JB💎 @__JB___________ - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

JB💎 @__JB___________

over 6 years ago

https://t.co/cStuej3Mlm #hudl

1

14

6

0

JB💎 @__JB___________

9 days ago

0

12

JB💎 @__JB___________

29 days ago

0

1

0

15

JB💎 @__JB___________

3 months ago

No one wants to see 30 passes every time down the court…kids have way more skill in today’s games & not a lot of excitement in certain games! Of course it will be some bad shots taken & time will tell w/adjustments. Also will show a difference in better coached teams and skill!

Brandon Ramsey

@BRamseyKSR

3 months ago

I am anti-shot clock for Indiana High School Basketball. Admittedly, some of that is being a nostalgic purist. However, I also think there are several viable reasons to be against it...many of which actually fly in the face of what "pro" shot clock people think. 1) I'm almost assuredly in the Top 1% percentile of IHSAA games attended in the last 20-25 years. It simply doesn't come into play THAT often. 2) Yes, it would be fine (and maybe even beneficial) for Fishers vs. Ben Davis, Penn vs. South Bend St. Joseph, Bloomington North vs. Bloomington South, etc. However, what so many people forget is that for every game like that there are 10 games happening that feature ZERO FUTURE COLLEGE PLAYERS. If your argument is that the shot clock prepares you for college then I think you are missing the point as the overwhelming vast majority of IHSAA players don't even have aspirations of playing in college. 3) We already have a shortage of officials. This is going to make their lives significantly harder. Again, don't think about Fishers vs. Ben Davis that has college-level referees and more than enough people working the scorer's table. Think about your rural, Class 1A game in southern Indiana. It will be an issue at the table and on the court. 4) The cost is prohibitive at best and completely misused at worst. Again, don't think about the schools that already have a shot clock or have a booster club ready to write the check tomorrow. Think about the schools that need to fix their windows, purchase new equipment for the first time in a decade, upgrade to safe bleachers, etc. For many schools that don't have $10,000 sitting around even if they raise the money spending it on a shot clock is probably the LAST place it should go. 5) This goes back to point #2 a little bit, but it will make some games WORSE and actually HINDER development. If you run 20 seconds of offense and "have" to set a high ballscreen in order to get something before the shot clock it'll all look pretty for your DI guard. However, again, how about for the football player that plays basketball for fun in the winter at a rural school in east central Indiana? Would they be better off being "able" to run 10-20 more seconds of offense or should we "force" them to resort to a ballscreen? 6) Shot clocks only even get thought about when the, literally, FEW horror stories a year go viral of a team holding the ball. Long possessions aren't the problem (most high school teams quite frankly aren't good enough to possess the ball for 35 seconds and/or the defense isn't good enough to guard for 35 seconds). STALLING is the problem...and that almost never happens. I would, in theory, be in favor of a 60 second shot clock, but at that point it likely isn't worth it. I think that when people argue for a shot clock they do it while thinking about the 5% and not the 95%. They see how it could pretty seamlessly fit into a lot of Class 4A games or games with college players...because those are the games that casual fan watches. However, there is the 95% that doesn't need or care for "development" and doesn't need or care to be "prepared for the next level." A shot clock isn't the end of the world by any means because, as I've said, even at 35 seconds it will have zero impact on like 90%-95% of possessions on a nightly basis around the state. However, I think it will largely make the game/product WORSE, not better, and I hope that Indiana holds off for as long as possible.

79

195

26

29

170K

0

1

0

105