http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nit-on-the-.../16547460/

So what do you all think about the rules changes the NIT will experiment with this year? It might draw some eyeballs just to see whether they improve the game the way they hope. And the NIT can always use more eyeballs.

(02-24-2017 09:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nit-on-the-.../16547460/

So what do you all think about the rules changes the NIT will experiment with this year? It might draw some eyeballs just to see whether they improve the game the way they hope. And the NIT can always use more eyeballs.

College ball once had four quarters. I did like it better. Eliminating so many one and one's will speed up the game because it won't make the last couple of minutes a free throw shooting competition. There will be more pressure on the ball but a lot less intentional fouls.

I'm not sure I like 4 fouls per period and wiping the slate clean. I'd have to see how that works out. It might be interesting to see about fouling players out for halves and giving each of them 3 fouls to work with in a half.

IMO the best thing that could happen to the game as it is played today is to put 4 officials on the court instead of 3 and let two officials simply cover half of the court. I think the game is too fast for the officiating. I'd also like to see palming and traveling called as the rules state instead of having so wide a range of interpretation. Really 3, 4, and sometimes 5 steps on the way to the basket is a bit absurd.

(02-24-2017 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/nit-on-the-.../16547460/

So what do you all think about the rules changes the NIT will experiment with this year? It might draw some eyeballs just to see whether they improve the game the way they hope. And the NIT can always use more eyeballs.

College ball once had four quarters. I did like it better. Eliminating so many one and one's will speed up the game because it won't make the last couple of minutes a free throw shooting competition. There will be more pressure on the ball but a lot less intentional fouls.

I'm not sure I like 4 fouls per period and wiping the slate clean. I'd have to see how that works out. It might be interesting to see about fouling players out for halves and giving each of them 3 fouls to work with in a half.

IMO the best thing that could happen to the game as it is played today is to put 4 officials on the court instead of 3 and let two officials simply cover half of the court. I think the game is too fast for the officiating. I'd also like to see palming and traveling called as the rules state instead of having so wide a range of interpretation. Really 3, 4, and sometimes 5 steps on the way to the basket is a bit absurd.

I think when they are "wiping the slate clean" they are only talking about team fouls, not individual players. They will still have five fouls only, regardless when they occur.

Giving players 3 fouls per half probably just means everybody gets one free foul in the first half, since players are usually on the bench with their second foul in the half. If they had 3 in the first half, then they wouldn't even need to play cautiously, knowing they'd be back on the floor at the start of the second half regardless.

I'd like to keep the one-and-one, but only for the first three quarters. I'd rather the losing team have to rally by playing better defense in the end game than just by fouling intentionally.

Idiotic rules.

Remove the shot clock. A team shouldn't be forced to give up the ball.

Anything that speeds up the end of game instead of a long slumber to the foul line, I am in favor of. I just don't understand the entertainment value of fouling to help your chances of winning. It just makes the end of the game unbearable to watch.

Personally, I would like to see a rule that when a team gets fouled, it gets to shoot 1 free throw, and then gets the ball back. Hard fouls get 2 free throws, and then you get the ball back. Intentional fouls get4 free throws, and then you get the ball back.

If a shooter gets fouled, and does not make the shot, he gets 2 or 3 free throws, and then his team gets the ball back. If a shooter gets fouled and he makes it, the team gets 2 or 3 points for making the shot, and the shooter gets 1 free throw, but then the other team gets the ball back instead.

Heh, take away the shot clock, and you're getting those high school-like scores of 41-33. You're praying for death by the end of regulation.

I like the rules. I wish they'd just adopt the pro rules with the 10-minute quarter schema, but this isn't bad. Dropping the 1 and 1 while perhaps getting a mulligan with the slate-clearing is fair.

Gotta think if this gets into a permanent place, it makes Coach K retire. Dude basically wrote the book on how to play "catch up" with the fouling structure as it stands. Foul a bad shooter, miss the first shot, and rally. Now, regardless of how bad the shooter is, they get the second shot. It's a whole different kind of strategy and dynamic. You wonder how it incentivizes teams who are losing...do you even try to rally? Or, is there a need for counterbalance, and refs swallow their whistles...and Big East thug ball returns?

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Idiotic rules.

Remove the shot clock. A team shouldn't be forced to give up the ball.

LOL. IF anything the shot clock will be getting shorter, not longer or being removed.

Fans want games to speed up, not slow down. JR made some great points. I hate watching free throw competitions at the end of games, that's boring.

This is also the same reason MLB is changing rules to speed up games where there is 3 hours of time for less than 10 minutes of action. Just a bunch of waiting between pitches/innings.

As usual you are 180 degrees off. Keep up the fine work.

(02-24-2017 10:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  Anything that speeds up the end of game instead of a long slumber to the foul line, I am in favor of. I just don't understand the entertainment value of fouling to help your chances of winning. It just makes the end of the game unbearable to watch.

Personally, I would like to see a rule that when a team gets fouled, it gets to shoot 1 free throw, and then gets the ball back. Hard fouls get 2 free throws, and then you get the ball back. Intentional fouls get4 free throws, and then you get the ball back.

If a shooter gets fouled, and does not make the shot, he gets 2 or 3 free throws, and then his team gets the ball back. If a shooter gets fouled and he makes it, the team gets 2 or 3 points for making the shot, and the shooter gets 1 free throw, but then the other team gets the ball back instead.

Yeah, I like this. I've never understood why the player loses possession because the other team committed a penalty and then he has to hit 2 or 3 shots to get the same number of points he could have earned from his shot. Getting the ball back would really cut down on the end of game fouling, which is what everyone hates.

(02-24-2017 10:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  Anything that speeds up the end of game instead of a long slumber to the foul line, I am in favor of. I just don't understand the entertainment value of fouling to help your chances of winning. It just makes the end of the game unbearable to watch.

Personally, I would like to see a rule that when a team gets fouled, it gets to shoot 1 free throw, and then gets the ball back. Hard fouls get 2 free throws, and then you get the ball back. Intentional fouls get4 free throws, and then you get the ball back.

If a shooter gets fouled, and does not make the shot, he gets 2 or 3 free throws, and then his team gets the ball back. If a shooter gets fouled and he makes it, the team gets 2 or 3 points for making the shot, and the shooter gets 1 free throw, but then the other team gets the ball back instead.

That would be awesome to speed things up and stop all the on purpose fouls.

I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

Any intentional fouls need to be eliminated from the game. Much like in college FB players pretending to be hurt to stop the clock, or flopping in the NBA. Any play like that needs to be penalized and eliminated from the game if possible.

I really like the idea of free throws plus possession if you are fouled. Would stop all the games where the last minute takes half an hour while each team shoots 25 free throws.

Raise to hoops to 12 feet.

the thing is in a lot of these situations late in games, teams are already in the double bonus.

They are never eliminating the intentional fouling at the end of the games. Never.

Think they're just trying to show, indirectly, that the court won't melt down if the team fouls reset at 9:59 in each half.

Then if that's true ....

(02-24-2017 03:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing is in a lot of these situations late in games, teams are already in the double bonus.

They are never eliminating the intentional fouling at the end of the games. Never.

International rules give a team fouled at the end of the game the option of taking the ball out of bounds (with a fresh shot clock) or shooting the free throws. That should be considered.

Another possibility is an old ABA rule that gave teams in the bonus a 3-to-make-2 from the free throw line, so that if they missed at least one of the first 2 shots, they'd get a 3rd FT attempt. That would decrease the incentive to foul by increasing the likelihood that the fouled team would get 2 points.

The NIT experiment of giving two free throws and never just 1-and-1 is a good idea to try as well, maybe even better if limited to the 4th quarter and OT.

And yes, men's college hoops should play 4 10-minute quarters instead of 2 20-minute halves, though that isn't closely related to the intentional foul issue.

The 3-point shot has been great for basketball but one side effect is that it increases intentional fouling at the end of a game because the trailing team can narrow the margin with a 3-pointer even if the leading team makes both free throws at the other end. I see no way to address that issue, except moving the college 3-point line back to the NBA distance to make it less likely a trailing team could get 3 after giving up 2 on foul shots at the other end.

(02-24-2017 04:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 03:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing is in a lot of these situations late in games, teams are already in the double bonus.

They are never eliminating the intentional fouling at the end of the games. Never.

International rules give a team fouled at the end of the game the option of taking the ball out of bounds (with a fresh shot clock) or shooting the free throws. That should be considered.

Another possibility is an old ABA rule that gave teams in the bonus a 3-to-make-2 from the free throw line, so that if they missed at least one of the first 2 shots, they'd get a 3rd FT attempt. That would decrease the incentive to foul by increasing the likelihood that the fouled team would get 2 points.

The NIT experiment of giving two free throws and never just 1-and-1 is a good idea to try as well, maybe even better if limited to the 4th quarter and OT.

And yes, men's college hoops should play 4 10-minute quarters instead of 2 20-minute halves, though that isn't closely related to the intentional foul issue.

The 3-point shot has been great for basketball but one side effect is that it increases intentional fouling at the end of a game because the trailing team can narrow the margin with a 3-pointer even if the leading team makes both free throws at the other end. I see no way to address that issue, except moving the college 3-point line back to the NBA distance to make it less likely a trailing team could get 3 after giving up 2 on foul shots at the other end.

Shots and the ball solves all of that anyway.

Why is everyone in this thread so hell bent on removing almost any chance of a team coming back from a deficit in the last few minutes of a game? Yes you can play good defense and try and get turnovers but having that be the only option means much less close games/buzzer beaters/etc. because teams simply won't be able to cut into leads as easily. This would end up making games a whole hell of a lot more boring than the current situation where you watch free throws being shot. I'll take watching free throws over watching the team with the lead pass the ball around for 30 seconds every time they get it.

As someone who frequents college women's basketball games, I am really excited about the possibility of the men adopting the same rules. From a "flow of game" standpoint, I think the four quarter setup is more ideal especially if you get those timeouts of the way early in the quarter and the officials are "swallowing their whistles" so there's not as many fouls.

Another poster indicated, "Anything that speeds up the end of game instead of a long slumber to the foul line, I am in favor of." and I can agree to that.

(02-24-2017 04:27 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  Why is everyone in this thread so hell bent on removing almost any chance of a team coming back from a deficit in the last few minutes of a game?

Would you enjoy watching football games if the trailing team could end every game by forcing the leading team to just attempt one 50-yard FG after another in the last 6 minutes, instead of running a normal offensive sequence in which they try to run the clock down?