State’s shot clock supporters disappointed again by WIAA rejection

Everyone’s favorite fix for high school basketball in Wisconsin –– the shot clock –– made another appearance last week, but a push to get an amendment placed on next April’s WIAA annual meeting agenda was rejected June 19 by the Board of Control.

News emerged the previous day that the WIAA’s Advisory Council voted to support the amendment, sending the proposal to the board the following day with hopes of having the shot clock fully implemented in Wisconsin for the 2026-27 season after some use in non-conference games in 2025-26. But, by a close 6-4 vote, the proposal was given a Dikembe Mutombo finger wave and rejected.

So, for now, proponents apparently have to wait a little longer, while shot clock opponents win another battle, but they’ll probably eventually lose the war.

The shot clock is one of those things that feels inevitable. Medford is prepared, installing them Wednesday as part of its scoreboard upgrades in Raider Hall. But, for some reason, no one in Wisconsin can agree on the right time to do it.

What may end up happening is that it eventually gets forced upon Wisconsin by the National Federation of High Schools. Current NFHS rules allow for states to adopt 35-second shot clocks but it is not mandatory. According to the NFHS, 27 states are using shot clocks as of this past winter and some have modified the time to 30 seconds. Kansas is implementing a one-year trial this coming season.

An NFHS news release from October described the opposing views this way: “Proponents proclaim it will eliminate stalling tactics, make a game more entertaining and help student participants get to the next level. Opponents counter with a concern that fundamentals will be lost among a frenetic pace that can lead to sloppy play.”

That pretty well sums up the debate. Costs for installing shot clocks, particularly in smaller, rural schools is a big part of the discussion. I’ve seen ballpark estimates of $5,000-plus for a pair of clocks. A few drops in the bucket in a typical school district budget or a doable fund-raising effort, but at the same time, they’re not exactly cheap, especially if you’re talking about installing them on more than one court. Making sure each school has qualified operators and giving officials one more thing to watch during games have been concerns raised.

A survey conducted late in 2022 by the Wisconsin Basketball Coaches Association showed 45.7% of the 339 responding schools favored shot clocks at the time. But the interesting part of the survey was that school size seemed to be a significant factor in the support or opposition. There was 84.5% support from Division 1 schools and then the percentage decreased with each division, down to 21.2% at the Division 5 level. It also should be noted, the surveys were sent to coaches and administrators but schools were only asked to supply one response. So, it’s logical to think there may not have been total agreement at some schools.

Locally, the subject comes up from time to time with head coaches and I can’t say I recall ever talking to a coach who flat out opposed the shot clock. I know some are whole-heartedly behind it. Most fans/ parents/etc. seem to favor it too when it comes up in conversation.

I get it. Watching so-called “stalling tactics” is not what fans paid for with their admission fees and basketball can be one of the most tedious sports to watch at the end of games with its sometimes seemingly endless cycle of timeouts and free throws in games that are close, but not one-possession close.

If there is one good thing you can say about the NBA, it is the 24-second shot clock combined with the unreal 3-point shooting ability that exists in that league now has shortened its end-of-game situations dramatically. Teams don’t start the foul marathons now until the last 45 to 60 seconds.

I’m not sure teams can hold off that long to start fouling with a 35-second clock if they’re down by two to three scores. At 30 seconds, maybe you can play things out a little longer.

But at the high school level, I still somewhat question how much better the game would truly be with a shot clock. I don’t think there’s any question it favors more talented teams that have players who can beat defenders off the dribble, who shoot the 3 well and can defend. And I guess in a way, that’s the point of the competition. The better team should prevail.

I don’t know if there’s ever been a good study to measure how long possessions last in the high school game and, really, it’s probably moot to even try because every game and every matchup is different. My first reaction is the vast majority don’t last 35 seconds before there is a shot, a foul, a turnover, something. But the more I think about it, you do see a lot of longer possessions, say against a good zone defense, or at the end of halves. Quite frankly, I love seeing a patient possession with screens, cuts and a precision final pass resulting in a layup.

My hesitancy to really get on board with the shot clock idea is this is the high school level and most schools don’t really get to pick and choose their talent. Coaches and programs have what they have –– for the most part, not being totally naive there. If a team felt like it needed to be patient and shorten the game to compete I’ve always thought it was an option it should be able to use. If it can do that without turning the ball over and hit the shots it needs to hit to stay in a game and pull the upset, awesome. Really, teams in those situations don’t succeed very often. Eventually the more talented team finds a way to pull away. To me, we’re seeing enough 65-30 games. Is turning them into 80-25 games making high school ball better overall?

And that always bothered me about those really rare situations where a stall approach led to a team winning a game with a score like 11-7 or, I remember a 5-4 game up north years ago, and then the losing team complains about it. If you think you’re better, go defend with pressure and prove it. Don’t be stubborn and pack in your zone and get mad when the opponent decides to pull the ball out.

I do get peoples’ frustrations about the lack of a shot clock when the more talented team stalls to protect a lead. You heard a lot of that in Medford when La Crosse Central pulled the ball out in the 2023 WIAA Division 2 sectional semifinal. When I first started covering high school sports, Adams-Friendship was the leader in that approach and beat several good Lakeland and Medford teams at tournament time by pulling the ball out with a lead and shortening the game. I hated it and it’s extremely frustrating to be on the losing end of something like that, but later on, I came to appreciate how a coach could get high school kids to buy in, be that patient and do it without mistakes.

Again, the devil’s advocate would say if you don’t want to get beat by that approach, play well enough to get a lead and don’t allow the opponent to use it.

The cynic would also remind Medford fans one of the great moments in program history, Joey Sullivan’s regional final buzzer beater at Fox Valley Lutheran in 2022 after he dribbled off about 80 tense seconds of time, wouldn’t have happened with a shot clock. *** Following up on my last column from two weeks ago.

First in listing conference champions for the school year, I somehow forgot Rib Lake baseball, even though it should’ve been fresh on the mind. Total brain

Matt’s

Bleacher Shots

Matt Frey cramp, no excuses.

Secondly, as I kind of anticipated, got word of a few more college plans for local athletes. Sounds like Medford graduates Sophia Brunner and Alex Gonzalez are planning to play soccer this fall at Viterbo University and was told last week Gilman’s Danielle Mann is planning to play volleyball at UW-Stevens Point at Marshfield.

Matt Frey is the Sports Editor at The Star News.