NIT Experimental rules

[stever20]

Just saw this-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... arter-game

While they aren't going to be testing 4 quarters in the NIT, they will be resetting the fouls at the 9:59 mark- very similar to quarters.... No more 1 and 1's but rather 2 shots at 5 fouls.

The other big experiment is they'll be resetting the shot clock to 20 on inbounds after fouls and ball inbounded in front court.

Will be really interesting to see how this goes. I think the 20 minutes 7/10 fouls situation is gone after this year.

[sciencejay]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

[stever20]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

It's going to speed things quite a bit. Now if you have 6 fouls after 5 minutes you aren't in the bonus for the rest of the half.

Also frankly a lot of times, both teams are in the double bonus already long before crunch time, and so there's no 1 and 1's in crunch time.

[hoyahooligan]

Terrible Ideas.

What I'd prefer we do with FTs is on a foul you shoot one FT worth 2 points.

[Westbrook#36]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the one & one FT's greatly benefit the team that's behind and forced to foul. Why punish the team that has played better and established an advantage? I think it's time to break the college game up into quarters. Less TV timeouts, less interruptions, and hopefully quicker games. Plus high school and the NBA play 4 quarters, why should the college game be different?

[herodotus]

College women also play 4 quarters.

[CPJays]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the one & one FT's greatly benefit the team that's behind and forced to foul. Why punish the team that has played better and established an advantage? I think it's time to break the college game up into quarters. Less TV timeouts, less interruptions, and hopefully quicker games. Plus high school and the NBA play 4 quarters, why should the college game be different?

It appears they are trying to not be forced to go to 1 less TV TO each half by doing this bizarre resetting fouls at 9:59 rather than just calling it separate 10 min quarters. They get to keep their 4 min breaks that way. If you go to 10 min quarters you naturally would get TOs every 5 mins.

[sciencejay]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the one & one FT's greatly benefit the team that's behind and forced to foul. Why punish the team that has played better and established an advantage? I think it's time to break the college game up into quarters. Less TV timeouts, less interruptions, and hopefully quicker games. Plus high school and the NBA play 4 quarters, why should the college game be different?

But you aren't punishing anyone. If a team can go most of the half without fouling, then they can take advantage at the end of a tight game. In my opinion, they are changing the rules in the favor of the teams who can't shoot free throws. It is called a FREE throw after all. 15 feet from the bucket. No one in your face playing D. It should be one of the easiest shots in the game. The game has been changed to focus on athleticism at the expense of basketball skill--the shot clock is another example. I loved when Princeton almost beat Ewing's Hoyas. They had no chance to match up mano a mano, so they out-executed them and almost won. Almost (not entirely, but almost) impossible nowadays. That's the beauty of sport to me. A win can be garnered in many different ways, and even in the face of a far superior opponent, if you play your game, you just might win. (someone cue the Hoosiers pep talk).

And I don't care about high school, nba, college women's hoops, etc, that play quarters. I just don't. They are trying to fix a problem by messing with something else. If players could shoot free throws reasonably well, then it would not benefit an opponent to foul them a lot. Big athletic guys can dunk, but since they can't protect the ball with the dribble or good passing well enough to work the defense around for a good shot (shot clock), and since they can't hit free throws (get rid of the one-and-one), let's just change the rules. These changes are not about game length. They are about making the game exciting to people who only pay attention about 25% of the time. You can look up from your phone and see someone dunk, so you enjoy the experience. I simply cannot remember ever hearing anyone complain about the length of men's college basketball games. NFL? Yes. MLB? Hell Yes! College football? Yes. But literally never college basketball. These new rules hurt the quality of the basketball. IMHO.

[billyjack]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the one & one FT's greatly benefit the team that's behind and forced to foul. Why punish the team that has played better and established an advantage? I think it's time to break the college game up into quarters. Less TV timeouts, less interruptions, and hopefully quicker games. Plus high school and the NBA play 4 quarters, why should the college game be different?

But you aren't punishing anyone. If a team can go most of the half without fouling, then they can take advantage at the end of a tight game. In my opinion, they are changing the rules in the favor of the teams who can't shoot free throws. It is called a FREE throw after all. 15 feet from the bucket. No one in your face playing D. It should be one of the easiest shots in the game. The game has been changed to focus on athleticism at the expense of basketball skill--the shot clock is another example. I loved when Princeton almost beat Ewing's Hoyas. They had no chance to match up mano a mano, so they out-executed them and almost won. Almost (not entirely, but almost) impossible nowadays. That's the beauty of sport to me. A win can be garnered in many different ways, and even in the face of a far superior opponent, if you play your game, you just might win. (someone cue the Hoosiers pep talk).

And I don't care about high school, nba, college women's hoops, etc, that play quarters. I just don't. They are trying to fix a problem by messing with something else. If players could shoot free throws reasonably well, then it would not benefit an opponent to foul them a lot. Big athletic guys can dunk, but since they can't protect the ball with the dribble or good passing well enough to work the defense around for a good shot (shot clock), and since they can't hit free throws (get rid of the one-and-one), let's just change the rules. These changes are not about game length. They are about making the game exciting to people who only pay attention about 25% of the time. You can look up from your phone and see someone dunk, so you enjoy the experience. I simply cannot remember ever hearing anyone complain about the length of men's college basketball games. NFL? Yes. MLB? Hell Yes! College football? Yes. But literally never college basketball. These new rules hurt the quality of the basketball. IMHO.

I'm with sciencejay on this.

Quarters are unnecessary. This is a solution looking for a problem. The idea that "everyone else has quarters" is a pretty weak reason for changing college rules, since no one is complaining about this. Also, a team with 1 foul at the 11 minute mark can hack away for 3 more fouls, and everything re-sets.

The re-set of the shot clock to 20 is fine. I think it they should do that for offensive rebounds too.

[Westbrook#36]

Interesting, but I don't love the loss of the one-and-one. I love the added strategy/tactics involved late in a half with that. You look at the hack-a-shaq stuff that prevents dominant players (who can't make free throws) from being on the court at crunch time. They don't create rules that protect teams from getting the ball stolen when the opponent plays good defense on an in bounds play, so why create rules to protect teams with crappy foul shooters? I wish two shots didn't kick in until 12 fouls in a half. Xavier benefited when Ronnie Harrell missed the front end of a one-and-one late in the game. If he gets two shots, is he more relaxed and so hits both? At least one? Either way, it changes the dynamic of the end of the CU-X game in Omaha a week ago. I'm not saying X didn't deserve to win, but if there's no one-and-one, the end of that game is different. X missed the front end with just a few seconds left too. I love the drama of the one-and-one, and I will hate to see it go. What's next? CBB going to a three-to-make-two scenario? WTF?

And I'm still unsure of the benefit of going to four quarters. I guess it adds a hard time out to each half, but other than college being different that everyone else, what does the change do to benefit the game?

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the one & one FT's greatly benefit the team that's behind and forced to foul. Why punish the team that has played better and established an advantage? I think it's time to break the college game up into quarters. Less TV timeouts, less interruptions, and hopefully quicker games. Plus high school and the NBA play 4 quarters, why should the college game be different?

But you aren't punishing anyone. If a team can go most of the half without fouling, then they can take advantage at the end of a tight game. In my opinion, they are changing the rules in the favor of the teams who can't shoot free throws. It is called a FREE throw after all. 15 feet from the bucket. No one in your face playing D. It should be one of the easiest shots in the game. The game has been changed to focus on athleticism at the expense of basketball skill--the shot clock is another example. I loved when Princeton almost beat Ewing's Hoyas. They had no chance to match up mano a mano, so they out-executed them and almost won. Almost (not entirely, but almost) impossible nowadays. That's the beauty of sport to me. A win can be garnered in many different ways, and even in the face of a far superior opponent, if you play your game, you just might win. (someone cue the Hoosiers pep talk).

And I don't care about high school, nba, college women's hoops, etc, that play quarters. I just don't. They are trying to fix a problem by messing with something else. If players could shoot free throws reasonably well, then it would not benefit an opponent to foul them a lot. Big athletic guys can dunk, but since they can't protect the ball with the dribble or good passing well enough to work the defense around for a good shot (shot clock), and since they can't hit free throws (get rid of the one-and-one), let's just change the rules. These changes are not about game length. They are about making the game exciting to people who only pay attention about 25% of the time. You can look up from your phone and see someone dunk, so you enjoy the experience. I simply cannot remember ever hearing anyone complain about the length of men's college basketball games. NFL? Yes. MLB? Hell Yes! College football? Yes. But literally never college basketball. These new rules hurt the quality of the basketball. IMHO.

TL;DR j/k

I don't think they do. IMHO

Yeah, I think my school is pretty familiar with this concept.