Interesting idea to alter the end of basketball games

[RoyalShock]

A New Beginning for Basketball's End

I like the premise of this idea.

[Bob Sacamano]

Silly idea. The fouling strategy does work sometimes, it allowed KU to beat Memphis in 2008 for the championship.

Actually, now that I think about it.... I guess anything that reduces the number of chickenhawk championships is okay in my book.

[60Shock]

We used to have a rather simple solution to the problem. Never did know why it was changed.

Commit a foul in the last couple of minutes and the team that was fouled retains the ball and either gets two shots if shooting and one if not.

[MadaboutWu]

We used to have a rather simple solution to the problem. Never did know why it was changed.

Commit a foul in the last couple of minutes and the team that was fouled retains the ball and either gets two shots if shooting and one if not.

I think the reason is that folks want some chance for a team to be able to come from behind in the last minute. With this rule change a one point lead with the ball is a virtual lock in the last 35 seconds. A four point lead becomes nearly insurmountable with 1 minute to play.

[shock]

It forces the team to make a play on the ball and not allow the leading team to just dribble it out.

[ShockerFever]

The winning team deserves the right to do what they want to in the final minutes of a game. Is it really fair to try and completely alter the end of a game just to give a team that didn't play well enough in the first 35 minutes of a game a better chance to come back in the last 5? The trailing team puts themselves in that situation. Don't like it? Don't fall behind throughout the game.

This is a moronic idea that thankfully would never be taken seriously.

[ShockerEngr]

These strategies seemed to work out well for us at Missouri state last year

[MadaboutWu]

IIRC more steals/forced turnovers against Missouri State than fouls. But it is true that while the foul fest at the end of game are annoying the time pressure produces some great finishes.

[ShockerPrez]

Its not the fouling. Its the 5 minute replays to look at the clock after each foul that is annoying. Making a team make free throws is not bad. Maybe a rule regarding a set amount of time that will be deemed to have elapsed is the way to go.

[ShockerEngr]

IIRC more steals/forced turnovers against Missouri State than fouls. But it is true that while the foul fest at the end of game are annoying the time pressure produces some great finishes.

No it wasn't all fouls, but possession and delay tactics were used thoroughly at the end of he game. To me it was great possession management.

But it is an outlier

[RoyalShock]

I think the issue is how all these late-game tactics can bastardize the game of basketball. I can't stand watching a game where there's 10 seconds of game play for every 2-3 minutes of real time. Foul, FTs, timeout, foul, refs check the clock, FTs, another foul, another timeout.

I'd just like to see the NCAA do something like what is being proposed on a trial basis. Exhibition games, maybe some of the early-season tournaments. There's no way to know how it will affect the game unless it's actually tried.

[im4wsu]

I remember a couple of different "rules" or "experimentations" bcak in the good old days. One, as mentioned above, is the offended team might retain the ball -- I remember it as the offended team could shoot the free-throws OR retain the ball at the side-line. There may have been an alternative where the offended team got a free throw AND retained the ball.

Another experiment was simply to give the offended team an Additional free throw, not dependent on making the initial attempt(s).

I liked the first option, the offended team could (A) shoot the free-throws, with or without a possible additional throw, od (B) could elect to in-bounds the ball from the sideline at mid-court. This sped up play if the FTs were not shot and eliminated the "advantage" of fouling intentionally by reducing the "advantage" to the posdsibility of stealing the rock on the pass inbounds.

One alternative that comes to mind is one I have not seen experimented with, but allow the offended team to "select" from players on the court the player to attempt the FTs. This of course would not speed the game, but would lessen the potential of the miraculous comeback.

Basketball seems to be the only major sporting contest where a team may achieve an advantage by cheating (defined here as breaking the rules, which a fouls is a breaking of the rules). IMHO, if such cheating is to be rewarded, then let both teams do it all game long and don't call any fouls (this would be MVC officiating if both teams were treated as Shocker opponents). Or in the alternative, just eliminate all floor play and shoot 100 FTs by each team to determine the winner.

[Kung Wu]

I think the issue is how all these late-game tactics can bastardize the game of basketball. I can't stand watching a game where there's 10 seconds of game play for every 2-3 minutes of real time. Foul, FTs, timeout, foul, refs check the clock, FTs, another foul, another timeout.

I'd just like to see the NCAA do something like what is being proposed on a trial basis. Exhibition games, maybe some of the early-season tournaments. There's no way to know how it will affect the game unless it's actually tried.

Yes, before my wife became the diehard Shocker basketball fan she is, it took a long time for her to grasp that when she sees about 1 minute on the game clock, there is still likely another 15 minutes to go before her husband will pay any attention to her.

Basketball's endgame may be an excellent teaching tool for Einstein's theory of relativity.

[Dave Stalwart]

Maybe basketball just needs to embrace the idea of clock stoppage and possession management but not force teams to hit each other to do it. I have always found it funny that, essentially, you can only stay in the game by cheating. You have to commit a "foul" to stop the clock and actually gain an advantage, which makes no sense.

I've contemplated the idea of cracking down on it and calling intentional fouls A LOT more when they really are obviously intentional at the end of the game. That would create a lot of judgement calls though and would be very hard to figure out.

Another idea I've been kicking around is just adding 3-5 "clock stoppage only" timeouts that don't actually allow the team to congregate like a typical timeout and can only be used under 5 minutes to go. Would that work? It's kind of dumb, but it would keep people from having to foul and effectively cheat to win. For example, your team just hit a basket, you signal your clock stoppage timeout so the other teams possession is shot clock only, but no game clock. If they miss the basket but get the rebound, you have to use another one. And you can't use them when you have the ball.

[Heinro]

The winning team deserves the right to do what they want to in the final minutes of a game. Is it really fair to try and completely alter the end of a game just to give a team that didn't play well enough in the first 35 minutes of a game a better chance to come back in the last 5? The trailing team puts themselves in that situation. Don't like it? Don't fall behind throughout the game.

This is a moronic idea that thankfully would never be taken seriously.

+1,000,000

Further, I'd argue that 7% of games which had results changed (3 winners out of 45 triers) is not an insignificant number.

In my opinion the needless reviews for .4 of a second and the stock piling of time outs for the last 4 minutes are much larger issues that are even less effective in changing the outcomes of games and much more frustrating as a fan. Nothing will make an average fan tune out quicker than 2 back to back timeouts followed by a 3 minute review that spans a 15 second span on the game clock.