College NCAA

The Shot Clock Debate Comes Down To ONE Thing

Do we need a shot clock?  Is it feasible?
Do we need a shot clock? Is it feasible?

Do we need a shot clock? Is it feasible?

This fall the NCAA experimented with some rule changes in a number of Division 1 scrimmages, and one of those changes was the implementation of a shot clock.  Many in the lacrosse world have been clamoring for a shot clock lately, and the movement has certainly gained support in recent years.  The basic idea is that college lacrosse (specifically at the D1 level) has become too slow, and too much of a coaches’ game, and that a shot clock would fix this perceived problem.

The merits of the shot clock purely as they relate to the style of play on the field can be debated until the Purple Cows come home, and neither side will ever be 100% correct.  It could certainly speed up the game, but it could also force teams to take bad shots, and that could actually lower scoring.  Quint Kessenich says that a shot clock also requires a 2-point arc to keep teams from just packing it in on D, and he might be right, and he might not.  That debate will continue through the day we see it in action and on a regular basis.

But whether or not a shot clock will work, or if it requires a 2-point arc shouldn’t even be discussed yet!

First we need to find out if it is feasible financially.  This simply HAS to be STEP 1.  But why can’t we just play around with it now, and then figure out exactly how it will be done later?  Because if it turns out that teams NEED visible shot clocks, ALL of that effort would be wasted, because visible shot clocks are not feasible.

In my opinion (and in Jac Coyne’s opinion) physical, visible shot clocks, like you would see at a basketball court, present a huge obstacle: they are expensive.  For the D1 teams this probably isn’t a big deal, but as Jac points out, when D1 adopts a rule, so does D2, D3 and the MCLA.  So the question should be looked at from a wider perspective than just the D1 lacrosse.  In the end, lacrosse is already an extremely expensive sport.  Adding an additional cost and technological responsibility does not speak to the true nature or goal of college athletics, and this is especially true of a sport like lacrosse, whereas it may not be as true of basketball or football, where teams can actually generate revenue.  But Jac goes into all that, and he kills it.

Tack on the fact that spending more money on Men’s Lacrosse does NOTHING to help our sport with Title IX.  So let’s nip that idea in the bud right now.  Physical, visible shot clocks should be a non-starter.  We need to find solutions that don’t require more money.  Haven’t we learned anything from the US economy?

However, that doesn’t mean that the shot clock couldn’t still work.

If the refs kept the time with a simple buzzer, like they do for clears, it could work.  Teams would need to get used to playing for shots within 60 or 75 seconds of a turnover, and clearing clocks would also disappear. It would take teams some time to adjust to this change, but it would be an adjustment people could definitely make.  And we would definitely see a whole new set of strategies brought into the game.

This would also allow refs to still keep the time, no new costs would be added on (other than outfitting each ref with a new buzzer, but that’s better than buying all new shot clocks!), and teams would still be responsible to manage their own invisible clock, just like they do now during a clear.  NO one would have more responsibility, NO one would have less, and the shot clock could still be used.  Anytime there is a turnover,  the ref clicks his buzzer to reset.  75 second shot clock is on.

And now we can start talking about that two point line again…

But until the people in charge (NCAA & Division 1 Coaches) decide on HOW the shot clock would be installed with no additional costs, there is almost no point in even experimenting with it.  Even if, according to IL, people seemed to love it.  Of course not all the reviews were positive.

The bottom line is that the sport of lacrosse is exploding right now, and while I want to make sure that the product on the field is enjoyable to play and watch, I don’t want to rush into something expensive just yet, especially when there are so many less cost-heavy options out there.  Like Jac Coyne, I just hope the NCAA and Division 1 lacrosse thinks about the rest of the people who play the game when the changes finally do come.

About the author

Profile photo of Connor Wilson

Connor Wilson

Connor is the Publisher of LacrosseAllStars.com. He lives in Brooklyn with his better half, continues to play and coach both box and field lacrosse in NYC as much as possible, and covers the great game that is lacrosse full-time. He spends his spare time stringing sticks and watching Futurama.

9 Comments

  • Who’s to say this rule needs to implemented for anyone but D1?  D2 and D3 don’t really need it.  Neither does the MCLA.  If D1 decides it’s necessary, just add it as a D1 rule.

  • A 75 second shot clock is a bit more difficult as a player on the field to “manage their own invisible clock” than a 20 second clearing clock.  75 seconds is fairly long.  But, I think you are on the right track.  Potentially within the 75 second ref buzzer, there is a 10 or 15 second auto-warning “beep” of sorts, to let players know that it is time to push towards the net?…..

  • Good points here, especially about the financial implications and viability of a shot clock.  Adding one would certainly improve the game. 

     As to QK’s point about poorer shot selection and lower goal totals, I tend to disagree.  If the rules promote a faster pace of play, we’ll see more wide open shots, more dunks in transition and faster outlets from goalies. 

    Yes, we’ll see some forced shots at the end of a shot clock, but the defense earned that reward.  And in turn, it will create transition, you won’t be able to sub middies on the fly when you have to fall back on defense at the end of the shot clock.

  • Hey guys, my name is Khaled Mohamed. I’m a freshman at NYU’s Polytecnic Institute. I’m starting a club lacrosse team there. GTG!! I was wondering if maybe you guys could help give us exposure so that kid’s applying to NYU Poly would know that we have an up and coming Lacrosse team….It would really help.. Thanks guys

  • I like the Broshot photo of Oregon vs ASU.  Probably from Lakeridge in 2010. 

    I think implementing a clock in D! only would be a great experiment.  They can afford the equipment and if it is a success, the other levels of lacrosse could figure out how to implement it.  In these days of wifi, leds and other technologies maybe an enterprising company can come up with an economical cordless system.

  • A shot clock is a no braine and will happen at some point anyway, why not now. Putting shot clock “parameters” on the game will make all teams better. Officials almost never call a “stall”, so let clock do it for them. The players want to play, not play keep away. Don’t Let the “cost” or “coach speak” get in the way of advancing the game. .. and do it at High School and all College levels..lets play,,,

  • November 19, 2011.  Nebraska at Michigan football game.  Power outage at the stadium.  No scoreboard or play clocks.  Everything from timing to scoring is done through the refs. (Just like any other high school lacrosse game)  PROVING you DON’T need a physical shot clock to implement a shot clock in lacrosse, and that cost involved IS NOT AN ISSUE.  Scoreboards, shot clocks, and play clocks are ONLY FOR THE FANS.  THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE GAME. AT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL THE REFS CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME.  Even if the scoreboard said it, if it’s not marked on the refs scorecard, the goal/touchdown didn’t happen.

Leave a Comment