By Michael Boytim

mboytim@altoonamirror.com

The National Federation of State High School Associations approved the use of a shot clock for high school basketball last year, but Pennsylvania will not use it until at least the 2024-2025 school year.

The PIAA’s basketball steering committee met on Wednesday and determined that no changes to the current no-shot clock format could occur until after the next PIAA classification cycle which begins in the 2022-2023 school year and runs through the 2023-2024 season.

“If this was something that needed to be voted in for next school year, there are budgets that need to get voted through,” District 8 representative Karen Arnold said. “At the athletic director’s conference, speaking to Daktronics, just a ballpark figure, it’s approximately $10,000 to get (shot clocks) installed in these schools. A lot of different aspects go into it. I’m not speaking for or against it. I just want to get that information out there that it could be a struggle for facilities if this was something that went into play in the very next school year, giving that 500 school districts could be vying for one or two companies to install everything.”

Glenn Anderson, the president of the Pennsylvania Basketball Coaches’ Association, presented the results of a survey about the use of a shot clock in Pennsylvania that was emailed out to 1,020 coaches from January through mid-March.

Of those sent out, 96 were to email addresses that were rejected bringing the total to 924. Only 359 of the coaches who received the survey answered it, 39 percent. The results showed that 276 coaches supported the shot clock and 83 did not, meaning 77 percent of coaches who answered supported the change.

However, the PIAA agreed with District 1 representative Gary Kochersperger that it would like to see a more complete response than 39 percent and will conduct its own surveys within each district.

“I think it’s best to get information from all the people who will be affected by this, administrators and coaches,” PIAA Assistant Executive Director Jennifer Grassel said.

District 6 was already planning that approach.

“District 6 is really not committed either way,” District 6 representative Mike Hudak said. “We want to poll our administrators in each of our school districts, and we’re going to do that here real soon so they can give their input on this and what direction they want to go before we as a district would support or not support.”

Two of the issues brought up by the steering committee that will be addressed when it reconvenes on May 3 following the survey results will be the issues of cost to school districts and how it impacts officiating.

“How far does it go?” WPIAL representative Bill Cardone said. “Is it going to be a varsity and junior varsity? Is it going to be junior high? How far do we go? Then $10,000 becomes a lot more money when you’re talking about multiple gyms. Personally, I’m for the shot clock, and I think most people in District 7 are for the shot clock, but I think there’s a lot that needs to be figured out before you can honestly make an opinion or judgment on it.”

Following Cardone’s comments, it was suggested that keeping the shot clock, if it was implemented, would probably be best if it were limited to varsity and junior varsity games. PIAA Executive Director Robert Lombardi suggested it would be difficult for junior varsity players who are playing in two games in one night to play under different rules if varsity had the shot clock and junior varsity did not.

“There’s a level of complexity that it adds to the game,” Pennsylvania rules interpreter Dave Wright said. “We’re going to need time for the education and training of the officials, and we’re going to make mistakes. That’s just something to give thoughts to, but we’ll make our best efforts if it comes.”

According to Grassel, eight states currently use the shot clock in high school basketball and five are in the middle of a transition to it.

The shot clock would not be the first time a major rule change took place in the high school game, and one of the previous changes also had costs attached to it.

“It reminds me of arguments we had in the early 80s about adding the 3-point line with adjustments to gyms and repainting floors and all that,” District 10 representative Pete Iacino said. “From how it would impact officials to you name it, the arguments are similar. It may not be quite the same in cost with the shot clock as the 3-point line, but if we believe it is inevitable that we are going to get there, we need to give schools as much time as possible to get it implemented.”

SUBHED: Home court success

The topics of playing the first round of the PIAA basketball tournament at home sites and on Tuesday and Wednesday rather than Friday and Saturday also were discussed.

Patrick Gebhart, PIAA assistant executive director, said out of 192 total first-round games in boys and girls basketball at the state level, most of them played at the team on the top of the bracket’s home gym, the “away” team won only 56 of 192 games (29.2 percent). Twenty-three boys teams out of 96 won from the lower part of the bracket and 33 girls teams out of 96 won.

Gebhart also stressed that it was difficult to assign officials with a short turnaround from district championships to the state playoffs, but other district officials, including Hudak, said having home teams host was important because finding enough facilities willing to host two outside teams is still an issue in District 6.