Basketball is the only sport that encourages fouling

[LitlBuck]

Of course, there are already rules for flagrant fouls - aka, intentional fouls. There's nothing in the rules that say it has to have the potential to cause injury. The player has to be making an attempt to play the ball, otherwise he's intentionally fouling. The fact is everyone in the building knows these late fouls are being committed intentionally with no real concern for the ball, but they're never called flagrant. Simply enforcing that rule would mitigate the 20 minutes of nonsense that take place the final 2 minutes of too many games, because the penalty is two shots AND possession.

I would go the NBA route and make it 1 shot and possession. That would be good enough but you are right it is getting out of hand at the end of the games.

 

[Jake]

Even when you "make the damn free throws" the three point shot still makes intentionally violating the rules a decent gamble. No one shoots 100% at the foul line, either - even the best guys. So while I've heard/read "make the damn free throws" as a retort more times than I can recall (here and IRL) it doesn't change the FACT that the rules as currently written (and to some extent, not enforced) encourage fouling as a means to attempt a comeback. It's not an accident that practically everyone does it.

It makes as much sense to have rules that encourage breaking them in basketball as it would in the absurd examples I've given in other sports. The only difference is we're accustomed to it in basketball.

 

[Jake]

Get ready to pull your hair out Jake. It took 17 minutes to finish the last minute of the FSU/Clemson game.

I think what's bothering me more is the talk this week about "speeding up the game" and all every idiot wants is to reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds. That may produce a few more shots but it won't speed up anything. It's the ridiculous hoarding of time outs (because TV makes 5 per team unnecessary) and the incentive to intentionally break the rules (but it's never called as intentional) that drags the game.

 

[MaxBuck]

I think what's bothering me more is the talk this week about "speeding up the game" and all every idiot wants is to reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds. That may produce a few more shots but it won't speed up anything. It's the ridiculous hoarding of time outs (because TV makes 5 per team unnecessary) and the incentive to intentionally break the rules (but it's never called as intentional) that drags the game.

Whether or not shortening the shot clock "speeds up the game" is a function of how you define things. My definition of how fast the game is has little to do with elapsed time and everything to do with pace of play (i.e., how many possessions).

With all this being said, what slows the game down from an elapsed time perspective is a pure function of advertising. And that, unfortunately, isn't going to change anytime soon, whether or not you take a timeout or two away.

 

[LitlBuck]

I think what's bothering me more is the talk this week about "speeding up the game" and all every idiot wants is to reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds. That may produce a few more shots but it won't speed up anything. It's the ridiculous hoarding of time outs (because TV makes 5 per team unnecessary) and the incentive to intentionally break the rules (but it's never called as intentional) that drags the game.

I know this does not address the problem of the length of the game but with regards to the shot clock I was watching a roundtable with Larry Brown, Matta, Izzo, and Self on the BTN and I do not know what the other guys thought but Larry Brown thought that reducing the amount of time from 35 seconds would probably lead to bad shots being taken. He even believes that the 24 second clock in the NBA should not be started until the ball crossed half-court because of so many bad shots that those guys take.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Whether or not shortening the shot clock "speeds up the game" is a function of how you define things. My definition of how fast the game is has little to do with elapsed time and everything to do with pace of play (i.e., how many possessions).

Agreed.

As an aside, the whole premise of this thread is flawed--there are other sports in which incurring a penalty can be advantageous in certain circumstances (baseball and football immediately come to mind).

 

[zwem]

I think what's bothering me more is the talk this week about "speeding up the game" and all every idiot wants is to reduce the shot clock to 30 seconds. That may produce a few more shots but it won't speed up anything. It's the ridiculous hoarding of time outs (because TV makes 5 per team unnecessary) and the incentive to intentionally break the rules (but it's never called as intentional) that drags the game.

The amount of time outs is very perplexing to me. So there is 40 minutes of regulation. There is a total of 8 tv timeouts. Each team has 5 timeouts. That is 18 possible timeouts for a 40 minute game which is almost an average of 1 per 2 minutes. This doesn't include stoppage time to review plays or flagrant fouls which teams can still huddle and talk strategy. You can also figure in halftime to make adjustments. All 18 timeouts can be used and still lead to fouling in the last minute. Some games become unwatchable. If anybody can make sense of all these timeouts, I'm all ears.

 

[Oh8ch]

Im talking about modifying and enforcing a rule that already exists, not coming up with some clown rule. Fouling is part of basketball whether the first minute or last. A rule to discourage intentional fouling is in place, but officials refuse to enforce it in the last minute of the game. Enforcing that rule would take care of 90% of the problem. The other modification would help speed up the game which is your chief complaint (not really mine). If the existing rule were enforced, I'd consider the modification of having the option to take the ball out of bounds mostly unnecessary, but one I would like to see. The offense should have the option of being able to keep the ball.

Not true. The rules that govern flagrant fouls replaced the rules for intentional fouls and they are not the same. A coach can scream for his team to foul and provided the foul isn't violent it is just another foul.

If I didn't have a DVR I would not watch college basketball. But it goes beyond the time it takes to finish a game. BBall had rhythm and a flow that no longer exists in the last few minutes - which in many games are simply unwatchable.

It is almost like watching 5 man football. The ball is snapped, a player is tackled and we line up to kick two extra points. I only hang around to watch because I want to know the outcome - not because I enjoy watching it come about.

Any set of rules that allows a team to come back from 10 points down in the last minute are just silly. Do like football and run seconds off the clock where there is less than one minute and the lead is that large.

 

[Jake]

The NIT is experimenting with rule changes this year, one of which includes eliminating the 1-and-1 foul (2 shots instead).

Naturally, the status quo talking head's opinion: "I think you're rewarding teams who don't shoot fouls well and making it harder for teams to come back late in games."

Aaaaaaaaarrggghhhh!!!!!!

No dipshit, you're rewarding teams for having a lead late in games and making it harder for teams to come back by intentionally breaking the rules, repeatedly.

 

[Jake]

Mike & Mike going off on "intentional" fouls - their words, correct by the way - late in games, but totally missing the point. They want challenge flags and "common sense", blah, blah, blah, but not even questioning WHY games end this way. Same old, same old.

 

[LitlBuck]

The only foul, that was meant to extend the game, that I saw called intentional this year late in a game was of course against Ohio State when they played at Goferland

 

[OHSportsFan]

Reading about the The Basketball Tournament and found this on their FAQ page. They used this "Target Score" system to end games during the regional "play in" tournaments (not the main tournament).

What is the Elam Ending?

Nick Elam, coordinator of a group of Mensa sports fans, sent us a 67-page Powerpoint deck in August describing a rule that could make the end of basketball games even more exciting. We feel we can boil it down to this: at the first dead ball after the 4-minute mark, the game clock shuts off. At that point, a Target Score is determined. Whichever team gets to the Target Score first wins. The Target Score is determined by adding 7 points to the leading team’s score at the time of the dead ball. For example, if Overseas Elite is beating Boeheim’s Army 75-70 with 4 minutes remaining and there is a dead ball, 82 (75+7) becomes the Target Score. The first team to get to 82 wins. Elam Ending!

Why are you adopting the Elam Ending for the Play-In event?

Nick’s research has shown that deliberate fouling is a shockingly inefficient way for a trailing team to come back: it rarely works. We think this rule change will dissuade teams from fouling for the sake of stopping the clock, thereby reducing the frequent stoppages of play that sometimes plague the end of games, leading to a quicker, more fun experience for fans.

 

[LitlBuck]

Reading about the The Basketball Tournament and found this on their FAQ page. They used this "Target Score" system to end games during the regional "play in" tournaments (not the main tournament).

What is the Elam Ending?

Nick Elam, coordinator of a group of Mensa sports fans, sent us a 67-page Powerpoint deck in August describing a rule that could make the end of basketball games even more exciting. We feel we can boil it down to this: at the first dead ball after the 4-minute mark, the game clock shuts off. At that point, a Target Score is determined. Whichever team gets to the Target Score first wins. The Target Score is determined by adding 7 points to the leading team’s score at the time of the dead ball. For example, if Overseas Elite is beating Boeheim’s Army 75-70 with 4 minutes remaining and there is a dead ball, 82 (75+7) becomes the Target Score. The first team to get to 82 wins. Elam Ending!

Why are you adopting the Elam Ending for the Play-In event?

Nick’s research has shown that deliberate fouling is a shockingly inefficient way for a trailing team to come back: it rarely works. We think this rule change will dissuade teams from fouling for the sake of stopping the clock, thereby reducing the frequent stoppages of play that sometimes plague the end of games, leading to a quicker, more fun experience for fans.

Sounds interesting and certainly would speed up the college game which @Jake would enjoy greatly. The only part about the concept that I would question is starting it at the 4 minute mark. 7 points in 4 minutes does not sound like much. Maybe started at the 3 minute mark. I do not know but he has the analytics to back it up.

I also know that in this tournament the number of fouls allowed is different. It is almost like the women's college game which allows 5 fouls with the half being broken down into 10 minute segments and each team gets 5 fouls before they shoot 2 free throws in every 10 minute segment.

 

[Jake]

Seems kind of random, but anything that gets rid of the foul fest is a step forward.

deliberate fouling happens in 50% of games, but is only effective 1.5% of the time

 

[DZ83CK]

I'm not sure that the Elam Ending will ever be implemented in college - when there are buzzer-beaters, those are very special moments. Every win being a walk-off is exciting for that element, but I don't know that they would ever be more exciting than a buzzer beater ending. Plus, we are dealing with a group of decision-makers that are resistant to change, they didn't go to the BCS even for how many years? But there are also other problems late in the clock, where it seems like a trend is that the college refs feel compelled to always go to the monitor late after a made shot that isn't quite a buzzer beater to check tenths of seconds to make 100% sure they have the right time.

I would rather severely cut timeout availability. I don't think teams should ever be allowed to use a timeout after the other team just called timeout with nothing (other than a display of personnel and positioning) happening in-between. With already having 8 TV timeouts, adequately spaced throughout the game, I do not think teams should have more than one team timeout per game, including any OT. Without as many timeouts killing the flow of the game, I don't think fouls would be as big of a deal.