The High School Shot Clock

A video of a high-school boys’ varsity basketball team allegedly holding the ball for the entire first quarter of a playoff game circulated on social media again recently. I initially replied:

“We should develop players like in Europe.”

Okay. 24-second shot clock starting at U13.

“No. Not like that.”

The sarcasm was missed. The point was not to demonstrate the need for a shot clock, as that has been evident for years and nobody seems to change their opinions, but to illustrate that many people, including NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, look to Europe for magic development ideas, but refuse to make the simplest change: Adopting the same rules.

Adopting FIBA rules down to U13 will not develop better players automatically. Just as there is no magic drill, the rules are not a magic developmental cure. However, the rules create a better environment for development to occur by creating a more player-centered game. The major differences: 40-minute games, 24-second shot clock, eight-second backcourt, no live-ball timeouts, advance the ball on a timeout in last two minutes, free offensive substitution on any ball out of play in last two minutes (i.e. made basket), no zone defense until U15, unsportsmanlike fouls, first-step travels, and stricter kick balls. Longer games with a shorter shot clock and no live-ball timeouts create more repetitions, more decisions, and more player responsibility. No zone defense until U15 reduces the number of things coaches feel they must teach, allowing for more focus on how to play instead of what to do.

The point was ignored, as most responded with their typical arguments for and against the shot clock in high school basketball. The four major categories of responses were:

1. Holding the ball like this is rare, and most possessions are under 35 seconds anyway.

2. High schools do not have the financial resources to purchase shot clocks and pay people to operate them during games.

3. The real problem was the zone defense.

4. Slowing down the game allows lesser-talented teams to compete.

Possession Length

I have coached at the high-school level with no shot clock and a 35-second shot clock; I coached college with a 30-second shot clock; and I coached internationally with a 24-second shot clock. A 24-second shot clock creates a more interesting and more fun game. I have never heard a player say, “I wish we could play without a shot clock so we could run longer plays or hold the ball more”, but nearly every international player I coached with a 30-second shot clock commented on the game’s slowness. They missed the faster game even as we played one of the faster paces in the country.

I understand these instances of holding the ball for entire quarters are rare, and we should not overreact or change rules simply because of these outliers. I am not interested in a shot clock to prevent these few occurrences, although I agree the only reason to institute a 35-second shot clock is to avoid these highly-publicized disasters. Otherwise, 35 seconds is too long to have a material effect on most games, as few games have many possessions lasting longer than 35 seconds right now.

A shot clock, at minimum, should be 30 seconds, but preferably 24 seconds to match the rest of the world. Coaches argue the play will deteriorate due to a 24-second clock, but use the current games as their evidence. If players take bad shots and play sloppy basketball with no shot clock, why would a shot clock cause bad shots and sloppy basketball? Why assume a shot clock will make the game worse? Players will adapt and learn to play under the constraints and the increased number of possessions will expedite the learning.

Cost

I understand every school and situation is different, but I also know most youth and high-school games charge an admission fee, whereas I have never seen an admission fee for a youth game in a European country. I have walked into international tournaments as a spectator without paying, but had to pay to park (rare) and for admission at high-school games. Similarly, youth games in Europe are more sparsely-attended than high-school games. We played in a European league championship game with a crowd befitting a mid-sized high-school’s junior varsity game. If small European clubs who do not control their own gyms and share facilities with multiple other clubs and sports can figure out the expense of a shot clock and its operators, high schools can find a way to pay for and operate shot clocks. Currently, it is simply an excuse used by those who are against a shot clock. If the cost was for something they wanted, whether new basketballs, a shooting machine, new uniforms, team shoes, travel out of state to a tournament, or whatever, the schools or coaches would find a way to fund the expense. For those high-school programs who need help raising money, and developing better players, run a Playmakers League in the offseason.

Zone Defense

Zone defense is legal. The game in question was a high-school varsity game. Zones are legal everywhere in the world at this age group. Seeing a zone defense is not a reason to quit playing offense; it is a part of basketball. Practice your shooting and passing if you want to see fewer zone defenses.

Few things affect coaches more than zones. We switched to a zone in an U18 Cup Final because we were short on players, missing all of our post players, and had some early foul trouble. The switch was to buy some time initially, as we never practiced zone defense. Our opponent could not score against the zone, so we stuck with it. After the game, the opposing coach simply said, “Nice zone” dismissively. Coaches hate zone defenses.

I understand the complaints with young players. Zones take advantage of a lack of strength to shoot from distance and make skip passes to move the defense. U18 and high-school varsity players do not lack strength; the inability to make skip passes or shoot from distance is a skill deficiency, not a lack of maturity. Playing zone is not taking advantage of immature players, but exploiting skill weaknesses, just like forcing players to dribble with their non-dominant hands or double-teaming dominant post players.

Coaches dismiss zones because zones make the game harder for coaches to control. Most coaches crave control. They want to dictate who dribbles the ball, who shoots the most shots, where players shoot, who defends which player, what play to run, and more. They attempt to script as much of the game as possible and emphasize following directions. Teams can run sets against zones, but it is harder to dictate specific actions for specific players and specific shots to take. Most coaches are not concerned about hindering players’ development, although they identify this as a reason not to play zone. Instead, they find it harder to dictate and control the game against zone defenses, and the lack of control frustrates them.

Fairness

As I discussed the shot clock with another coach, an idea struck me. Many coaches allude to the lack of a shot clock allowing less-talented teams to compete or giving them an opportunity to slow down the game and manage possessions. A large part of the argument against the shot clock seems to be along these lines: The lack of a shot clock evens out the talent discrepancy or allows the little guy to compete.

I wrote previously about the sociocultural effects on player development, but as we discussed the shot clock, I realized Europe and the United States diverge from their sociocultural contexts, although possibly because of them. Our sociocultural values seem to change in sports or at least around this issue.

The United States, generally, is about the individual, the opportunity to get ahead and attain wealth, and the need to work hard, and we celebrate the winners and the celebrities, and ostracize the losers and have-nots. However, many are against the shot clock because of reasons of fairness or equity. Salary caps and professional drafts are other ways in which we attempt to make things fair for every team; we protect the bad teams in an effort to create amore interesting product rather than allowing one or two teams to dominate, which fits better with our cultural norms. Of course, we also have a closed system where only billionaires can buy into the club, whereas European leagues have an open system where teams earn their placement by winning and advancing to higher levels of competition. Europe tends to have a much greater social net with free education, health care, affordable housing, and more, but people seem unperturbed if one team wins by 40, 60, 80 points. Losers are relegated, not rewarded with top draft picks. The capitalist United States is actually anti-competition in sports, whereas the more cooperative Europe is more competitive and cutthroat.

I have never sensed everything should be fair or equitable when I have coached in Europe. Some clubs have more money or better facilities or are located in the heart of a big city, and some clubs are located in small towns or have no facilities. I have coached on both sides, as I coached in small towns in Czech Republic, Denmark, and Sweden where we probably had the smallest budgets in our leagues, and I coached in Dublin, Ireland and Tartu, the second biggest city in Estonia where we had arguably the best set up in the country. Last year, we had largely college students playing basketball part-time and shared a gym with a local high school, but we played EuroCup and EuroLeague teams who had large facilities and players with WNBA experience. Nobody complained about fairness; it was what it was, even as the EuroLeague team has won almost 150 straight league games.

Initially, I found the divergence interesting, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized the different behaviors may be because of the sociocultural norms. People in the United States generally see the world as an unfair place where some get ahead and some do not, and therefore they do not want those close to them, whether their children or their players, to suffer from this unjust, unfair world. They may feel powerless to change society, or may not even want larger societal changes as they profit themselves, but they want to preserve the idea of fairness and equality within sports. Much of the discussion about college admissions is because we understand the country, especially the economic marketplace, is cruel, inequitable, and unfair, and an Ivy League degree creates an exponential advantage against others. Europeans, on the other hand, may see their societies as more fair and just, and therefore may not be as concerned with their children having a rough experience in sports, losing by a lot, or playing an unfair game. They may simply see this as a part of life with no need to protect their children from these experiences, just as they see no reason to protect a bad team from being relegated.

The supposedly capitalist, free market society actually manipulates the sports environment in an attempt to equalize the competition and maintain an illusion of fairness, whereas the supposedly anti-free market society embraces competition with rewards for the winners and consequences for the losers.

Why do we need to manipulate the game to protect our high-school student-athletes? Why are we so concerned about the outcome of games? My high-school team lost a game by 60 points this year, and it did not ruin their lives. They got up the next morning and went to school the same as if they had won. We talk commonly about fragility and softness in today’s youth, but it is the adults who attempt to pave the road for the children rather than preparing the children for the road.

Sports will never be completely fair. Some teams or schools have more money or a bigger student body or reside in a better area. Some have better coaches, better facilities, and more. However, none of that matters when you step on the court for the jump ball. Every team has a chance, even when the odds are stacked against one team. There is no reason to try to manipulate rules to create an illusion of fairness, especially when the fairness occurs when teams avoid playing. No player signs up for basketball to hold the ball at half-court. No player who has played with a shot clock says, “I like basketball better with no shot clock.” Nobody who plays with a 24-second shot clock wants to return to a 30-second or 35-second shot clock. Players want to play. They want to compete. They want to run. They want to score. They want to touch the ball. We should be looking for ways to increase these things, not limit or prevent them.