"4 Quarters + Team Fouls + Free Throws" - NCAA Rules Experiment 2017

[shockerfanmas]

As someone who has watched a lot of women's games over the past couple years since they went to quarters, I can assure you that the games go much quicker time wise. Barring overtime, the majority of women's games I've seen are done in an hour 45. That's a far cry from watching the men's games that stretch over 2 hours.

Men's basketball needs to go to quarters. Everything else is quarters. High school, junior high, women's college, pro ball. Make it universal.

As far as eliminating the 1 and 1, I hate that, with a passion. There is a strategy to the 1 and 1, and puts a lot of pressure on the free throw shooter to make that first shot. I don't like it in the women's game, I won't like it in the men's game. So I'm not at all impressed with these changes.

[ShockCrazy]

My reasoning for eliminating 2 shots for all but shooting fouls had nothing to do with game flow. It rewards teams who make their free throws and opens the door for more late comebacks. It could also have some adverse side effects and lead to a few interesting late game stratagies. I would also support raising the number of fouls to get into the bonus which would improve game flow.

The thing is this change effectively raises the foul limit while simultaneously punishing teams more when they foul too much, which I think is the right balance. Because of the change each team has 4 fouls to give per quarter or 8 per half, compared to the current 6, but again two free throws for every foul over the limit. Also I think this change encourages team to comeback by making actual basketball plays(playing straight up defense rather than fouling).

[ShockCrazy]

As someone who has watched a lot of women's games over the past couple years since they went to quarters, I can assure you that the games go much quicker time wise. Barring overtime, the majority of women's games I've seen are done in an hour 45. That's a far cry from watching the men's games that stretch over 2 hours.

Men's basketball needs to go to quarters. Everything else is quarters. High school, junior high, women's college, pro ball. Make it universal.

As far as eliminating the 1 and 1, I hate that, with a passion. There is a strategy to the 1 and 1, and puts a lot of pressure on the free throw shooter to make that first shot. I don't like it in the women's game, I won't like it in the men's game. So I'm not at all impressed with these changes.

I would argue there is zero strategy to one and one. If you are trailing, you foul under 2. Where as with a 2 shot guarantee, you have to decide if the expected value of someone going to the line is better than your defense.

Take the average shooter at 70% above, if it's one and one you are giving up an expected 1.19 points per possession, decent but not crazy, but with 2, you are giving up 1.4. Perhaps it's better to actually play defense there.

[im4wsu]

It is strange to devote so much attention to developing rules that actually accommodate a strategy of cheating (act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination) .

[1979Shocker]

On the foul limits of each 10-minute segment, I would have gone with two free throws after 5 fouls. That would line up with the two free throws after 10 fouls that we have now. Since the 1 and 1 would be eliminated, there would be no need to have a foul limit for it, which would have been half of today's 7 fouls (either 3 or 4).

Also, in overtime, if they're going to use 4 fouls as the limit in a 10-minute segment, then they should use 2 fouls in a 5-minute segment. If they moved the foul limit up to 5 in a 10-minute segment, then the 3 foul limit in overtime would work.

[Heinro]

The 2nd free throw is hardly the cause of lengthy stoppages. The act of getting everyone on the court to come over and set up for a free throw is what causes bad game flow.

If every free throw were a 1 and 1, there would be a lot more hack-a-shaq style strategies out there. If you're a 70% free throw shooter, your expected return on two free throws is 1.4 points. I don't know how to do the calculation for a 1 and 1* but it would be substantially lower. If you've got a bad free throw shooter who is tearing it up inside, send in Hamilton to foul him constantly.

*math nerds - is it just .7 for the first free throw and (.7*.7) for the second free throw since that takes into consideration the probability of having a second free throw? If so, your expected return is 1.19.

Good point. Just mentally for me I guess.

Trying to calculate (I know you are right, just bored and intrigued.):
I sampled 10 made first free throws between the MSU/OSU and OU/Texas games. The time was 2:53.12 from first make to second make/miss. Based on that small sample size it is about 15 seconds per miss, including if there are substitutions after the first make (it is about 25 seconds if subs are made after the first free throw). Therefore, you save approximately 45 seconds for every 10 trips to the free throw line or about 4.5 seconds per trip.
I don't know the stats to do the remaining calculation.
(Average trips to the line per game - average shooting foul trips) * 4.5 seconds = seems like it would be minuscule.
For you math wizards, did I calculate correctly?
The flow aspect at the end of the game, considering subs would be more limited (offense/defense subs) may increase at least somewhat, but that would limit strategy. Maximum flow potential of a few minutes could be achieved in a close game where both coaches subbed offense/defense and free throw shooting is terrible.

I still much prefer the 1-1 and the added suspense.

As for quarters, I anticipate that would be something I would get use to pretty quickly. Similar to the 30 second shot clock but it would affect the game even less. I'm just resistant to change.

[jdshock]

Good point. Just mentally for me I guess.

Trying to calculate (I know you are right, just bored and intrigued.):
I sampled 10 made first free throws between the MSU/OSU and OU/Texas games. The time was 2:53.12 from first make to second make/miss. Based on that small sample size it is about 15 seconds per miss, including if there are substitutions after the first make (it is about 25 seconds if subs are made after the first free throw). Therefore, you save approximately 45 seconds for every 10 trips to the free throw line or about 4.5 seconds per trip.
I don't know the stats to do the remaining calculation.
(Average trips to the line per game - average shooting foul trips) * 4.5 seconds = seems like it would be minuscule.
For you math wizards, did I calculate correctly?
The flow aspect at the end of the game, considering subs would be more limited (offense/defense subs) may increase at least somewhat, but that would limit strategy. Maximum flow potential of a few minutes could be achieved in a close game where both coaches subbed offense/defense and free throw shooting is terrible.

I still much prefer the 1-1 and the added suspense.

As for quarters, I anticipate that would be something I would get use to pretty quickly. Similar to the 30 second shot clock but it would affect the game even less. I'm just resistant to change.

I could be wrong, but I don't see why you couldn't sub in during a one and one. The substitution would just happen prior to the first free throw instead of after the first free throw.

Your point regarding suspense is a good one.

[im4wsu]

I wonder why the short-lived experiment with four quarters in the '50s was considered a failure? Back then, TV was not a factor.

[Heinro]

I could be wrong, but I don't see why you couldn't sub in during a one and one. The substitution would just happen prior to the first free throw instead of after the first free throw.

Your point regarding suspense is a good one.

They could, but my assumption would be that the extra time for subs would be consumed in the time it takes to gather everyone at the line.

[Heinro]

I wonder why the short-lived experiment with four quarters in the '50s was considered a failure? Back then, TV was not a factor.

+1

[Cdizzle]

If we go to quarters, can the Valley institute a 'running clock' option for the 4th quarter?