Proposed rule changes from the ACC

[BigWayne]

I'm interested to know why you'd favor this rule change. Assuming the total number of minutes would remain at 40, how would you envision this changing game play?

You get twice as many chances for desperation heaves as the clock runs out.

Seriously, the main change is to the limits on non-shooting fouls vs. the bonus. It just complicates the calculations with more time buckets and foul count resets and will confuse the casual fans even more.

[English]

You get twice as many chances for desperation heaves as the clock runs out.

Seriously, the main change is to the limits on non-shooting fouls vs. the bonus. It just complicates the calculations with more time buckets and foul count resets and will confuse the casual fans even more.

Or, perhaps it would encourage college coaches to actually try to maximize scoring opportunities with 2-for-1s, which still baffles me why so many currently neglect that tactic.

If casual fans are getting confused by the foul counts of a quarter system, I doubt they'd be able to operate their TV remote. Seriously, this hasn't been an issue in HS hoops, women's hoops, NBA hoops, international hoops. Are you saying there are no casual viewers of those, or is every viewer just scratching their head the entire game?

[jimsumner]

Or, perhaps it would encourage college coaches to actually try to maximize scoring opportunities with 2-for-1s, which still baffles me why so many currently neglect that tactic.

If casual fans are getting confused by the foul counts of a quarter system, I doubt they'd be able to operate their TV remote. Seriously, this hasn't been an issue in HS hoops, women's hoops, NBA hoops, international hoops. Are you saying there are no casual viewers of those, or is every viewer just scratching their head the entire game?

The biggest difference between fouls in MBB and WBB, IMO, is the elimination of the one-and-one in the latter. One's appreciation of this change has a lot to do with whether your team is ahead late in the game or behind late in the game.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Or, perhaps it would encourage college coaches to actually try to maximize scoring opportunities with 2-for-1s, which still baffles me why so many currently neglect that tactic.

Amen bros. It's astounding how almost no one in college does this...K only does it occasionally....announcers rarely talk about it...and in the NBA, it's second nature to players, coaches, announcers, etc. It's common sense. It's law of averages.

[UrinalCake]

I think the idea of a two for one is kind of overrated. Basically you’re forcing up a bad shot early in the shot clock in order to earn another possession. And in that second possession you’ll have less than the full shot clock remaining so you’re again not as likely to get a good shot. Is it worth trading one full possession for two short possessions? I think the better play is to run your normal offense and take the best shot you can get.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I think the idea of a two for one is kind of overrated. Basically you’re forcing up a bad shot early in the shot clock in order to earn another possession. And in that second possession you’ll have less than the full shot clock remaining so you’re again not as likely to get a good shot. Is it worth trading one full possession for two short possessions? I think the better play is to run your normal offense and take the best shot you can get.

With due respect, if there's enough clock to go 2 for 1, the first shot doesn't have to be a bad shot. Sometimes early offense is good. And if a team is not going two for one, they are not taking their first good shot either. The law of averages say two for one will win over time.

[Acymetric]

I think the idea of a two for one is kind of overrated. Basically you’re forcing up a bad shot early in the shot clock in order to earn another possession. And in that second possession you’ll have less than the full shot clock remaining so you’re again not as likely to get a good shot. Is it worth trading one full possession for two short possessions? I think the better play is to run your normal offense and take the best shot you can get.

The two for one also assumes that the other team makes their shot, or misses and you get the defensive rebound. I wonder how often a two for one attempt actually leads the the point swing you would expect based on points per possession for the two teams. My guess is it's probably more like 1.5 possessions worth of points for one on average, with at least a chance of 0 for one or less than one for one.

In other words, it is only a good strategy if the first shot is a good shot in offensive flow.

[jimsumner]

I think two-for-one makes sense if you practice it and strategize it and know how to execute it.

NBA players have this in their DNA. You could wake up an NBA player from a dead sleep at 4 A.M. and scream at them "40 seconds left in the quarter, your ball, what do you do" and they won't have to think about it.

College players are a different animal. Most coaches and programs don't have this in their repertoire, so they don't try it often and when they do, it usually doesn't work, so they don't try it again.

K is actually one coach who does try to make this work. He frequently saves his first-half, use-it-or-lose-it timeout to try and set up a twofer.

[sagegrouse]

I think two-for-one makes sense if you practice it and strategize it and know how to execute it.

NBA players have this in their DNA. You could wake up an NBA player from a dead sleep at 4 A.M. and scream at them "40 seconds left in the quarter, your ball, what do you do" and they won't have to think about it.

College players are a different animal. Most coaches and programs don't have this in their repertoire, so they don't try it often and when they do, it usually doesn't work, so they don't try it again.

K is actually one coach who does try to make this work. He frequently saves his first-half, use-it-or-lose-it timeout to try and set up a twofer.

Also, it's your original point. If there are four quarters, the play is twice as valuable compared with a game with just two halves.

[devilsadvocate85]

Also, it's your original point. If there are four quarters, the play is twice as valuable compared with a game with just two halves.

I disagree. I believe it would be 3X as valuable. 2 for 1 rarely applies at the end of a game. So there would be Q1, 2 & 3 end of clock situations rather than just the end of H1. I think the strategy is not as emphasized in college specifically because it typically only occurs 1X per game.

[UrinalCake]

With due respect, if there's enough clock to go 2 for 1, the first shot doesn't have to be a bad shot. Sometimes early offense is good. And if a team is not going two for one, they are not taking their first good shot either. The law of averages say two for one will win over time.

A 2 for 1 applies when you have between 45 seconds to just over a minute left (assuming a 30 second shot clock). You have to take a shot with more than 35 or so seconds left in order to have time left after your opponent's ensuing possession. If there's more than a minute left, then your opponent can run the same strategy on you. That's a really small window. So again, you're trading one full possession for two short possessions.

I'm not saying you should definitely run the clock all the way down. I just think you should run your normal offense and take the best shot you can get. If it comes early then great, but if you don't have a good shot then don't heave one up just so that you can earn another possession later.

[Wahoo2000]

I just have one dream for basketball - at all levels. Move the 3pt line back far enough that the shooting percentages dip enough such that it's no more valuable analytically than a post up or a drive. Even if it means eliminating the ability for a corner 3 entirely by making the "arc" run into the sideline along the wing, or even (more interestingly, IMO) making the 3pt line a straight line across the court. For instance, extend the 28 foot hashmark ALL the way across the court. There's your 3pt line. The only 3pt shot that has a good chance of going in will be those closer to the center of the court, which is a bit easier to defend than an arc all the way around the court.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing a good shooter bomb from deep. I also get sad however that any "balance" between post play, slashing, shooting wiiiide open mid-range jumpers, AND the 3 ball has just gone completely out the window. Basketball, like any sport, is most enjoyable to watch when you can enjoy a real contrast in styles. With the game designed the way it is now, you're dumb not to just chuck 3s or put your head down and bull your way to the cup in hopes of a foul or layup.

[sagegrouse]

I disagree. I believe it would be 3X as valuable. 2 for 1 rarely applies at the end of a game. So there would be Q1, 2 & 3 end of clock situations rather than just the end of H1. I think the strategy is not as emphasized in college specifically because it typically only occurs 1X per game.

Have it your way, but when it MATTERS at the end of the game, it REALLY MATTERS!

[BigWayne]

Or, perhaps it would encourage college coaches to actually try to maximize scoring opportunities with 2-for-1s, which still baffles me why so many currently neglect that tactic.

If casual fans are getting confused by the foul counts of a quarter system, I doubt they'd be able to operate their TV remote. Seriously, this hasn't been an issue in HS hoops, women's hoops, NBA hoops, international hoops. Are you saying there are no casual viewers of those, or is every viewer just scratching their head the entire game?

At a certain point, casual fans just are confused and resort to checking whether the bonus light is on or off.

[MartyClark]

I think men's college basketball has it right, at least in a vacuum. The twenty minute half makes sense to me.

My wish list is not attainable, fewer television timeouts and less time for replays. I think the t.v. timeouts are killing the game and it's not limited to college basketball. I watch 99% of my games on television and it's easy to ignore the long delays in play by getting off the couch and getting a beer, multitasking etc.

When I attend a college football or basketball game, the delays are intolerable. There is so much downtime that I often wonder why I have spent the money to watch a game that is largely interrupted with lengthy, frustrating timeouts. I'm a big University of Colorado fan (yeah, it is pathetic). The football television timeouts are especially bad in the late fall when it is freezing.

Economics dictate against my wish and I get it.