Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by jbcarol on 29 Jun 2017
  • Is it time for a different way to end basketball games?

    Quote
    Summer-long The Basketball Tournament ditched the game clock for the last four minutes of its Jamboree round (15 teams playing for the last four spots in the field of 64). The idea isn't to eliminate buzzer-beaters, but every other unsightly element of late-game basketball.

    Fouling, frequent stoppages, commercials, desperation shots, more fouling, endless substitutions, equally endless trips to the foul line, more fouling, timeouts in between foul shots, more commercials, more and more fouling. Did we mention fouling?

    Late-game fouling almost never works. The trailing team runs out of time the same way spectators run out of patience. But the teams foul anyway, because they have to, as it's the only strategy available.

    On the playground, we'd never do this. "Play to 15, win by two" is common.

    At the TBT Jamboree, the game clock was turned off after the under four-minute stoppage of the second half. A "winning score" was determined by adding seven points to the leading team's total. Play on until somebody wins.

    Calling the games on ESPN3, I couldn't help but smile. With minor exceptions, the players intuitively kept playing as they had their whole lives. No stall ball, generally unrushed offense and -- best of all -- a far greater chance for the trailing team to mount a comeback.

    Instead of stopping the clock, getting stops was the priority. In consecutive contests, despite a seven-point deficit when the untimed portion of the game -- dubbed the "Elam ending" -- began, the trailing team came back to tie or take the lead, winning once and losing another on a walk-off breakaway dunk.

    There are no buzzer-beaters in the strictest sense of the term (as there are no buzzers to beat). The better analogy would be that every contest is the equivalent of an extra-inning baseball game won by the home team.


    Joe Lunardi for ESPN

  • #2 by hogsanity on 29 Jun 2017
  • sounds like a great idea.
  • #3 by Dr. Starcs on 29 Jun 2017
  • Saw that earlier this morning.

    Love the idea.
  • #4 by tophawg19 on 29 Jun 2017
  • eliminate the foul substitutions unless a player fouls out, Eliminate the timeout during the foul shooting, [ice ] the shooter and a intentional foul causes a 10 second run off .
  • #5 by lynbug on 29 Jun 2017
  • But what a bout getting all these guys ready for the pros  ;) ;) where the last 20 second can last 20 minutes? (Or more)
  • #6 by Inhogswetrust on 30 Jun 2017
  • But what a bout getting all these guys ready for the pros  ;) ;) where the last 20 second can last 20 minutes? (Or more)

    So what. If ya'll don't want to watch the end if it's playing out in a way you don't like then turn off the TV.
  • #7 by phadedhawg on 30 Jun 2017
  • I kinda disagree with part of their premise.  Fouling doesn't usually work but I wouldn't go so far to say "Late-game fouling almost never works." 

    In my years I've seen it happen lots of times.  It is annoying when there's no hope and the losing team keeps doing it.  If there was a rule adjustment to be made, maybe something that addresses that. 

    I kind of enjoy the late game clock management part of basketball, substituting offensive for defense at key moments, and decisions when to start fouling. 

    Still, it's an interesting proposal. 
  • #8 by lstewart on 30 Jun 2017
  • Interesting idea... Seems like it could create issues as far as time to finish the game, as it could take a long time to get to the winning score if the leading team stopped hitting. For example.... 4 minutes left and you turn the clock off with a team up 70 to 54. So one team has to get to 77 for the game to end. What if the leading team stops hitting due to good defense, going cold, whatever. But the trailing team is not scoring quickly. In theory this game could go on another 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour, etc. Because if won't end until someone hits the point total. That could wreak havoc on tv schedules.
  • #9 by EastexHawg on 30 Jun 2017
  • In theory this game could go on another 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour, etc. Because if won't end until someone hits the point total. That could wreak havoc on tv schedules.

    I don't know how many times I have tuned in to watch some other sporting event...golf maybe...that I want to see only to find that the Michigan State and Illinois game that was supposed to have ended at 2:00 not only isn't over, but that one team is down 12 with 1:54 to go and is fouling within three seconds of every inbounds. 

    The ridiculous fouling and clock stoppage stuff at the end of basketball games drives me crazy.  I'm in favor of something like a new rule that after a second foul in the last two minutes the team that is fouled has the option of either shooting two free throws or shooting one free throw and taking the ball out of bounds.  Something has to be done to force teams to play defense rather than just instantly fouling to stop the clock and trying to trade three for two enough times to catch up.
  • #10 by hog of steele on 30 Jun 2017
  • Interesting idea... Seems like it could create issues as far as time to finish the game, as it could take a long time to get to the winning score if the leading team stopped hitting. For example.... 4 minutes left and you turn the clock off with a team up 70 to 54. So one team has to get to 77 for the game to end. What if the leading team stops hitting due to good defense, going cold, whatever. But the trailing team is not scoring quickly. In theory this game could go on another 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour, etc. Because if won't end until someone hits the point total. That could wreak havoc on tv schedules.

    7 is a pretty low mark to hit. I bet it would usually happen in 2-5 minutes. Far less than the typical end of a game now.

    I am willing to bet the number of times this takes an hour will be less than the current number of double overtime games which also add an hour.
  • #11 by Pancetta on 30 Jun 2017
  • I wonder if points shaving would be harder or easier with this scenario? On first glance I think it would be a lot easier in blowout games with huge spreads like KY vs LSU or something like that. Maybe someone with more gambling smarts could weigh in. If it makes it far easier then NCAA would never adopt it.
  • #12 by The ColonelHog on 30 Jun 2017
  • Dumb idea!
  • #13 by ShadowHawg on 02 Jul 2017
  • Let's go ahead and just quit playing basketball all together.

    If you are going to eliminate something, get rid of some more timeouts. Make all substitutions during ft's after the first shot. The substitutions after the second shot are more for setting up defenses than they are about defense/offense subbing. It also adds up over the course of a game.

    But taking the strategy out of basketball is stupid.
  • #14 by HoopS on 03 Jul 2017
  • Stick to predicting the field.
  • #15 by gmarv on 03 Jul 2017
  • Stick to predicting the field.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                       This.
  • #16 by hogfanny on 04 Jul 2017
  • Let's go ahead and just quit playing basketball all together.

    If you are going to eliminate something, get rid of some more timeouts. Make all substitutions during ft's after the first shot. The substitutions after the second shot are more for setting up defenses than they are about defense/offense subbing. It also adds up over the course of a game.

    But taking the strategy out of basketball is stupid.
    Here is another one. Since free throws are free, just add 2 or 3 points to the fouled team and keep right on playing!
  • #17 by HogBeliever625 on 05 Jul 2017
  • Just absolute stupidity
  • #18 by EastexHawg on 05 Jul 2017
  • The "strategy" allows one team to dictate to the other that it doesn't get to possess the ball and play offense.  In other words, the team that is committing an infraction (fouling) is able to gain a possible advantage by doing so.  Give the team that is fouled the option of shooting two free throws or shooting one and taking the ball out of bounds.

    Playing defense is a strategy, too.  So is not getting behind over the course of the game so that you don't have to resort to fouling every 1.3 seconds.
  • #19 by EastexHawg on 05 Jul 2017
  • Maybe we should all this "strategy" in other sports.  Down 10 points and out of timeouts with 1:45 to go in a football game...and the other team has possession of the ball?  No problem.  All we need is a new rule that says that if you commit a penalty...offsides, for instance...the team possessing the ball has to go to the 20 yard line and attempt a 37 yard field goal.  After the kick the team committing the penalty gets possession of the ball.

    If you immediately jump offsides and force field goal attempts twice, hit a couple of Hail Marys for TDs when you get the ball back, and the kicking team only makes one out of two...you turn that 10 point deficit into a one point win!
  • #20 by Hog-Corleone on 05 Jul 2017
  • What if you let the team getting fouled "opt out" of shooting free throws, and instead, maybe run time off the clock, or keep possession and inbound the ball.  In some cases this would be more beneficial, and time would be spared a little?  Just spit balling here.
  • #21 by HogBeliever625 on 05 Jul 2017
  • What if you let the team getting fouled "opt out" of shooting free throws, and instead, maybe run time off the clock, or keep possession and inbound the ball.  In some cases this would be more beneficial, and time would be spared a little?  Just spit balling here.
    The team trailing would keep making the other team inbound it till they got a steal
  • #22 by EastexHawg on 05 Jul 2017
  • The team trailing would keep making the other team inbound it till they got a steal

    One free throw and the ball out of bounds would take care of that.
  • #23 by Youngsta71701 on 06 Jul 2017
  • I don't know how many times I have tuned in to watch some other sporting event...golf maybe...that I want to see only to find that the Michigan State and Illinois game that was supposed to have ended at 2:00 not only isn't over, but that one team is down 12 with 1:54 to go and is fouling within three seconds of every inbounds. 

    The ridiculous fouling and clock stoppage stuff at the end of basketball games drives me crazy.  I'm in favor of something like a new rule that after asecond foul in the last two minutes the team that is fouled has the option of either shooting two free throws or shooting one free throw and taking the ball out of bounds.  Something has to be done to force teams to play defense rather than just instantly fouling to stop the clock and trying to trade three for two enough times to catch up.
    3 strikes your out. After the 3rd intentional foul the team that is fouled shoots two free throws and gets the ball back out of bounds.
  • #24 by Youngsta71701 on 06 Jul 2017
  • #25 by HoopS on 06 Jul 2017
  • Basketball isn't football. There are way more possessions. Free throws are an integral part of the game that every player needs to work on whereas Field Goals are not. FG also are a choice whereas FT are not. To compare the two sports in any way is apples and oranges. Leave the game alone. And again, Lunardi is good at bracket talk. He struck out on this. Or did he fumble? Or double dribble?
  • #26 by EastexHawg on 08 Jul 2017
  • Basketball isn't football. There are way more possessions. Free throws are an integral part of the game that every player needs to work on whereas Field Goals are not. FG also are a choice whereas FT are not. To compare the two sports in any way is apples and oranges. Leave the game alone. And again, Lunardi is good at bracket talk. He struck out on this. Or did he fumble? Or double dribble?

    One team shouldn't have the ability to mandate that the game turn into a free throw shooting contest.  "That's the way we've always done it" is the only justification.  Teams also used to dribble three minutes off the clock in the four corners offense before the shot clock stopped that "strategy".
  • #27 by hogsanity on 10 Jul 2017
  • One team shouldn't have the ability to mandate that the game turn into a free throw shooting contest.  "That's the way we've always done it" is the only justification.  Teams also used to dribble three minutes off the clock in the four corners offense before the shot clock stopped that "strategy".

    Another part of this is that when a team is fouled they only get a chance to score 2 points, yet the opponent can come down and score 3. It is the only sport where a team can gain an advantage in scoring by committing an infraction.
  • #28 by EastexHawg on 10 Jul 2017
  • Another part of this is that when a team is fouled they only get a chance to score 2 points, yet the opponent can come down and score 3. It is the only sport where a team can gain an advantage in scoring by committing an infraction.

    I don't think this scenario was envisioned when the rules regarding fouling and free throws were put in place.  It's a way coaches have figured out how to use the rules to their advantage and has made a farce of the last two minutes of way too many games.
  • #29 by hogsanity on 10 Jul 2017
  • I don't think this scenario was envisioned when the rules regarding fouling and free throws were put in place.  It's a way coaches have figured out how to use the rules to their advantage and has made a farce of the last two minutes of way too many games.

    what I do not get is why so many fans are against finding ways to fix it.
  • #30 by EastexHawg on 10 Jul 2017
  • what I do not get is why so many fans are against finding ways to fix it.

    They say it takes away "strategy".  I don't know, maybe they think their team will be behind and won't be able to commit eight fouls in 73 seconds so they can try to catch up.
  • #31 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • Because the game isn't broken.

    I'd like the officials to be more consistent. Otherwise I'm for leaving the game alone.
  • #32 by hogsanity on 11 Jul 2017
  • Because the game isn't broken.

    I'd like the officials to be more consistent. Otherwise I'm for leaving the game alone.

    This has nothing to do with officiating, and everything to do with the bs that you can gain an advantage by committing an infraction.
  • #33 by EastexHawg on 11 Jul 2017
  • This has nothing to do with officiating, and everything to do with the bs that you can gain an advantage by committing an infraction.

    No, no, no.  It's an important and logical part of basketball that one team ought to be able to ensure that they are the only ones allowed to shoot 3 pointers.  The other team should only be allowed to shoot free throws...within 0.8 second of inbounding the ball.
  • #34 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • Lol.  You two must be miserable watching basketball.

    The rules aren't changing for you guys.

    Maybe you can create your own game with your own rules.
  • #35 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • There are also intentional fouls. Of course, that's where the officiating comes in.

    Football players can alter things too with fouls. Late in the game and a team is down 3. They throw a bomb sure to be a TD but smartly the DB grabs him. 15 yard penalty. No TD. And now the clock is at :3 seconds and you gotta settle for a tying FG rather than running another play. Do we outlaw that too?
  • #36 by EastexHawg on 11 Jul 2017
  • There are also intentional fouls. Of course, that's where the officiating comes in.

    Football players can alter things too with fouls. Late in the game and a team is down 3. They throw a bomb sure to be a TD but smartly the DB grabs him. 15 yard penalty. No TD. And now the clock is at :3 seconds and you gotta settle for a tying FG rather than running another play. Do we outlaw that too?

    Does the defense get the ball back when they commit a penalty?  No, in your scenario the offense gets 15 yards (or the ball at the spot of the foul) and a fresh set of downs.

    An intentional foul rule would be great if officials would actually call it.  It should give the fouled team two shots and the ball out of bounds.  That would stop the incessant fouling to force free throws and gain possession.
  • #37 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • You only get it back in basketball automatically if he makes the second free throw so there's still other strategic choices to be made. But if time is low and you intentionally get a penalty as I said, you also limit their scoring likelihood.

    Leave both games alone imo. Improve officiating in both.
  • #38 by hogsanity on 11 Jul 2017
  • There are also intentional fouls. Of course, that's where the officiating comes in.

    Football players can alter things too with fouls. Late in the game and a team is down 3. They throw a bomb sure to be a TD but smartly the DB grabs him. 15 yard penalty. No TD. And now the clock is at :3 seconds and you gotta settle for a tying FG rather than running another play. Do we outlaw that too?


    The football analogy does not work. For it to be the same then the defense would be allowed to commit a penalty and force the offense to kick a 35 yard fg, make or miss the defensive team gets the ball back with a chance to score a td.

    As for officiating, the rules are written so that if you make the slightest attempt to play the ball, it is just a common foul resulting in a 1 and 1 or 2 shots depending on the # of team fouls. The team fouled gets a chance to score 2 points, and the defense gets to stop the clock and then gets a chance to shoot for 3. Why anyone would say that is okay is just weird.
  • #39 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • I didn't say the sports were exactly alike. I said both defenses can foul and limited scoring likelihood. That's why I used the word "likelihood". But since you'd rather split hairs, they'd only get it back if they possessed the kickoff which of course brings up the chance to onside kick. But in the scenario I mentioned, time would expire either forcing OT or the offensive team would lose if they missed the kick. Or they could roll the dice and try to score a TD anyway. Either way a foul by the D forced them to have to do things differently.
  • #40 by hogsanity on 11 Jul 2017
  • I didn't say the sports were exactly alike. I said both defenses can foul and limited scoring likelihood. That's why I used the word "likelihood". But since you'd rather split hairs, they'd only get it back if they possessed the kickoff which of course brings up the chance to onside kick. But in the scenario I mentioned, time would expire either forcing OT or the offensive team would lose if they missed the kick. Or they could roll the dice and try to score a TD anyway. Either way a foul by the D forced them to have to do things differently.

    The situations are so different they can not be compared. There is no rule in football that FORCES the offense to attempt a certain scoring chance, with the clock stopped no less. But we know you are incapable of discussing basketball without dragging football into it in some way.
  • #41 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • What?

    You have me so fricking confused with somebody else.

    Somebody else brought football up earlier so I showed how a football team could similarly effect the game late. Similarily. Not exactly.

    But let's talk basketball.

    I don't think it's broken. You sound like you do. I think the officiating is inconsistent. I think they favor the home team and the favorites too often. 
  • #42 by hogsanity on 11 Jul 2017
  • What?

    You have me so fricking confused with somebody else.

    Somebody else brought football up earlier so I showed how a football team could similarly effect the game late. Similarily. Not exactly.

    But let's talk basketball.

    I don't think it's broken. You sound like you do. I think the officiating is inconsistent. I think they favor the home team and the favorites too often. 

    officiating has NOTHING to do with what this thread is about. This is about a team being able to foul, stop the clock, force the opponent to shoot two FT's and even if they make both, the defense gets the ball back with a chance to score 3.

    The rules are written to allow this by narrowly defining what an intentional ( flagrant 1 or 2 ) foul is. Even though at the end of game everyone knows the trailing team is fouling on purpose, they usual do so in a way to avoid it being flagrant.
  • #43 by HoopS on 11 Jul 2017
  • No but has to do with wanting changes made to the game. That's the changes I'd like.

    Lunardi wants some rule changes. Sounds like you agree. I just disagree.
  • #44 by Youngsta71701 on 11 Jul 2017
  • Does the defense get the ball back when they commit a penalty?  No, in your scenario the offense gets 15 yards (or the ball at the spot of the foul) and a fresh set of downs.

    An intentional foul rule would be great if officials would actually call it.  It should give the fouled team two shots and the ball out of bounds.  That would stop the incessant fouling to force free throws and gain possession.
    You forgot to mention the 3 seconds left part.
  • #45 by Youngsta71701 on 11 Jul 2017
  • The football analogy does not work. For it to be the same then the defense would be allowed to commit a penalty and force the offense to kick a 35 yard fg, make or miss the defensive team gets the ball back with a chance to score a td.
    Not with 3 seconds left.
  • #46 by hog.goblin on 16 Jul 2017
  • There are also intentional fouls. Of course, that's where the officiating comes in.

    Football players can alter things too with fouls. Late in the game and a team is down 3. They throw a bomb sure to be a TD but smartly the DB grabs him. 15 yard penalty. No TD. And now the clock is at :3 seconds and you gotta settle for a tying FG rather than running another play. Do we outlaw that too?

    And yet the NFL rules committee changed it to a spot foul.  College hasn't...yet. 

    Smart people will repair and maintain rather than wait until things are broken to fix them.
  • #47 by HoopS on 17 Jul 2017
  • And yet the NFL rules committee changed it to a spot foul.  College hasn't...yet. 

    Smart people will repair and maintain rather than wait until things are broken to fix them.
    snart people. I see. Well the game isn't broken nor is it anywhere close to it. Aside from the crappy officting that tends to show up in favor of home teams and favorites. Otherwise, they should and will leave it be.

  • #48 by jbcarol on 23 Jul 2017

  • Quote
    In college basketball's offseason, ... I think mostly about the NCAA tournament selection and seeding process. Is it the best that it can be? Are we using the right data? Is it fair and open and inclusive?

    We have been at 68 teams since 2011, yet there is nothing magical or even permanent about that number. It is an accident of circumstance more than anything.

    "It's also outdated," one coach insisted. "Division I has grown by leaps and bounds since 1985, so we shouldn't be trapped by that number moving forward."

    For argument's sake, let's say we expanded the field by four to 72 teams. The additional wild cards -- last season's could have been regular-season winners Illinois State, UT Arlington, Monmouth and Belmont -- would play the last four at-large selections in what would be true "Bracket Buster" contests, typically matching power conference schools against smaller conference schools in compelling fashion. Winners become the four No. 12 seeds in the main bracket.

    On the automatic qualifier side, we need to make the current one-bid league participants less isolated. Instead of four teams playing for two spots, make it eight for four. This would lead to a true tournament atmosphere at dual sites -- say, Dayton and someplace Midwest or West -- and give twice the number of non-major champions the thrill of advancing. Winners move on as the four No. 16 seeds, respectively.

    So I say "yes" to expansion, but not for its own sake or to save a few coaching jobs. Let's be judicious and achieve a greater good. All we need is one more site and a second network.

    ESPN?
  • #49 by hogsanity on 23 Jul 2017

  • ESPN?

    Just making the regular season mean even less. I want 256. Just eliminate the conf tourneys. It only takes one more thur-Sun session to go from 256 to 64.
Pages:
Actions