jetblue12 wrote:A_50_h wrote:After watching last years title game between DT and May-Port, and seeing how those two teams slowed it down and took the air out of the ball I would say there should definetly should be a shot clock. I also think they should make it two halves of 16 minutes each.
yeah there sure gets to be some snoozefests out there
Swine-O wrote:jetblue12 wrote:A_50_h wrote:After watching last years title game between DT and May-Port, and seeing how those two teams slowed it down and took the air out of the ball I would say there should definetly should be a shot clock. I also think they should make it two halves of 16 minutes each.
yeah there sure gets to be some snoozefests out there
Snoozefests? I agree that some games in the 40's may not be as enjoyable to everyone because all people want to see nowadays are high-scoring games with tons of 3's jacked up. But there are still some people out here like me who are true basketball enthusiasts who enjoy seeing a good QUALITY basketball game with some hard nosed defense. I thought the title last year between DT and MPCG was a great game to watch just to see those kids busting their butts on defense like that.
trueblue09 wrote:South Dakota AA doesn't have a shot clock. We don't need one either.
SCC wrote:We can implement a shot clock, but expect the defensive teams to pass the ball around until ten seconds on the shot clock just about every possession. That wouldn't be a whole lot different than the current situation.
SCC wrote:baller01 wrote:SCC wrote:We can implement a shot clock, but expect the defensive teams to pass the ball around until ten seconds on the shot clock just about every possession. That wouldn't be a whole lot different than the current situation.
I'd rather know that I don't have to wait no more then 35 seconds to get the ball back then maybe having to wait 60+ seconds.
Not very many possessions last that long. I think it's an extreme exaggeration. Bring the shot clock to class B, and we'll find out that the scoring stays relatively the same.
baller01 wrote:SCC wrote:baller01 wrote:SCC wrote:We can implement a shot clock, but expect the defensive teams to pass the ball around until ten seconds on the shot clock just about every possession. That wouldn't be a whole lot different than the current situation.
I'd rather know that I don't have to wait no more then 35 seconds to get the ball back then maybe having to wait 60+ seconds.
Not very many possessions last that long. I think it's an extreme exaggeration. Bring the shot clock to class B, and we'll find out that the scoring stays relatively the same.
The scoring might stay relatively the same, its the point at the end of quarters and games that it would be nice. There is nothing I hate more then with 1 min to go a team holds for the last shot.
SCC wrote:We can implement a shot clock, but expect the defensive teams to pass the ball around until ten seconds on the shot clock just about every possession. That wouldn't be a whole lot different than the current situation.
I'd rather know that I don't have to wait no more then 35 seconds to get the ball back then maybe having to wait 60+ seconds.
ClassBballa wrote:Swine-O wrote:jetblue12 wrote:A_50_h wrote:After watching last years title game between DT and May-Port, and seeing how those two teams slowed it down and took the air out of the ball I would say there should definetly should be a shot clock. I also think they should make it two halves of 16 minutes each.
yeah there sure gets to be some snoozefests out there
Snoozefests? I agree that some games in the 40's may not be as enjoyable to everyone because all people want to see nowadays are high-scoring games with tons of 3's jacked up. But there are still some people out here like me who are true basketball enthusiasts who enjoy seeing a good QUALITY basketball game with some hard nosed defense. I thought the title last year between DT and MPCG was a great game to watch just to see those kids busting their butts on defense like that.
just because there was a shot clock doesn't mean the quality would deminish. Good defense would still be good defense and win you games, it would put more pressure on the other teams offense to work a little quicker to find a good shot.
I agree here too but the only reason I don't like not having a shot clock is sometimes when theres 2 or 3 minutes left and someone is down by like 4 points its like being down 10 because teams practice stalling. It sets teams up for more upsets to happen which every year in class B do happen and I like to see that. I just dont like when the game is on the line and the team ahead stops playing offense and starts playing keepaway.thesports_guy32 wrote:ClassBballa wrote:Swine-O wrote:jetblue12 wrote:A_50_h wrote:After watching last years title game between DT and May-Port, and seeing how those two teams slowed it down and took the air out of the ball I would say there should definetly should be a shot clock. I also think they should make it two halves of 16 minutes each.
yeah there sure gets to be some snoozefests out there
Snoozefests? I agree that some games in the 40's may not be as enjoyable to everyone because all people want to see nowadays are high-scoring games with tons of 3's jacked up. But there are still some people out here like me who are true basketball enthusiasts who enjoy seeing a good QUALITY basketball game with some hard nosed defense. I thought the title last year between DT and MPCG was a great game to watch just to see those kids busting their butts on defense like that.
just because there was a shot clock doesn't mean the quality would deminish. Good defense would still be good defense and win you games, it would put more pressure on the other teams offense to work a little quicker to find a good shot.
I'm with you on this one Swine-O. There's nothing wrong with low scoring games. Watching teams like DT and Mayport is fun. They are programs that know the game and can stay in any game they play because of their style of play. People in this topic make it seem like Class B has a hard time getting fans to come to games because of the low scoring games. I know the Betty Englestad was packed for NB vs. Midway/Minto (8-8 at the end of the first i believe). And everyone knew before the State championship that DT was going to slow the game down but that was still a packed house. Not having a shot clock makes every game a bit more competative. Poor teams can slow it down to stay in games and there's nothing wrong with competative games.
Swine-O wrote:jetblue12 wrote:A_50_h wrote:After watching last years title game between DT and May-Port, and seeing how those two teams slowed it down and took the air out of the ball I would say there should definetly should be a shot clock. I also think they should make it two halves of 16 minutes each.
yeah there sure gets to be some snoozefests out there
Snoozefests? I agree that some games in the 40's may not be as enjoyable to everyone because all people want to see nowadays are high-scoring games with tons of 3's jacked up. But there are still some people out here like me who are true basketball enthusiasts who enjoy seeing a good QUALITY basketball game with some hard nosed defense. I thought the title last year between DT and MPCG was a great game to watch just to see those kids busting their butts on defense like that.
I say we just leave it as is....how much do the clocks cost anyway? and who will fund for the clocks for schools that are financially uncapable of purchasing them??
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests