"The Basketball Tournament" will Experiment with Untimed Endings
This was in the "etc." part of Unverified Voracity.
A guy named Nick Elam came up with a radical solution to the end of game foul marathon that bogs down basketball games. The idea is that at the 3 minute mark the game would reset. The referees would take the leading team's score, add 7 points, and that would be the "target" the teams have to hit in order to win. The game would continue until one team hit the target.
This would eliminate most of the incentive for the trailing team to foul, because you would be giving the leading team an opportunity to get almost 1/3 of the way to the target.
Nick Elam pitched the concept to the NBA and other leagues and got a taker with The Basketball Tournament, which will use it (though at the 4 minute mark) for its play-in games for the real tournament.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule
I really like the idea of trying this out. I hate foul marathons, and I still have bad memories of Michigan losing to Indiana during one. Also, this rule would give trailing teams an opportunity to come back by playing great defense and offense, instead of praying for free throw misses.
I'm not saying that the NBA or NCAA should use the idea in meaningful games just yet, but why not in exhibition games? Or in the D-League where vanishingly few people care about the outcomes anyway?
What do you guys think?
...but someone suggested that fouls in the last 2:00 (or whatever) of the game would result in one free throw + possession.
Damn straight. Call it what it is, an intentional foul. If the defense reacts by proposely commiting an non-intentional foul (reach-in), than they will be out of position, and any player should be able to blow by that defender and score an easy 2/3 points.
MTV's Pauly Shore or Ed Lover attempt the 25 point basket into the rafters. Include this and I am in!
I generally don't like rule changes. I was against the three-point shot (rewards people for not attacking the basket) when I was quite young.
I was against 4 v 4 in NHL Overtime.
I ended up liking them both.
I like this change. Does that mean I'll hate it in action? Curious to find out.
Gawd, I wish hockey would go back to 5v5 OTs and ties. I know I'm in the minority, but it's hockey. It's low-scoring. Ties are going to happen. I hate fabricating a victor to appease casual fans. OT is only getting more and more weird. At the rate we're going, pretty soon it will be half-ice 2-v-2 with no goalies and the nets turned down or some crap.
There's nothing wrong with a tied regular season hockey game.
I remember as a kid wondering why the NBA didn't play to an arbitrary number like we did on the playground. Winner is first to 100 - that would end the foul-a-thons. Would like to see it tried somewhere.
A TON of suspense from basketball. Let's just pick 75 for that number with college. Could you imagine a game that's 74-73 and some dude gets fouled with like 5 minutes left in the game and hits a free throw to win?
You can't compare it to the playground. There are generally few fouls and no FT shooting when you are with your buds.
You're also generally not timing yourself when you play on the playground
I don't think there would be a "5 minutes left" if you're just playing to 75.
The real reason this would be awful.. Wisconsin vs. Rutgers. The game would take 5 hours.
If you maintain the regular clock that happens in college, plenty of games are in that ball park. Some games are under, some (PAC-12 for sure) go WAY over that mark on frequent occasions.
Imagine some of the great battles in the PAC or like Duke/UNC, and it's super close 73-71 and the other team gets fouled and wins with two FTs. That would be the most anticlimatic way to end any game.
You also would greatly cut down on fantastic buzzer beaters just by having some team reach a number.
I read the article to find out what the hell "The Basketball Tournament" was. I have no problems with the idea as the end of basketball games can be damn near unwatchable without being able to fast forward.
I originally didn't have it in quotes and realized it would be confusing as hell.
I only know about it because a blog I follow (Liberty Ballers) put together a team the past two years. It's actually pretty cool because you see a lot of former college stars and guys who had cups of coffee in the NBA get to play again.
I'm a huge sixers fan as well and truster of the process living out in California. You've commented/posted a few times about the sixers and Stauskas that I've noticed. Do you listen to the Rights to Ricky Sanchez podcast? It's cool to have another dedicated sixers fan on my favorite Michigan blog.
Talking to you, EastCoast
Hey CGB.
Yep, definitely a big 76ers fan and loyal reader of Liberty Ballers. I don't listen to the Ricky Sanchez podcast because, as a general matter, I just don't listen to podcasts (though I'm thinking I may need to correct that for the Dak and Dunc Show). However, I'm always up on the latest 76ers know and check the standings daily to see how the Kings and Lakers are doing.
#TTP
Are you from Philly?
I grew up in a military family, so I moved all over but I lived near Philly from age 6-9 and that was when Iverson and Motumbo were in their primes and providing very entertaining basketball. It also helped that I was a small PG who was always complimented on my competetiveness and toughness. Iverson was my hero for a long time.
I'm glad you responded, always great to meet another truster of the process. And on a Michigan blog of all places. I follow the Lakers and Kings very closely as well, how awesome was the article about Greg Popovich looking out for the sixers by resting his best players and losing to the lakers? Classic Liberty Ballers right there.
#TTP
For any sixers fans out there: Libertyballers.com is the team blog closest in quality to this very blog I can find. And I spend a lot of time on the internet. The commenters kinda suck there though, nothing will ever compare to the commenters on this blog.
I assume you are a big Hinkie supporter and will follow his career moving forward, correct?
P.S.- Listening to podcasts while on long drives, or even drives to work is one of my passions in life.
I probably won't follow Hinkie in large part BECAUSE I'm a big supporter. I don't want to see him turn a team that isn't the 76ers into a championship contender.
I also came of age during the Iverson/Mutombo era. Though don't forget that we had a better record with Ratliff!
On a side note, I think we should stop thread jacking, especially since I started the thread. Shoot me an email ([email protected]).
I emailed you
Prevents foul marathon and Wisconsin turtle-ball.
Just leave the fucking sports alone.
In the 1950s with the rules they had at the time. You'd pull your hair out.
Hockey was a complete clutchfest.
Basketball didn't have a three point arch.
I miss the days of enforcers, and brawls.
Almost every game currently.
I think we are romanticizing the game a lot. It was damn near unwatchable with the clutching.
Screw improving sports for the betterment of players and fans. What are you even saying man?
were courtesy of a few extra fouls and missed free throws.
Was this before or after they introduced the double-bonus?
I think you would end up with a wash in exciting comebacks. For every team that came back from 6 or more points in the last minute by fouling, there would be a team that comes back from15+ in the proposed system as the team with the lead wilts under the preasure of getting that last bucket.
First off, I think you are a great commenter around here and I think you are insightful. However, I think resisting change in general is a bad philosophy to life. We should constantly be working to improve whatever it is we deem important. Change in the NBA regarding hand-checking, and in the NFL regarding helmet-to-helmet contact have been changes that have improved the quality to the viewers in the NBA and reduced trematic head injuries in the NFL. These changes were good. If you are resisting change, the rest of the world is going to leave you in the dust. The best professor I ever had was in his late 60's and was famous for saying, "Change is coming. You either accept it and improve with the rest of society, or you reject it and get left behind."
Or changing the rules to allow more or less contact. But fundamentally changing the way the game is determined is a step too far.
It's still April 1st?
of HORSE.
No dunks.
Reduce timeouts that can be used in the last 5 minutes. If you have six timeouts in a half of college basketball, you can use two of them in the last few minutes.
The game isn't slowed because of the fouls. It's slowed because every coach burns their entire collection of saved time outs.
I don't know about you, but I hate the fouls. The last minute of a game can stretch for another 30 minutes. That's ridiculous.
If the game is within 2-6 points in the last minute, there's probably going to be three to four fouls from the team that is down if they miss a shot and want to get another shot at it.
It really doesn't take all that long for the team to get to the line and shoot. It's the sheer amount of stoppages from the timeouts that stretches the game. And a lot of these timeouts that are saved are full ones, so they go back to commercial for a minute and return. Then the other team calls a timeout and they go back again.
I don't mind a few fouls in the last 3 minutes. The timeouts get me. The game will flow MUCH better if the teams can't stop and gather themselves and have to think on the fly.
And substitutions. Offense-defense substitution, or if the guy fouls out, there is time to substitute a new player. And then there are the official stopages as they make sure that they didn't lose a tenth of a second. There are far more than just timeouts that make the game slow down in the last minute or two.
Timeouts are a problem, but that has actually gotten better. The NCAA recently took away a timeout, and while I didn't think it was enough, I was surprised how often during the tournament I was expecting a timeout only to see the team didn't have any left.
The fouls slow the game down just as much as the timeouts. The constant time outs at the end of a game is also not really an issue in the NBA either.
When only 5 seconds are running off the game clock at a time due to intentional fouls it just bogs the game down.
The data on that. As I said before, there are plenty of games within 6 points where fouling is not necessary/intelligent.
The time out breaks completely kill the flow. The Gonzaga/NC game had basically no foul stoppages near the end, same with Gonzaga/SC. It ended with non-stop action in the last minute. The stoppages occured because of the TOs.
If you limit the time outs each team gets available in the last 3, that flow will be much better.
I kind of see them as two separate problems. The NCAA absolutely does need to limit the amount of timeouts that can be called at the end of a game or half. It sure does bog things down
The foul issue, youre right, probably wastes less actual time than the timeouts. But it isn't fun to watch. It also isn't really basketball. I want to see a game decided by who can out play the other 5v5, not which team is more proficient from the line. It is just such a stark contrast to how the game is played every other minute until the last 1-2. Almost like a shoot out in hockey, deciding a game in a manner that the game isn't typically played.
With the timeouts, I'd just say that any timeout in the last two minutes is a 30-second timeout, and that means the ref is handing the ball to someone to inbound it 30 seconds after the timeout is granted. Shot clock can count it down.
You should not be able to get a potential advantage in the game by breaking the rules of the game. As it is, even if a team makes all their free throws, they can still lose due to 3 pointers and a team that is losing should not be able to put the other team under pressure by fouling. To my knowledge, no other sport allows for this.
This is what I agree with. A team should not gain an advantage from breaking the rules of the game. Regardless of time taken and flow, this is what irritates me. So, what is the solution?
Always give the fouled team's coach the option to have the ball out of bounds rather than shoot free throws on non-shooting fouls? On top of that, disallow the defensive team to be in the backcourt until the inbounds pass is touched?
Change the bonus and double bonus. After 7 team fouls, you shoot two. After 10, you shoot three?
Allow the fouled team's coach the option of a 10-15 second (or remainder of shot clock) runoff inside the last 2 mins if he wishes?
Change how officials call "intentional" fouls. If the intent is obviously to foul, call it as such, even if the defender is giving a token effort to go at the ball.
A team should not gain an advantage from breaking the rules of the game.But this is true in just about every sport - intentional walks in baseball, committing pass interference in football, and so on.
I do not disagree here. Especially with the PI in football, but I do not have a solution to the situation where a DB is clearly about to get beat and he drags a receiver down.
Regarding the intentional walk, this one is more difficult to me. I am a baseball guy first and foremost, but I would not be opposed to having an experiment where once a batter sees ball four, the batter is allowed to say "no thanks" and continue his at-bat. In order to keep the time of an at-bat under control, maybe at ball six, the batter gets a 2-base walk?
Not saying that I necessarily want this change, or any of the changes in my first post. But on the basketball end, it REALLY annoys me when teams foul on purpose to catch up. It makes absolutely zero sense to me that this is a very viable strategy.
I would play with the double bonus and maybe add a triple-bonus. 7 and 10 fouls are as normal, but at like 13 or something, you get 3 free throws. Or maybe you get 2 and the ball regardless of whether it's intentional or not.
Or maybe track last-two-minute fouls. I dunno.
I don't mind a desperation foul or two. But in some of these tournament games, teams are down 10 and start fouling with a minute left. It's absurd. At some point you have to just end it and put them out of their misery.
Edit: I will say that whatever this OP link is proposing is friggin nuts. No thanks.
I think the strategic ramifications of this would be awesome to see unfold. Like if you were up by 20, you could just cherry pick and have a guy under the other basket while you play 4v5. Do you foul when the other team needs 3 points to win but you only need 1 or 2?
I don't understand. So if it's 70 to 69 with 3 minutes left you change it to 0-0 and it's first-to-77? What?
Not sure if you're joking, but if you're not: the OP shouldn't have said the game reset. They would keep the 70-69 score and first to 77 wins. No game clock.