last 60 seconds.

 

[Alum-Ni]

Not sure it will create a ton of 25 foot shots. Hopefully it will however increase ball movement and force teams get into their offense quicker. I think we may see more zone defense as many teams in the lower level classes don't have enough shooters or skilled enough players to know how to attack it and they end up passing the ball around the perimeter without ever really attacking.

I'm not necessarily a fan or not a fan of the shot clock at the high school level. I think one easy change to help with the flow of the game could have been to switch to two halves instead of four quarters. Limit the opportunity for teams to hold the ball for the last 60 seconds.

There's already a ton of zone defense in high school....which has led to a lot dribble, kick out, shoot the 3.

 

[nenebskers]

There's already a ton of zone defense in high school....which has led to a lot dribble, kick out, shoot the 3.

Don't disagree on a ton of zone defenses already. Lot less dribble and kickout however in the lower levels, especially the poorer teams and a lot more slow passing around with no real attack. Teams play it because many offenses can not effectively attack it. My fear is that with a shot clock this will increase.

 

[Alum-Ni]

Don't disagree on a ton of zone defenses already. Lot less dribble and kickout however in the lower levels, especially the poorer teams and a lot more slow passing around with no real attack. Teams play it because many offenses can not effectively attack it. My fear is that with a shot clock this will increase.

I kinda keep going back and forth on the shot clock issue. But I guess I lean towards not implementing it because I'm just not sure it will really "improve" the game.

You have more kids now than ever playing summer ball, club ball, AAU ball.....that should make them better ball players, right? But if you look at statistics over the last 25-30 years, very few teams are able to score like teams 30+ years ago were. Why is that?

Well, the physicality of the game has changed and freedom of movement is much less than it used to be. There is more of an emphasis by coaches on defense. I still think the "drive & kick" and isolation basketball has led to a lot of the basketball that is often criticized today....lots of offenses just rely on a kid or two to drive into traffic and kick out for a three attempt (it may be fun to watch, but leads to a lot of low-percentage shots). Seems to be rarer and rarer to find the players that can consistently hit the 12 to 15-foot elbow jumper because it is not coached or practiced much anymore. The top kids in each state are absolutely freaks and monsters in the sport, but overall, with all the kids that play year-round organized basketball, I don't know that team play has improved that much and I'm not sure a shot clock will rectify that.

With all that, I think a lot of the 38-35 type of games in high school will still be 38-35 games, just with more shot attempts. But I do think a shot clock will eventually be adopted in Nebraska....at least at the upper classes.

 

[mgbreis]

I'm not for or against the shot clock, but I'm for whatever changes can be made to prevent a team with a 6 point lead trying to dribble out the clock with 4-5 minutes to play. Sorry, I know what most of you will say but I hate it.

 

[Alum-Ni]

I'm not for or against the shot clock, but I'm for whatever changes can be made to prevent a team with a 6 point lead trying to dribble out the clock with 4-5 minutes to play. Sorry, I know what most of you will say but I hate it.

I get it, but I see plenty of teams that just sit back and let teams dribble it out. Go pressure the ball, force a closely guarded count, force a pass.......I guess that's just me.

 

[runningback43]

The shot clock will prevent teams from holding the ball intentionally on offense. Anybody that witnessed the Class B and C1 state championship games can see evidence of why the shot clock is needed. Class B teams combined for 70 points in overtime and C1 teams combined for a total of 74 points.

 

[Alum-Ni]

The shot clock will prevent teams from holding the ball intentionally on offense. Anybody that witnessed the Class B and C1 state championship games can see evidence of why the shot clock is needed. Class B teams combined for 70 points in overtime and C1 teams combined for a total of 74 points.

A shot clock will increase number of possessions, I'm just not sure it will significantly increase scoring.

 

[runningback43]

A shot clock will increase number of possessions, I'm just not sure it will significantly increase scoring.

I think it would have dramatically increased scoring in the Class B and C1 state finals. Not saying the games would have been 70-68, but they might have been at least 58-56 type of games. Those two finals were snooze fests.

 

[nenebskers]

I kinda keep going back and forth on the shot clock issue. But I guess I lean towards not implementing it because I'm just not sure it will really "improve" the game.

You have more kids now than ever playing summer ball, club ball, AAU ball.....that should make them better ball players, right? But if you look at statistics over the last 25-30 years, very few teams are able to score like teams 30+ years ago were. Why is that?

Well, the physicality of the game has changed and freedom of movement is much less than it used to be. There is more of an emphasis by coaches on defense. I still think the "drive & kick" and isolation basketball has led to a lot of the basketball that is often criticized today....lots of offenses just rely on a kid or two to drive into traffic and kick out for a three attempt (it may be fun to watch, but leads to a lot of low-percentage shots). Seems to be rarer and rarer to find the players that can consistently hit the 12 to 15-foot elbow jumper because it is not coached or practiced much anymore. The top kids in each state are absolutely freaks and monsters in the sport, but overall, with all the kids that play year-round organized basketball, I don't know that team play has improved that much and I'm not sure a shot clock will rectify that.

With all that, I think a lot of the 38-35 type of games in high school will still be 38-35 games, just with more shot attempts. But I do think a shot clock will eventually be adopted in Nebraska....at least at the upper classes.

100% spot on.

 

[bballcoach15]

And I know that schools already have a tough time getting volunteers to run the clock or keep the book. Now, they'll need another person to run the shot clock?

This argument (that is a widespread "con" against having a shot clock) that more people are needed to work if a shot clock is implemented is not true. Do you need someone who knows the rules (when to reset the shot clock)? Yes. But saying that you need another body is incorrect. Many, if not all, schools use Daktronics equipment for their scoreboard. Here is an example of the remote for starting the game clock (when the game clock runs, the shot clock runs) and also sports an extra button for resetting the shot clock. Usually these remotes only have one button on them that is for the "horn" when no shot clock is needed. Does it make the clock operator's job more difficult? Absolutely. But is a whole new body needed to run it? Nope

 

[Alum-Ni]

This argument (that is a widespread "con" against having a shot clock) that more people are needed to work if a shot clock is implemented is not true. Do you need someone who knows the rules (when to reset the shot clock)? Yes. But saying that you need another body is incorrect. Many, if not all, schools use Daktronics equipment for their scoreboard. Here is an example of the remote for starting the game clock (when the game clock runs, the shot clock runs) and also sports an extra button for resetting the shot clock. Usually these remotes only have one button on them that is for the "horn" when no shot clock is needed. Does it make the clock operator's job more difficult? Absolutely. But is a whole new body needed to run it? Nope

For starters, not everyone in the state uses Daktroncis, so setups are dissimilar.

Secondly, I think schools will be required to have a separate body to just run the shot clock....there's just too much action going on there to have the main scoreboard operator also run the shot clock, IMO.

 

[runningback43]

For starters, not everyone in the state uses Daktroncis, so setups are dissimilar.

Secondly, I think schools will be required to have a separate body to just run the shot clock....there's just too much action going on there to have the main scoreboard operator also run the shot clock, IMO.

True on the fact that not every school uses Daktronic.

Even if it does require an extra person, I doubt very many schools have problems finding someone capable of running it. AD's are just going to have to ask people for help.

 

[Wildcat1621]

True on the fact that not every school uses Daktronic.

Even if it does require an extra person, I doubt very many schools have problems finding someone capable of running it. AD's are just going to have to ask people for help.

Going with the assumption that runningback43 has never been an AD. Asking people for help, and getting people to help = two completely different things.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a shot clock.
But, finding qualified help to run it is going to be a nightmare.

Also -- I would not want to officiate any games that first or second year....there will be so many stoppages to try to clean up the messes of poorly ran shot clocks. It will be fun to watch.

 

[runningback43]

You assume wrong Wildcat. I was an AD for several years. Don't get me wrong, it's a pain in the butt to get every game covered, but it's not impossible to find people to help.

 

[Wildcat1621]

You assume wrong Wildcat. I was an AD for several years. Don't get me wrong, it's a pain in the butt to get every game covered, but it's not impossible to find people to help.

That's why they caution against making assumptions. LOL.

My hats off to you. Anybody that serves as an AD should get a pat on the back.

 

[ACICOD]

I'm in favor of a shot clock. To do it right at the high school level, however, you need two people. One person dedicated to the shot clock, while another is dedicated to the game clock, plus keeping score/fouls/timeouts etc....

Just my two cents.

 

[liltoad_99]

I think it would have dramatically increased scoring in the Class B and C1 state finals. Not saying the games would have been 70-68, but they might have been at least 58-56 type of games. Those two finals were snooze fests.

In the class C1 final...there was 1 possession in the 1st half that lasted longer than 40 seconds...1...the first one of the game. The teams shot 18% and 38% in the half, and that's with Auburn shooting 78% in the first quarter. Sorry a shot clock won't increase scoring. It'll show who coaches better and implements better strategy down the stretch of games though.

 

[northeastNebraska]

As many have stated, a shot clock may not increase scoring, but it will increase possessions. Which IMO, makes for better basketball. 35 seconds is plenty of time to get a good look. If you aren't going to shoot the ball pass it. If you want the ball, move to get open.

I would like to see it, but I know it's a long road to get it in Nebraska because we have too many small schools. Maybe if we didn't have over 100 Class D schools to put these machines in, it could be an easier pill to swallow. If the shot clock passed, I think after 3-4 years the shot clock wouldn't even be talked about. It would just be part of the game.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

The shot clock would not have changed the complexity of the C1 or B state final games. Those games were low scoring because of intense defense. I thought the finals of both Girls and Boys basketball featured some of the best defense I have seen in years.

@liltoad_99 mentioned the shooting percentages above. Those are good shooting teams that just struggled to find good looks because of the defense.

So, what do I think will change with a shot clock. The transition game will change. Teams will start running even more of a transition game, even off of a made shot. It will be reckless abandon for a couple years and then it will fall into line. That is my prediction.

 

[fbnut999]

Agree with Alum-Ni. It MIGHT increase the number of possessions (again, I would like to know how many possessions lasted more than 35 seconds in 2020-21). 35 seconds is a long time to have a possession! How many possessions lasted more than 35 seconds in the B or C1 championship games this season?

But a shot clock is not going to prevent great defense from being played (in fact, it might even HELP the defenses). Teams that don't shoot the ball well with no shot clock are still going to shoot poorly with a shot clock.

I liked the idea posted earlier of going to 2 halves instead of 4 quarters. That would prevent teams from running the clock down 3-4 times a game to just 1-2. But even then, I haven't seen many teams hold the ball for the last shot with 45-50 seconds left in the quarter. 20 seconds? Yes! 30 seconds--probably a few more. However, at a number of schools I watched play last season, the team literally could not hold the ball for more than 35 seconds without turning it over!

 

[tr50]

My 2 cents (which is exactly what it's worth)...1. You create more scoring by teaching kids to hit 15 footers instead of 25 footers. 2. The shot clock will create higher discrepancies in scores between good and bad teams....50-31 games will now be 70-31 games. 3. I've been to many games over the past 30 years (C1-D2) and it's amazing how many schools can't find someone qualified to run a scoreboard, I think this problem will be enhanced with a shot clock. I'm not against the proposed change, but the growing pains will really hurt. I agree with a previous poster....officiating will be a nightmare to start, and the person running the shot clock better have thick skin.

 

[liltoad_99]

As many have stated, a shot clock may not increase scoring, but it will increase possessions. Which IMO, makes for better basketball. 35 seconds is plenty of time to get a good look. If you aren't going to shoot the ball pass it. If you want the ball, move to get open.

I would like to see it, but I know it's a long road to get it in Nebraska because we have too many small schools. Maybe if we didn't have over 100 Class D schools to put these machines in, it could be an easier pill to swallow. If the shot clock passed, I think after 3-4 years the shot clock wouldn't even be talked about. It would just be part of the game.

The one good thing for those in favor of a shot clock...it can be classed by class. So A and B could vote it in and C and D don’t have too. That may get it in those bigger schools first. The one drawback I’ll mention is that the cost is $6,000-$8,000 to install the shot clocks based on the information I’ve collected.

 

[northeastNebraska]

The one good thing for those in favor of a shot clock...it can be classed by class. So A and B could vote it in and C and D don’t have too. That may get it in those bigger schools first. The one drawback I’ll mention is that the cost is $6,000-$8,000 to install the shot clocks based on the information I’ve collected.

Agreed. If a C1 schools plays at a Class B school that has shot clock, they play the game with shot clock. The next year the B team travels to the C1 school, they don’t play with it.

 

[Alum-Ni]

The one good thing for those in favor of a shot clock...it can be classed by class. So A and B could vote it in and C and D don’t have too. That may get it in those bigger schools first. The one drawback I’ll mention is that the cost is $6,000-$8,000 to install the shot clocks based on the information I’ve collected.

$6-8k at a minimum