OT: NIT to Test Experimental Rules
This is not nearly as entertaining as the Dakich v Izzo spectacle or Tom Brady v the world, but the NCAA approved two experimental rules for testing during this year's NIT. The first would reset team fouls every 10 minutes as opposed to every half. Each team would be allowed 4 team fouls during each 10 minute segment. Every foul after four would be penalized by two free throws, eliminating the 1 and 1.
The second rule would reset the shot clock to 20 seconds if the ball is brought in bounds in the front court due to a stoppage caused by a foul or bleeding player.
The 2015 NIT tournament experimented with the 30 second shot clock and the 4 ft restricted area arc, which were both approved for the 2015/2016 season.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^
were suggested to allow the NCAA to keep the two half traditional format and avoid going to quarters. It also looks like it will speed up the game. This might sound weird, but I have never been a fan of the 1 and 1 free throw attempt. I'm excited to see how these rule changes will affect the games, so I will be checking out the NIT.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
Doesn't the NCAA already use quarters for women's basketball? Why the difference?
February 15th, 2017 at 9:52 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^
Currently, there are 4 TV timeouts a half--5 segments of 4 minutes each. It's been that way on televised regular season college games for at least 40 years.
If you go to quarters, you would almost have to make that uneven. You could do the women's basketball system, with 1 TV timeout a quarter, plus the break between quarters, for 3 TV timeouts per half. I can't imagine the TV partners would be okay with that.
Or you could do the NBA system, with 2 TV timeouts a quarter, plus the break, for 5 TV timeouts per half. That works ok for the NBA, because you have 12-minute quarters so you get 4-minute segments just like college. The problem is that in college, 2 TV timeouts a quarter would mean the segments are only 3 minutes 20 seconds. That's a little too short, and I don't think the networks would go for that.
That's my guess for why they stick with halves instead of quarters.
February 15th, 2017 at 11:41 AM ^
I like the 20-minute halves. I don't know why. It just seems like the half flows better than when it's broken down into quarters.
February 15th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
There's already breaks with called and TV timeouts. If it ain't broke.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:07 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 10:10 AM ^
I think the difference is that women's basketball tries to keep as close as possible to the FIBA (international) rule book, while men's basketball tries to have a "unique rules culture" compared to the NBA/FIBA rule book.
You notice this in football too: there are nonsensical rules differences between college and the pros, but I think both sides prefer to keep it that way in an attempt to make the games as different as possible while keeping the best aspects of the sport.
February 15th, 2017 at 1:13 PM ^
Fairer sex? To fragile? Short attention span. Spitballing here.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
I hate the 1-and-1. It incentives fouling.
What exactly is the upside to it. Can somebody explain?
February 15th, 2017 at 10:21 AM ^
incentivizes making free-throws? I dunno, that's the best I got. I am a football/hockey guy so probably best to ignore me.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^
I personally love it, and it's not for any logical reason. It obviously makes sense to have two shots given if free throws are the punishment for the foul, because 2 guaranteed shots are the closest thing to just giving two points which would equal the value of a basket without actually giving them the points. I get that.
The reason I love the 1 and 1 though is that it keeps things interesting in games that are on the brink of getting out of hand. From a fan's perspective, it is the best of both worlds because it doesn't exaclty make things unfair, but tends to keep games close regardless. A team that leads by 6 with a minute to go should be able to close things out by just making free throws, and would have no one to blame but themselves if they miss. But a couple of missed front ends gets the trailing team right back into it. With most guards being able to shoot somewhere between 65-80% from the free throw line, it is unlikely that they miss both free throws near the end of the game, so if it gets to that 'down 6 with 1 to go' scenario, it is more than likely over, very little excitement.
February 15th, 2017 at 11:12 AM ^
Well said. I absolutely loathe the 1 and 1 while I'm watching Michigan. I know that Michigan is stastically a good free throw team under Beilein. I know that means that the 1 and 1 has almost certainly been beneficial to us. These appeals to reason are completely overwhelmed by a memory bias that insists no team has ever missed the front end of a 1 and 1 and Michigan misses half of them.
So the 1 and 1 is terrible. And for that power to toally override logic, to stimulate panic in the fan, it is fantastic.
February 15th, 2017 at 12:13 PM ^
Because it can help a team that's down come back and puts premium on free throw shooting. At the same time, good free throw shooting teams can slam the door. I can see the argument both ways but free throw shooting is a lost art and giving two shots won't encourage better free throw shooting.
February 15th, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^
I respectfully disagree on the last part. Every point matters in basketball and if you can't make free throws, teams are going to force you to beat them at the line. That's where "Hack-a-Shaq" came from.
If they automatically awarded the person fouled with two points, then I would agree, but the NBA's rules still force players to become better free throw shooters.
February 15th, 2017 at 1:16 PM ^
I think you have to look at it this way, the NBA doesn't completely disregard the free throw, because they still have to make them as you point out, and every point does matter. But the 1 and 1 makes them even more imporant.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on the math, but how I think about it is, the front end of the one and one is essentially worth 1 point plus whatever your free throw percentage is on the next point. So if I am a 60% free throw shooter, my first free throw is risking 1.6 points because if I miss, I am not only losing the one point of the missed shot, but I am losing the extra point that I am making 60% of the time. And with the NBA rules, if I miss the first, well I still get that 60% chance of getting my second point.
February 15th, 2017 at 11:35 AM ^
I like it most of the time - it adds drama to late-game situations.
I only hate it when it's my team at the line.
February 15th, 2017 at 2:58 PM ^
Defense can play more aggressively when the penalty for fouls is less. On the other hand, if you don't foul as much you have a better chance to make up a late defecit by putting the opponent on the line.
The one and one also rewards skill, or punishes a lack of it, more than going straight to two free throws.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
The times are a changin' out here
February 15th, 2017 at 9:41 AM ^
these rule changes sound pretty stupid.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
explain why you think they sound pretty stupid. Resetting the fouls seems like a legit move, no more double bonus nonsense and keeps the game moving, as opposed to it getting bogged down once a team reaches 10 fouls. To me, it also maintains the competitive nature of the game as one team can't just keep fouling in hopes of earning more possessions. It also can help those ticky tack fouls (or bad calls) from costing a team going into the bonus late in the game with no opportunity to recover from it. Also, resetting the shot clock to 20 seconds, due to injury or a foul, also seems solid.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
just think the foul rule change sounds really convoluted and frankly only complicates things more. I also think it is an attempt to fix something that is not broken. The bonus-double bonus thing has never stood out to me as a major problem. If they were to make any changes, I think they should change the foul out rule to 6 fouls.
The shot clock change actually sounds legit. I just like to call the NIT stupid.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:30 AM ^
with that. It does sound convoluted and refs have trouble remembering all the rules anyway, LOL. I just don't like intentional fouling or the idea of the fouls never being reset. Anything to speed the games up. I hate watching the last minute of basketball take 20 minutes. I know that last statement is very "get off my lawn", I own that.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:37 AM ^
don't mind it if the outcome is still remotely in doubt. I absolutely hate when teams extend the game unnecessarily in the last minute when they are down 10. That is actually pretty unsportsmanlike.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:42 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 9:46 AM ^
just can't wait to see Trump's NIT bracket picks.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:46 AM ^
Now if they count trick shots as a 4 pointer there on to something.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:48 AM ^
Not sure how you fix this, but basketball is the only sport I can think of where it can be a strategical advantage to purposely foul someone. Ie, put 'em on the line and hope that they miss or at worst score without time running down.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
still confounding to me how all of the end of the game fouls are not two shots and the ball. They are flat out ackowledged as "intentional fouls." My teams have benefited plenty from it so this is not really a complaint. It is just odd that it is allowed in the fashion that it is.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:14 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
An interesting proposal was made in an SBNation article last year, although the author (I forget who it was) made it in reference to the NBA. It was basically around changing how non-shooting fouls were handled by giving the fouled team the opportunity to either inbound the ball (with a minimum of 14-15 seconds on the shot clock or the actual time, whichever is higher) or take the free throws. In their proposal, you would only apply this to teams in the bonus, of course.
February 15th, 2017 at 1:10 PM ^
I don't think calling intentional fouls at the end of games and getting the ball is a huge improvement because you leave it up to the refs to decide intentionality (one, I think it just changes the way you intentionally foul--you just have to pretend to go for the ball, but two I also think the refs would wimp out a lot and not call it as intentional--plus deciding intentionality is adding a lot of complexity to what the ref needs to watch).
I think I do have a good solution, though:
Fouls in the last 2 minutes give the fouled team the usual advantage (the ball or free throws), plus they have the option of running down the clock however many seconds are left on the shot clock. So if there's 1 minute left and you're fouled with 15 seconds remaining on the shot clock, the game clock is run down to 45 seconds, plus you get your free throws or the inbound.
It would have to be optional, so the winning team can't foul the losing team to run out the clock, but I think it would solve most of the problems. It's easy to call--you might need to go to the monitor to determine if a foul was before or after the 2 minutes remaining point, but that would only happen once per half. It removes the advantage to the losing team fouling with little time left, so you just have to play tight defense and try to steal the ball. You do get added frustration with bad foul calls since the penalty is more severe, but it's hard to do much about that. And by tying it to the shot clock, you're not severely punished by trying to contest a shot at the end of the clock.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:59 AM ^
People commit "fouls" in their favor in many sports - Ravens took an offensive penalty to run out the clock earlier this year, corners commit pass interference at the goal line in last-play-of-the-half scenarios to prevent a TD, soccer players foul opponents to stop counter attacks.
Or are you saying that the only sport you can think of where if you commit a foul, then the other team has an opportunity to shoot an orange ball into a large metal circle with a net hanging down with a chance to earn one point but not a guaranteed point, which would allow the fouling team to make up a point defecit if they can outscore the fouled team? Because then, yes, basketball is the only sport like that.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^
The advantage is more egregious and happens in seemingly every game in basketball though.
You don't see nearly as many intentional walks or intentional delay of game penalties while punting inside the 50.
Fouling in basketball also grinds the game to a halt which makes it unbearable to watch, IMO.
February 15th, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
Yeah, down by 10 with 90 seconds left, the losing team should just give up. That sounds fun to watch! /s
February 15th, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^
I don't have a problem with trying to win, it's the way the sport feels when they try. Football teams don't have to give up when they're down 10 with 90 seconds left, but the game will likely end before too long despite their best efforts (even spiking the ball, running out of bounds, etc), and the action is relatively exciting. The problem with basketball, in my opinion, is that the game gets dragged out in a really uninteresting fashion.
February 16th, 2017 at 7:35 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^
While baseball doesn't have any 'fouls' I would say an intentional walk is almost like purposely fouling someone.
February 15th, 2017 at 11:50 AM ^
This discussion comes up every few weeks. People insist that basketball is the only sport with a rule that gets abused, and then we discover that other sports do, too.
February 15th, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
I think what is unique in basketball is the way it hurts the watchability. The assertion is made because it bugs the people watching it. With the other sports, it feels less common--both because it probably is (fouling at the end of the game takes up a fair amount of time at the end of almost every game), and because it hurts the end from the fan's perspective, so it sticks out more.
February 15th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^
Well, I don't think the intentional walk is terribly exciting either.
February 15th, 2017 at 9:51 AM ^
I like the idea of eliminating the one and one. Should bring a little more strategy into the mix. Would this also make it harder for teams that are behing to "close the gap" at the end of the game??
February 15th, 2017 at 11:04 AM ^
This will absolutely make it harder to close the gap. I'm not even sure what other strategy could be implemented, fouling and "one and ones" is THE strategy lol
February 15th, 2017 at 11:39 AM ^
They'll still foul - they do in the NBA - but it will be harder to come back.
I'm curious to know if players shoot better in two-shot situations than in one-and-ones, since there is less pressure on the first shot.
February 16th, 2017 at 2:20 AM ^
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jqas.2010.6.1/jqas.2010.6.1.1198/jqas… - synopsis includes this:
I use a sample based on all free throws during the 2005-06 NBA season. With a multivariate framework with individual fixed effects, I find evidence for the hot hand" in that making the first free throw is associated with a significantly higher probability of making the second free throw.
This link has more scenarios and an accessible database, but it is using NBA data so no 1 and 1's to analyze.
Little history on the free throw with this quote from Naismith himself:
"I have often overheard some spectators express the opinion that a game was won by free throws. I have always taken the attitude that the game was lost by fouls." Naismith wrote. "Personally, I believe that any tendency toward lessening the penalty of a foul would be a serious mistake."
February 15th, 2017 at 11:27 AM ^
February 15th, 2017 at 10:06 AM ^
that rule has made the game worse IMO.
February 15th, 2017 at 10:10 AM ^