End of game rules - thoughts

[Hall2012]

I hope people understand there is going to be no changes at all to the end of game rules. None. They aren't going to make it where comebacks will be harder to make. Period. TV won't allow it and the competition committee would never even remotely consider it for even 1 millisecond. Bottom line.

Agree that this isn't going to happen, but I don't think it would make comebacks harder. I actually think it would make them much easier because it allows the trailing team to run their offense and create good shots rather than racing against the clock. That and it takes away the other issue that the only way to get the ball back without killing the clock is to give the opponent "free" points.

Again, I don't see it happen, though I wouldn't mind seeing it at least experimented with in some of the lower post-season tournaments. Or maybe making OT something like a first to 10, instead of a timed period. Maybe win by 2 so we still have the potential for an epic marathon OT game.

[stever20]

I hope people understand there is going to be no changes at all to the end of game rules. None. They aren't going to make it where comebacks will be harder to make. Period. TV won't allow it and the competition committee would never even remotely consider it for even 1 millisecond. Bottom line.

Agree that this isn't going to happen, but I don't think it would make comebacks harder. I actually think it would make them much easier because it allows the trailing team to run their offense and create good shots rather than racing against the clock. That and it takes away the other issue that the only way to get the ball back without killing the clock is to give the opponent "free" points.

Again, I don't see it happen, though I wouldn't mind seeing it at least experimented with in some of the lower post-season tournaments. Or maybe making OT something like a first to 10, instead of a timed period. Maybe win by 2 so we still have the potential for an epic marathon OT game.

Maybe not with the proposed thing, but billyjacks thing of a foul committed by losing team in last 2 minutes takes 7 seconds off the clock is a complete non starter. The thing that people don't realize is that a lot of coaches don't look at the end of game stuff like it's broken.

Really, there's not going to be any changes at all.

AS far as post season tourneys experimenting with it- the only things they test there are things that have a chance of happening. 30 second shot clock a few years ago, the fouls resetting at the 10 minute mark, etc.

[cu blujs]

I'm not really a purist, but personally (and this is just my little opinion) I think its a dumb idea - and I don't see any assurance it would lead to any reduction in the length of a game. How many games actually end up that way? Maybe three or four out of a teams entire season, if that? Since it equates to a 70 point game, what about the game that is in the 50s? Are they going to play until a team, which is scoring at 1.4 points per minute scores 7 more? That's almost another 10 minutes of playing time. And, there are plenty of games where the teams scoring actually slows down in the last few minutes. My guess is there would be just as many games that go on for well over the time it might take to end in 4 minutes of game clock as we see now where there are more than 6-8 free throws in those last four minutes. Or, is it going to be the first of 4 minutes or 7 points? Why not just play every game to 70 points then? It could be like 3v3 games or like volleyball. Of course, first to 70 could end up in a 3 hour game some nights. Funny thing is I have heard some suggest volleyball should speed up games by going to a timed period for each set. Whoever has the most points when time expires wins that set.

[Hall2012]

I'm not really a purist, but personally (and this is just my little opinion) I think its a dumb idea - and I don't see any assurance it would lead to any reduction in the length of a game. How many games actually end up that way? Maybe three or four out of a teams entire season, if that? Since it equates to a 70 point game, what about the game that is in the 50s? Are they going to play until a team, which is scoring at 1.4 points per minute scores 7 more? That's almost another 10 minutes of playing time. And, there are plenty of games where the teams scoring actually slows down in the last few minutes. My guess is there would be just as many games that go on for well over the time it might take to end in 4 minutes of game clock as we see now where there are more than 6-8 free throws in those last four minutes. Or, is it going to be the first of 4 minutes or 7 points? Why not just play every game to 70 points then? It could be like 3v3 games or like volleyball. Of course, first to 70 could end up in a 3 hour game some nights. Funny thing is I have heard some suggest volleyball should speed up games by going to a timed period for each set. Whoever has the most points when time expires wins that set.

It wouldn't make games shorter, and that's not the idea. Ideally, games would take about the same length - but as you said - some could stretch out much longer and some could end a on a quick 30 seconds 7-0 run. I think the idea is to replace the large amounts of dead ball time at the end of games (foul - free throws - timeout - inbound, quick shot, maybe 10 secs off clock - foul - free throws - timeout) with live ball time of the teams still playing basketball.

Yes, scoring slows in the last few minutes of games - that's because the leading team almost always starts burning the whole shot clock in this time instead of running normal offense. These rules would increase scoring at the end of the game.

Also, just making it first to 70 wouldn't work for your exact reasoning - game times would vary too greatly. I believe 7 was chosen as the target point number just to prevent the game from ending too quickly on back to back threes (to require 3 possessions, though 2 is technically still possible with a 3-and-1).

[sciencejay]

Tremendous, innovative idea. The trouble with the basketball "purists" that want big guys to improve their free-throw shooting, is that a team can still come back by heaving up 3-pointers. A team can literally make every free throw on every possession and still lose a game--that implies there's an issue with the rules. Having open-ended "bonus time" would be the fairest approach and make for a cleaner game.

I may be a purist, but you're wrong. Hitting all your free throws at the end of the game and still losing due to the opponent draining a bunch of threes says nothing about the rules. It speaks to one team getting crazy hot from deep and/or the other team making mistakes defensively. If the bigs hit their free throws at a higher frequency, then it would be less desirable to send them to the line. You don't see teams fouling Curry at the end because it's likely he's going to hit his shots. That has no effect on whether they can hit their three on the other end. If team A is ahead and they hit 70% of their free throws, there's a lower probability of being able to mount a comeback compared to if they only shoot 50% from the line. It's all about probability and the way things are now (bigs can't hit free throws for the most part), the hack-a-big strategy gives the trailing team the best chance to comeback late in the game.

But I am warming up to this concept the more and more I think about it. I love the idea of teams being motivated to "play basketball"--get good, high percentage shots and play good defense--at the end of the game rather than hacking people just to see if they can hit free throws. To me, the negative is the lack of the time constraint. I love to see well-coached teams execute under pressure of opponent and time. That would be lost to some degree (but not completely if the shot clock were retained during the "first one to seven" period).

[billyjack]

What's that? Someone doesn't like my 7-second rule???
Ok, i'm increasing it to 10-seconds!!! You still talkin back to me? Don't make me go to 15, don't make me mister!!!

Actually these are my 2 suggestions:
1. under 2 minutes, if the losing team fouls, then 10-seconds are removed from the clock.
2. on the 14th foul of the half, it turns into a triple-bonus 3-shot foul.

Both of these will lessen the foul-line parade, and encourage teams to play good defense instead.

As far as turning off the clock... i don't support this at all. To me, it's very entertaining to watch a team try to manage their offense as the clock is ticking.

In fact, the most exciting shot in the history of college basketball was Kris Jenkins draining his 3 as the clock buzzed... this scenario would be completely lost under the thread's proposed rule.

Also, other suggestions could be to reduce the amount of commercials and reduce the teams' total timeouts.

Also, to me, i like the tension that builds during late game timeouts. I like discussing strategies with my sons, asking them who should take the last shot, or who should be double-teamed, etc. To me, this isn't really "down time". I think back to games announced by Enberg and McGuire... they'd run through different scenarios and givectheir opinions on what play should be called. Now Jim Nantz or Bilas sit there sleepwalking and/or give promos for "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "The Big Bang Theory" or some other dumb promo.

This sounds like a proposal invented by one of those boring conferences whose fans are falling asleep, like the non-UK SEC or Boston College. To me, the PC at DePaul loss and PC at Creighton win, those games last year, were fantastic and it's why i follow the sport.

[stever20]

What's that? Someone doesn't like my 7-second rule???
Ok, i'm increasing it to 10-seconds!!! You still talkin back to me? Don't make me go to 15, don't make me mister!!!

Actually these are my 2 suggestions:
1. under 2 minutes, if the losing team fouls, then 10-seconds are removed from the clock.
2. on the 14th foul of the half, it turns into a triple-bonus 3-shot foul.

Both of these will lessen the foul-line parade, and encourage teams to play good defense instead.

As far as turning off the clock... i don't support this at all. To me, it's very entertaining to watch a team try to manage their offense as the clock is ticking.

In fact, the most exciting shot in the history of college basketball was Kris Jenkins draining his 3 as the clock buzzed... this scenario would be completely lost under the thread's proposed rule.

Also, other suggestions could be to reduce the amount of commercials and reduce the teams' total timeouts.

Also, to me, i like the tension that builds during late game timeouts. I like discussing strategies with my sons, asking them who should take the last shot, or who should be double-teamed, etc. To me, this isn't really "down time". I think back to games announced by Enberg and McGuire... they'd run through different scenarios and givectheir opinions on what play should be called. Now Jim Nantz or Bilas sit there sleepwalking and/or give promos for "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "The Big Bang Theory" or some other dumb promo.

This sounds like a proposal invented by one of those boring conferences whose fans are falling asleep, like the non-UK SEC or Boston College. To me, the PC at DePaul loss and PC at Creighton win, those games last year, were fantastic and it's why i follow the sport.

And both of these have the chilling impact of limiting comebacks. And that's something that is so DOA it's not funny. I mean a team is down 2 with 9 seconds to go? WTF are they supposed to do? Go for a steal where the offensive player turns into them, drawing the foul, and it's game over? NO thank you.

I think folks who complain about the end of game situations are just a very vocal small portion of who watches basketball.

[Hall2012]

What's that? Someone doesn't like my 7-second rule???
Ok, i'm increasing it to 10-seconds!!! You still talkin back to me? Don't make me go to 15, don't make me mister!!!

Actually these are my 2 suggestions:
1. under 2 minutes, if the losing team fouls, then 10-seconds are removed from the clock.
2. on the 14th foul of the half, it turns into a triple-bonus 3-shot foul.

Both of these will lessen the foul-line parade, and encourage teams to play good defense instead.

As far as turning off the clock... i don't support this at all. To me, it's very entertaining to watch a team try to manage their offense as the clock is ticking.

In fact, the most exciting shot in the history of college basketball was Kris Jenkins draining his 3 as the clock buzzed... this scenario would be completely lost under the thread's proposed rule.

Also, other suggestions could be to reduce the amount of commercials and reduce the teams' total timeouts.

Also, to me, i like the tension that builds during late game timeouts. I like discussing strategies with my sons, asking them who should take the last shot, or who should be double-teamed, etc. To me, this isn't really "down time". I think back to games announced by Enberg and McGuire... they'd run through different scenarios and givectheir opinions on what play should be called. Now Jim Nantz or Bilas sit there sleepwalking and/or give promos for "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "The Big Bang Theory" or some other dumb promo.

This sounds like a proposal invented by one of those boring conferences whose fans are falling asleep, like the non-UK SEC or Boston College. To me, the PC at DePaul loss and PC at Creighton win, those games last year, were fantastic and it's why i follow the sport.

I don't agree that the run-off would discourage fouling at the end of games. It would just leave the trailing team with 2 bad options - foul and take a 10 second run-off or play defense which is the equivalent of a 30 second run-off. They're still going to choose the foul because when you're racing against the clock - losing 10 seconds sucks but it still preferable to 30. Of course, the obvious alternative is going aggressively for a steal - but how does that usually end? Either in a clean steal or a foul. Now with the 10 second run-off if a foul is called, we just increased the swing that one whistle will have on the game - especially in really late game scenario's where the run-off could end the game.

[billyjack]

What's that? Someone doesn't like my 7-second rule???
Ok, i'm increasing it to 10-seconds!!! You still talkin back to me? Don't make me go to 15, don't make me mister!!!

Actually these are my 2 suggestions:
1. under 2 minutes, if the losing team fouls, then 10-seconds are removed from the clock.
2. on the 14th foul of the half, it turns into a triple-bonus 3-shot foul.

Both of these will lessen the foul-line parade, and encourage teams to play good defense instead.

As far as turning off the clock... i don't support this at all. To me, it's very entertaining to watch a team try to manage their offense as the clock is ticking.

In fact, the most exciting shot in the history of college basketball was Kris Jenkins draining his 3 as the clock buzzed... this scenario would be completely lost under the thread's proposed rule.

Also, other suggestions could be to reduce the amount of commercials and reduce the teams' total timeouts.

Also, to me, i like the tension that builds during late game timeouts. I like discussing strategies with my sons, asking them who should take the last shot, or who should be double-teamed, etc. To me, this isn't really "down time". I think back to games announced by Enberg and McGuire... they'd run through different scenarios and givectheir opinions on what play should be called. Now Jim Nantz or Bilas sit there sleepwalking and/or give promos for "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "The Big Bang Theory" or some other dumb promo.

This sounds like a proposal invented by one of those boring conferences whose fans are falling asleep, like the non-UK SEC or Boston College. To me, the PC at DePaul loss and PC at Creighton win, those games last year, were fantastic and it's why i follow the sport.

And both of these have the chilling impact of limiting comebacks. And that's something that is so DOA it's not funny. I mean a team is down 2 with 9 seconds to go? WTF are they supposed to do? Go for a steal where the offensive player turns into them, drawing the foul, and it's game over? NO thank you.

I think folks who complain about the end of game situations are just a very vocal small portion of who watches basketball.

If a team is down 2 without the ball then yeah, they have to play good defense. F--king Maryland at Georgetown last year... Terps kept driving in 2.9 seconds for a hoop then would foul in 0.1 seconds. This 3-second cycle repeated itself like 7 times in 30 seconds. This is bullsh--. If Maryland isn't good enough to win in the first 39 minutes and 30 seconds, why should rules make it *easier* for them to weasel out a win?

[stever20]

Georgetown was 5-6 on Free Throws in the last minute. So the free throws didn't impact things much at all.

The problems were-
1- 2 turnovers which led directly to 4 points.
2- Georgetown committed 3 fouls themselves, which allowed Maryland to go 6-6 from the line in those last 30 seconds.

I think my thing is why should rules be different in the last 2 minutes than they are thru the entire game? One of my biggest pet peeves in sports is in the NBA how teams can play great defense for 1st 10 minutes of a quarter, no fouls, and then with 1 foul your opponent is in the bonus the rest of the quarter. That's a joke.