Each year, it seems, slowdown tactics employed by coaches during a tournament game or two spur renewed conversation about adding a shot clock to high school basketball in Maine.
While the National Federation of State High School Associations has voted against a national rule to institute a shot clock as recently as 2011, six states — California, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Washington — have followed the lead of the professional and college ranks and added the device for both boys and girls basketball, while Massachusetts and Maryland have a shot clock for girls basketball.
The move is designed to pick up the pace and scoring within the game and perhaps with it increase attendance, which according to the NFHS has been dropping nationwide for high school basketball in recent years.
One primary concern put forward against adding shot clocks at the high school level is economic: the clocks themselves cost in excess of $2,000, plus the additional cost of hiring a shot clock operator for 18 regular-season boys and girls home games each year just at the varsity level, not to mention subvarsity contests.
The thought here is that a shot clock isn’t necessary in Maine — figuring out a way to improve shooting accuracy should be the bigger emphasis.
I’ve come across few instances in recent years when a shot clock violation might occur more than once or twice in any game.
But what’s bogging the game down is that players increasingly are struggling to make shots either from the field or from the free-throw line.
While many coaches would suggest that 70 percent is a reasonable hope for players shooting from the free-throw line, I would estimate the true average in games these days is much closer to 55 percent for most teams.
And from personal observation, teams generally are fortunate to shoot 40 percent from the field in a given game, with the rate from beyond the 3-point arc much lower while those long-range shots account for between 25 and 33 percent of all attempts.
I can’t tell you how many 3-for-14 nights from beyond the arc I’ve charted for teams during the last few seasons.
The reason for the decreasing shooting rates are varied, among them the increased coaching emphasis on defense, the lack of players just going out and working on their shooting skills individually outside of game or scrimmage situations and the 3-point arc itself that has diminished the higher-percentage midrange game.
A shot clock might address the occasional delay tactics, but it won’t by itself increase scoring and with it the related entertainment value of the sport.
Instead it’s likely to rush players into taking lower-percentage shots even sooner than they do now.
A shot clock at the high school level would only make play worse then it already is. Defensive pressure would increase in an effort to force an offense to hurry their plays, thus creating more fouling and more poor shooting and more poor free throw shooting. The high school game in Maine is bad enough already. Get rid of the 3 point line and let’s get back to having more offensive movement, a 15 foot jump shot and some low post play. We have too many “athletes” playing basketball and not enough basketball players playing basketball. Just like the NBA.
Get rid of the 3-point line? Yeah, OK Cim ;)
I see this in every hs game played in Mass. We have a shot clock for both boys and girls
Mass. has a shot clock for Boys too. As an official down here it makes for sloppy play to officiate but the action is constant which helps officials stay on our toes.
A shot clock will move the game along. For a team to build, say a ten point lead, and the play pass the ball around to protect that lead makes for a very boring game. As I recall years age such a tactic was known as the Bangor Stall. The shot clock should be used.
Yes, it should. If a team is stalling in a tourney game, I’d hate to be the fans that shell out 20 bucks for tickets, or the media members who have to cover the snooze-fest. The John Bapst girls did this last year (what a shock, right?) and it sparked similar outcry to the Lee-Penquis game referred to here.
AFTER WATCHING THE OVERTIME GAME BETWEEN LEE AND PENQUIS I BELIEVE IT WAS IT WAS CLEAR TO ME WE NEED A CHANGE IF NOT A SHOT CLOCK THEN WHAT? EVERY TIME LEE WOULD WIN THE TIP WITH A TALLER PLAYER AND HOLD THE BALL FOR THE LAST SHOT NOT ONLY IS IT BORING BUT IT TELLS BOTH TEAMS THAT IF YOU HAVE THE TALLEST
PLAYER OFTEN YOU WILL CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THE OVERTIME GAME BY HOLDING THE BALL UNTIL THE LAST SHOT CHANCE. SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE HERE AND I DIDNT ROUTE FOR EITHER TEAM FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH
A study in Maine a few years ago showed shots in high school were being taken on average in under 25 seconds. So I guess you’d set the shot clock at, what, 20 seconds? Doesn’t sound like basketball to me. Watch a pro game. Count how many shots taken we “hurried” shots, off balance shots, non-senible shots taken only because the clock was running out and never would be taken without a clock. As for the all wonderful, all exciting three-point shot, for every story you read that a three-pointer brought a team back for a win, there are 99 stories that aren’t written when a team shoots itself out of a game with missed 3-pointers. Don’t ask why shot percentages from the floor are bad. And a clock would make it worse. And Dave – PLEASE DON’T YELL AT ME. WHAT HAVE I EVER DONE TO YOU TO GET YELLED AT?
We need to get in step with the times and get shot clocks.
I think you should get your facts straight before you write about something Ma. boys basketball has has a shot clock for over 20 years. Best thing to happen to both boys and girls basketbal;. it makes the much exciting. Also gets those go to the level better prepared.