PDA

View Full Version : The Elam Ending - a Proposal



camion
05-20-2017, 07:55 AM
I just listened to a segment of "It's Only a Game" on NPR concerning the foul fest that occurs at the end of many basketball games and a proposed fix. I know we've discussed this before, but this is a solution I haven't heard that it is going to be tried at a tournament this summer.

The proposal is to turn the game clock off at 4 minutes to go in the game and from that point the teams play until one team reaches 7 points more than the leading team had at the 4 minute mark. I sort of like it because it means that a team has to score to win. What do you think?

A link (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule).

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-20-2017, 08:01 AM
I just listened to a segment of "It's Only a Game" on NPR concerning the foul fest that occurs at the end of many basketball games and a proposed fix. I know we've discussed this before, but this is a solution I haven't heard before and it is going to be tried at a tournament this summer.

The proposal is to turn the game clock off at 4 minutes to go in the game and from that point the teams play until one team reaches 7 points more than the leading team had at the 4 minute mark. I sort of like it because it means that a team has to score to win. What do you think?

A link (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule).
Seems odd. The notion of a timed contest is out the window. Wouldn't it be far simpler to award the fouls shots plus possession for this type of foul? Then there is no incentive to keep fouling intentionally.

camion
05-20-2017, 08:12 AM
Seems odd. The notion of a timed contest is out the window. Wouldn't it be far simpler to award the fouls shots plus possession for this type of foul? Then there is no incentive to keep fouling intentionally.

It is odd. The thing I like about it is that under the Elam Ending both teams would be trying to score rather than one team trying to stall and one trying to extend the clock.

mph
05-20-2017, 08:23 AM
I just listened to a segment of "It's Only a Game" on NPR concerning the foul fest that occurs at the end of many basketball games and a proposed fix. I know we've discussed this before, but this is a solution I haven't heard that it is going to be tried at a tournament this summer.

The proposal is to turn the game clock off at 4 minutes to go in the game and from that point the teams play until one team reaches 7 points more than the leading team had at the 4 minute mark. I sort of like it because it means that a team has to score to win. What do you think?

A link (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule).

So under this rule we would have never seen this?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9_pPqWfI84

No thank you.

sagegrouse
05-20-2017, 08:25 AM
I just listened to a segment of "It's Only a Game" on NPR concerning the foul fest that occurs at the end of many basketball games and a proposed fix. I know we've discussed this before, but this is a solution I haven't heard that it is going to be tried at a tournament this summer.

The proposal is to turn the game clock off at 4 minutes to go in the game and from that point the teams play until one team reaches 7 points more than the leading team had at the 4 minute mark. I sort of like it because it means that a team has to score to win. What do you think?

A link (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19078511/zach-lowe-basketball-tournament-innovative-end-game-rule).

Still chewing on it. Lessee.... a team is ahead 75 to 70. Then at the first pay stoppage after the four-minute mark (three-minute in college) the game clock is turned off. (Is the play clock turned off, or does it continue?) The "game" then becomes to the first team to get to "82" -- 75 plus 7 -- with no game clock. OK, I see the attraction for games with a seven point to 12-point margin with four minutes to go, in that it gives the trailing team the chance to win by dominating the last few minutes and holding the leading team to fewer than seven points, while making up the margin.

Hmmm.... apparently Jon Mugar's "The Basketball Tournament" will try it this summer in its qualifying rounds. There is a lot of basketball played at every level -- such ideas would really benefit from test drives.

One of Elam's main points, however, is that he has tracked lots and lots of games and foulfests, while prolonging the game, almost never work. Thus, we are agonized with fruitless delays of the play.

What's wrong with just giving the ball back to the team that is fouled more than three or four times in last 3-4 minutes?

bluedag
05-20-2017, 08:43 AM
Why even play the first 36 minutes? Why not just say the first team to 70 wins?

Indoor66
05-20-2017, 09:02 AM
Why even play the first 36 minutes? Why not just say the first team to 70 wins?

We could save time and make it the first to 21 wins.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-20-2017, 09:14 AM
We could save time and make it the first to 21 wins.

Who would ever want to play such a silly version of basketball?

:)

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-20-2017, 09:17 AM
Who would ever want to play such a silly version of basketball?

:)
Works well for pickup anyway.

Ima Facultiwyfe
05-20-2017, 09:21 AM
Why not give the team fouled in the last two minutes the choice of shooting or taking the ball out of bounds? ( If JJ were fouled, he'd shoot. If Tissaw were fouled, we'd take it out of bounds,)
Love, Ima

MarkD83
05-20-2017, 10:22 AM
Why not give the team fouled in the last two minutes the choice of shooting or taking the ball out of bounds? ( If JJ were fouled, he'd shoot. If Tissaw were fouled, we'd take it out of bounds,)
Love, Ima

Adding on to this idea...in the last two minutes if a team is fouled they get to choose anyone on their roster to shoot the free throws even someone on the bench. The only exception is if the player has fouled out. So... the team who is leading will always have their 90+ % FT shooter on the line if the other team fouls.

hudlow
05-20-2017, 11:58 AM
Who would ever want to play such a silly version of basketball?

:)

7428

mattman91
05-20-2017, 11:59 AM
How about a soccer clock?

75Crazie
05-20-2017, 12:39 PM
Basketball is the only sport I can think of where the incentive to deliberately commit an infraction of the rules is so high that is becomes a strategy that is not only acceptable but ubiquitous. I would support either Dr. Rosenrosen's or Ima Facultywife's proposals.

TruBlu
05-20-2017, 12:49 PM
This could be solved to a great degree by the refs calling an intentional foul an intentional foul.

What a concept!

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-20-2017, 12:53 PM
This could be solved to a great degree by the refs calling an intentional foul an intentional foul.

What a concept!

This the truth. If you are going to call it an "intentional foul," and rule on the intent, then it becomes an impossible way to come from behind in a game.

If you don't want to rule on the "intention" of fouling, then call it something different, like... a "malicious foul," if the defender is trying to hurt their opponent.

TruBlu
05-20-2017, 01:31 PM
This the truth. If you are going to call it an "intentional foul," and rule on the intent, then it becomes an impossible way to come from behind in a game.

If you don't want to rule on the "intention" of fouling, then call it something different, like... a "malicious foul," if the defender is trying to hurt their opponent.

Could call it a "Delay of game" foul, if it was to be appropriately named.

Bluedog
05-20-2017, 01:38 PM
This the truth. If you are going to call it an "intentional foul," and rule on the intent, then it becomes an impossible way to come from behind in a game.

If you don't want to rule on the "intention" of fouling, then call it something different, like... a "malicious foul," if the defender is trying to hurt their opponent.

There are no "intentional fouls" in the college basketball rulebook. Just flagrants. So, they're not trying to judge intent.

I actually kinda like the proposal. Yeah, it may seem odd at first but absolutely would lead to exciting finishes without absurd foul fests at the end.

TruBlu
05-20-2017, 01:52 PM
Um, maybe there should be an "intentional foul" in the rule book. After all, we are talking about changing the rulebook to get rid of those awful endings to games, aren't we?

Fish80
05-20-2017, 01:53 PM
Why not give the team fouled in the last two minutes the choice of shooting or taking the ball out of bounds? ( If JJ were fouled, he'd shoot. If Tissaw were fouled, we'd take it out of bounds,)
Love, Ima

I like lma's idea better.

ricks68
05-20-2017, 02:35 PM
IMHO, if players were good at free throws, then there is little to gain from fouling them at the end of games. So, we should concentrate on additional training regarding free throws. No different than wanting to change other rules, such as adding a 6th foul, or moving the 3 point line, or changing the lane width. If we keep varying the rules to direct the play of the game, we are just changing the actual game itself, aren't we? Reminds me of when they changed the dunking rule because of just one player (Lew Alcindor), and then it got changed back sometime after he was gone. Next thing you know, they will propose making the basket lower due to the current obsession with dunking.

ricks

SoCalDukeFan
05-20-2017, 03:06 PM
Why not give the team fouled in the last two minutes the choice of shooting or taking the ball out of bounds? ( If JJ were fouled, he'd shoot. If Tissaw were fouled, we'd take it out of bounds,)
Love, Ima

If its a two shot foul, one shot and then the ball.

SoCal

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-20-2017, 03:13 PM
Um, maybe there should be an "intentional foul" in the rule book. After all, we are talking about changing the rulebook to get rid of those awful endings to games, aren't we?

Let's just institute an "unintentional foul," that results in a stern finger-wagging.

sagegrouse
05-20-2017, 03:21 PM
Um, maybe there should be an "intentional foul" in the rule book. After all, we are talking about changing the rulebook to get rid of those awful endings to games, aren't we?

I think changing the definition of fouls is not a workable proposition. The referees cannot read minds, and intentional/flagrant foul rules were changed to that it was realtively clear based on the nature of the physical contact.

A foul is supposed to be a penalty against the team that fouls. In hoops it is seen as a benefit. There are various ways to change that. I am happy to see the Elam Ending put to the test. Maybe it will work.

sagegrouse
05-20-2017, 03:23 PM
IMHO, if players were good at free throws, then there is little to gain from fouling them at the end of games. So, we should concentrate on additional training regarding free throws. No different than wanting to change other rules, such as adding a 6th foul, or moving the 3 point line, or changing the lane width. If we keep varying the rules to direct the play of the game, we are just changing the actual game itself, aren't we? Reminds me of when they changed the dunking rule because of just one player (Lew Alcindor), and then it got changed back sometime after he was gone. Next thing you know, they will propose making the basket lower due to the current obsession with dunking.

ricks

Ela claims that "fouling at the end of the game" never works in practice, and he says he has a lot of data from NBA games. Nevertheless, teams still do it, to the detriment of the games and the displeasure of the viewers and fans.

Indoor66
05-20-2017, 04:08 PM
Ela claims that "fouling at the end of the game" never works in practice, and he says he has a lot of data from NBA games. Nevertheless, teams still do it, to the detriment of the games and the displeasure of the viewers and fans.

The 1983 national champions might take issue with you.

TruBlu
05-20-2017, 04:49 PM
I think changing the definition of fouls is not a workable proposition. The referees cannot read minds, and intentional/flagrant foul rules were changed to that it was realtively clear based on the nature of the physical contact.

A foul is supposed to be a penalty against the team that fouls. In hoops it is seen as a benefit. There are various ways to change that. I am happy to see the Elam Ending put to the test. Maybe it will work.

Let's see: 1) the coaches tell the players to intentionally foul, 2) both teams know they are going to Intentionally foul, 3) the announcers know they are going to intentionally foul, 4) everyone in the stands and watching on tv know they are going to intentionally foul. So, why can't the refs see an intentional foul.

Maybe they are indeed blind.

sagegrouse
05-20-2017, 05:31 PM
Let's see: 1) the coaches tell the players to intentionally foul, 2) both teams know they are going to Intentionally foul, 3) the announcers know they are going to intentionally foul, 4) everyone in the stands and watching on tv know they are going to intentionally foul. So, why can't the refs see an intentional foul.

Maybe they are indeed blind.

Thinks about this a minute. In college, the NCAA abandoned the judgment call of an "intentional" foul because the physical evidence of it was tenuous and the refs, while aware of the game situation, cannot read minds. So, if the players for the trailing team guard aggressively, would you automatically call it an "intentional foul?" But most such fouls look like any other common fouls. If you are going to use "game situation" to judge whether a foul is intentional or not, then wouldn't it be better to change the rules and treat all fouls differently in certain game situations?

sagegrouse
05-20-2017, 05:35 PM
The 1983 national champions might take issue with you.

They sure would. I would like to understand Elam's data a little better. Here are the relevant passages (a tiny portion of the lengthy article):


Elam has tracked thousands of NBA, college, and international games over the last four years and found basketball's classic comeback tactic -- intentional fouling -- almost never results in successful comebacks. Elam found at least one deliberate crunch-time foul from trailing teams in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season, according to a PowerPoint presentation he has sent across the basketball world. The trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.

That undersells the effectiveness of the strategy, of course. Elam's sample doesn't include most NBA games. There were a lot of instances in which fouling teams came from behind to tie games, but lost later.

Still: The process was ugly, and it rarely upended outcomes. It didn't seem worth it to Elam. "Comebacks are just so startlingly rare," Elam said. "And the method teams used to get there was so artificial and unsightly." He would devise a better way.

Wander
05-20-2017, 08:12 PM
Why not give the team fouled in the last two minutes the choice of shooting or taking the ball out of bounds? ( If JJ were fouled, he'd shoot. If Tissaw were fouled, we'd take it out of bounds,)
Love, Ima

This idea often gets mentioned in these discussions, but it would make things far worse than what we have now. Teams would just continuously foul until the offensive team chose the shooting option, or the defensive team stole the inbounds pass. We'd spend the end of games watching endless inbounds passes (in addition to the free throws, which would still exist).

uh_no
05-20-2017, 08:56 PM
This idea often gets mentioned in these discussions, but it would make things far worse than what we have now. Teams would just continuously foul until the offensive team chose the shooting option, or the defensive team stole the inbounds pass. We'd spend the end of games watching endless inbounds passes (in addition to the free throws, which would still exist).

this is clearly what will happen...and given defensive teams can often foul with little time coming off the clock, this is likely to lengthen games even further...unless you give shots/points AND the ball, simply giving the team the ball OOB doesn't help anything, and you STILL end up needing to change the foul rules based on situaiton.

CameronWade
05-20-2017, 10:48 PM
Why not just institute a triple bonus after 13 or so team fouls in which the offensive team gets 2 shots and the ball? That seems easy enough to implement and would generally provide little incentive to foul incessantly at the end of the game unless the trailing team played most of the half without fouling, and in that scenario, I kind of like that they would be rewarded for a relatively foul-free half of defense by maintaining the ability to stop the clock with fouls for a reasonable number of possessions. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't mind watching the fouls and 1 and 1s late in games, it's the trading of quick baskets and double bonus foul shots that take all of the drama out of the end game for me.

devilsince1977
05-20-2017, 11:22 PM
The problem is not fouls at the end of the game; it is all of the messing around preparing to shoot the free throws. The refs need to get the teams to the line quickly without delay. Teams may substitute only before the first free throw attempt not between shots (unless the sub is for the free throw shooter). Don't give teams 60 seconds to make a substitute for a player that fouls out. 15 seconds is plenty of time. Also when calls are being reviewed, the players on the court should be in their respective jump circles without a coach. There is too much screwing around on dead ball situations. That is what slows the game.

If you can't make 70% of your free throws; you should be required to shoot underhanded. I don't care if you think you will look like a sissy. It is better than being a selfish teammate.

duke4ever19
05-20-2017, 11:24 PM
I like the idea, and even if Elam's proposal isn't adopted, he has at least done the research to show folks the relative futility of game ending foul-a-thons.

Yes, we all know those games that were the exceptions (The Miracle Minute comes to mind immediately), but there's a reason we can name them . . . they are incredibly rare.

The question is this: Is the obligatory foul-a-thons we witness on seemingly nightly basis in both the NCAA and NBA regular seasons worth it to get those couple games that stand out in our memory? It seems to me that the Elam Ending could also yield some epic endings and at a much higher clip.

lucybluebear
05-21-2017, 06:59 AM
So Duke is at home (of course) playing Piedmont Tech. With 4 minutes to go Duke is up 112 - 46. Would the game ever end?

CDu
05-21-2017, 07:10 AM
They sure would. I would like to understand Elam's data a little better. Here are the relevant passages (a tiny portion of the lengthy article):

Yeah, he is using NBA games as the point of reference. College (where there are fewer good shooters per team) would be a different story. Obviously fouling isn't going to work most of the time. But it definitely will work some

CDu
05-21-2017, 07:11 AM
So Duke is at home (of course) playing Piedmont Tech. With 4 minutes to go Duke is up 112 - 46. Would the game ever end?

Yes. When Duke gets to 119 points (i.e., 7 more points).

MarkD83
05-21-2017, 07:17 AM
So Duke is at home (of course) playing Piedmont Tech. With 4 minutes to go Duke is up 112 - 46. Would the game ever end?

If duke was beating unc by the same score would we want the game to end

Bluedog
05-21-2017, 08:13 AM
This would also eliminate stall ball from the leading team's arsenal and in blowouts would require benchwarmers to score, which is kinda fun AND would give them more game time experience. Which are two things as Duke fans we complain about often. Although would mess up our minute prognostications. It's also possible coaches would change their strategy and put starters back in at the 4 minute mark in blowouts because they want the game to end as quickly as possible. I'm interested to see this idea in practice, but in theory, there are a lot of positives. To the casual fan, end of college games are usually painful to watch.

camion
05-21-2017, 08:45 AM
This would also eliminate stall ball from the leading team's arsenal and in blowouts would require benchwarmers to score, which is kinda fun AND would give them more game time experience. Which are two things as Duke fans we complain about often. Although would mess up our minute prognostications. It's also possible coaches would change their strategy and put starters back in at the 4 minute mark in blowouts because they want the game to end as quickly as possible. I'm interested to see this idea in practice, but in theory, there are a lot of positives. To the casual fan, end of college games are usually painful to watch.

Ah, I believe you have identified the crux of the problem with this proposal. It would seriously impact minutes discussion threads. Those would inevitably become much longer. :eek:

Kedsy
05-21-2017, 02:20 PM
This would also eliminate stall ball from the leading team's arsenal and in blowouts would require benchwarmers to score, which is kinda fun AND would give them more game time experience. Which are two things as Duke fans we complain about often. Although would mess up our minute prognostications. It's also possible coaches would change their strategy and put starters back in at the 4 minute mark in blowouts because they want the game to end as quickly as possible. I'm interested to see this idea in practice, but in theory, there are a lot of positives. To the casual fan, end of college games are usually painful to watch.

Teams would absolutely put their starters back in once the clock got turned off, though even if they didn't, I don't see forcing benchwarmers to score as any kind of benefit.

Personally, I strongly oppose the Elam thing. It would just give the favorite another advantage, greatly reducing the number of upsets. If a 15-point underdog has managed to be ahead by 5 after 36+ minutes (44+ minutes in the NBA), how is it fair to then start a new game and give the favorite an unlimited amount of time to outscore them by 12? Since upsets are basically what makes the NCAA tournament so popular, if the NCAA adopted this rule it would essentially be gutting the golden goose.

Indoor66
05-21-2017, 02:29 PM
Teams would absolutely put their starters back in once the clock got turned off, though even if they didn't, I don't see forcing benchwarmers to score as any kind of benefit.

Personally, I strongly oppose the Elam thing. It would just give the favorite another advantage, greatly reducing the number of upsets. If a 15-point underdog has managed to be ahead by 5 after 36+ minutes (44+ minutes in the NBA), how is it fair to then start a new game and give the favorite an unlimited amount of time to outscore them by 12? Since upsets are basically what makes the NCAA tournament so popular, if the NCAA adopted this rule it would essentially be gutting the golden goose.

But if the season long advanced analytics say that X should win, wouldn't be unfair for Y to win because of an artificial time limit?

Wander
05-21-2017, 02:52 PM
Since upsets are basically what makes the NCAA tournament so popular, if the NCAA adopted this rule it would essentially be gutting the golden goose.

On a similar note, it would entirely eliminate the buzzer beater.

The Elam proposal falls under the same category as something like fractional points. It's a fun thing to think about, and probably sort of makes mathematical sense in some situations, but should never be implemented. The end of college basketball games are frequently awful, and I don't know what the solution is. Free throws plus the ball is too devastating a punishment for teams that genuinely accidentally foul because a defender gets beat. Implementing an "intentional foul" would just put focus on fouling intentionally but making it look not blatant.

So I think the thing to start with is to focus on the out-of-game aspects that make the end of college basketball games so hard to watch. The refs should focus on making free throws happen quickly, get extremely strict on coaches getting free time outs when a player fouls out, and eliminate the ability to call multiple timeouts in a row.

COYS
05-21-2017, 03:10 PM
On a similar note, it would entirely eliminate the buzzer beater.

The Elam proposal falls under the same category as something like fractional points. It's a fun thing to think about, and probably sort of makes mathematical sense in some situations, but should never be implemented. The end of college basketball games are frequently awful, and I don't know what the solution is. Free throws plus the ball is too devastating a punishment for teams that genuinely accidentally foul because a defender gets beat. Implementing an "intentional foul" would just put focus on fouling intentionally but making it look not blatant.

So I think the thing to start with is to focus on the out-of-game aspects that make the end of college basketball games so hard to watch. The refs should focus on making free throws happen quickly, get extremely strict on coaches getting free time outs when a player fouls out, and eliminate the ability to call multiple timeouts in a row.

I totally agree with your last paragraph, even as fun as it is to imagine different and inventive ways to end games. I really don't understand why there is no triple bonus, though. The fact that (in theory) a team could win the game by fouling and forcing two free throws and then making lots of threes on the other end bothers me. The offense can do everything right, make all their free throws, and still lose the game (again, in theory). Regardless of whether it's likely to happen, the very fact that it is possible bothers me.

camion
05-21-2017, 11:35 PM
Teams would absolutely put their starters back in once the clock got turned off, though even if they didn't, I don't see forcing benchwarmers to score as any kind of benefit.

Personally, I strongly oppose the Elam thing. It would just give the favorite another advantage, greatly reducing the number of upsets. If a 15-point underdog has managed to be ahead by 5 after 36+ minutes (44+ minutes in the NBA), how is it fair to then start a new game and give the favorite an unlimited amount of time to outscore them by 12? Since upsets are basically what makes the NCAA tournament so popular, if the NCAA adopted this rule it would essentially be gutting the golden goose.

I don't get your logic here. I'm pretty sure that if you told the coach of the underdog that to win a game his team had to score 7 before the favorite scored 12 he would be pretty happy. I don't think upsets would be eliminated.

And conversely how is what happens now more fair, to start a new game late by turning a regular game into a foul shooting contest?

To respond to a separate post, yes buzzer beaters would be eliminated, but game winning shots would increase.

I will be interested to see how this experiment works in actual games.

Kedsy
05-22-2017, 12:04 AM
I don't get your logic here. I'm pretty sure that if you told the coach of the underdog that to win a game his team had to score 7 before the favorite scored 12 he would be pretty happy. I don't think upsets would be eliminated.

Think about NCAA tournament upsets and near-upsets. In most of them, the underdog gets off to an early lead, and then the favorite wakes up and cuts into that lead and either wins or runs out of time. Under this Elam rule, the favorite would never run out of time. The odds of a 15-point favorite losing a game to 12 (between 3 and 4 baskets) after getting the wake up call of being behind at the four minute mark would seem to be pretty slim, even if they're spotting the other team 5 points. So it might not eliminate upsets, but it sure would make them a much rarer occurrence than they are now.

And for what? Basically this rule is saying, let's play two games -- the first game for 36 minutes (or 44 in the NBA) for the sole purpose of seeing how many points one team has to spot the other in the second game (which has no time limit). That just doesn't sound desirable to me.

camion
05-22-2017, 08:18 AM
Think about NCAA tournament upsets and near-upsets. In most of them, the underdog gets off to an early lead, and then the favorite wakes up and cuts into that lead and either wins or runs out of time. Under this Elam rule, the favorite would never run out of time. The odds of a 15-point favorite losing a game to 12 (between 3 and 4 baskets) after getting the wake up call of being behind at the four minute mark would seem to be pretty slim, even if they're spotting the other team 5 points. So it might not eliminate upsets, but it sure would make them a much rarer occurrence than they are now.

And for what? Basically this rule is saying, let's play two games -- the first game for 36 minutes (or 44 in the NBA) for the sole purpose of seeing how many points one team has to spot the other in the second game (which has no time limit). That just doesn't sound desirable to me.

And for what? The proposed changes to the end game are efforts to avoid the foul fest at many game ends and taking 20 minutes to play the last four clock minutes.

In one game ending there is a time limit, but no points limit. In the other there is a points limit, but no time limit. Two different ways to end a game, each with it's own virtues and problems. I think the Elam ending deserves the experiment without being dismissed out of hand.

You seem to equate "favorite" with "better team." They are not the same. And even "better team" is fluid from night to night. Consider Duke and USC this year. I don't think that with an Elam Ending Duke would have avoided the upset. The scenario you describe is where a clearly superior team plays below par for a large part of the game and then "wakes up." This is a subset of upsets, admittedly an exciting and memorable subset, but I don't think it is the majority and I don't buy your declarations of what must happen. I say run the experiment and see what happens. Data is good although it does tend to stifle speculation.

sagegrouse
05-22-2017, 08:54 AM
Think about NCAA tournament upsets and near-upsets. In most of them, the underdog gets off to an early lead, and then the favorite wakes up and cuts into that lead and either wins or runs out of time. Under this Elam rule, the favorite would never run out of time. The odds of a 15-point favorite losing a game to 12 (between 3 and 4 baskets) after getting the wake up call of being behind at the four minute mark would seem to be pretty slim, even if they're spotting the other team 5 points. So it might not eliminate upsets, but it sure would make them a much rarer occurrence than they are now.

And for what? Basically this rule is saying, let's play two games -- the first game for 36 minutes (or 44 in the NBA) for the sole purpose of seeing how many points one team has to spot the other in the second game (which has no time limit). That just doesn't sound desirable to me.

I am OK with trying it in "the minors" -- The Basketball Championship and the NBDL (or whatever it's called these days). We will learn something new -- and not just about this specific proposal.

The nightmare for me is the total loss of "arithmeticity" when all basketball games have variable length. It would make "minutes analysis" far more complicated. Now, it's easy. When analyzing a season past I look at the number of games, multiply by 40, count the number of overtimes, and multiply these by 25. Then I have season minutes. In an Elam Ending future, games would be at least 37 minutes long, but could actually go on much longer. We would have no idea how to project minutes played and our discussions would slide even more into minutiae. In fact, the entire board might melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West's being doused with water.

Indoor66
05-22-2017, 09:42 AM
God forbid we in anyway interfere with a minutes discussion/BSFest.

Kedsy
05-22-2017, 10:20 AM
You seem to equate "favorite" with "better team." They are not the same. And even "better team" is fluid from night to night. Consider Duke and USC this year. I don't think that with an Elam Ending Duke would have avoided the upset. The scenario you describe is where a clearly superior team plays below par for a large part of the game and then "wakes up." This is a subset of upsets, admittedly an exciting and memorable subset, but I don't think it is the majority and I don't buy your declarations of what must happen. I say run the experiment and see what happens. Data is good although it does tend to stifle speculation.

When I used the word "favorite," I wasn't talking about Vegas, I meant "better team." That said, a 15-point favorite in Vegas clearly is the better team, so I'm not sure why the distinction would be relevant. As for Duke/SC, if I understand the proposal properly, Duke was down 10 with 3:30 to play when the timed game would have been stopped. So Duke would've had to outscore SC 17-6 in the unlimited-time game to win it. Would we have done that? Probably not, but we would have had a much better chance to do it than to make up 10 points with 3:30 to play.

Avvocato
05-22-2017, 10:39 AM
The 1983 national champions might take issue with you.

So would the 2008 National Champs.

JasonEvans
05-22-2017, 10:53 AM
Elam found at least one deliberate crunch-time foul from trailing teams in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season, according to a PowerPoint presentation he has sent across the basketball world. The trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.

I call BS. There's just no way he is right about that. There are plenty of games where a team with a 1 point lead has the ball with 20 seconds left, someone gets fouled to stop the clock from running out, and the team shooting the FTs either misses one or the game goes to OT or whatever... I am not going to go through hundreds of NBA box scores to find those games, but it is just too common an occurrence for Elam to say it never happened.

The end of basketball games is not something that is broken, especially in the NBA with the shorter shot clock where preserving seconds is less important than in college ball. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

-Jason "now, having a point total the teams must reach is a fun way to play basketball versus playing to a time limit... but that's for playground ball, not pro and college games" Evans

Ian
05-22-2017, 11:57 AM
I think it's a brilliant plan. Not only does it get rid of the foulfest at the end of games, but it also gets rid of the other thing many (and Duke fans especially) dread, STALLBALL.

Think about it, you're up 10 with 4 minutes left, what do most teams do, they dribble the ball for 20 secs trying to run out the clock, which is incredibly boring to watch. With a rule change like this, there is no point in running out the clock, so teams would run their regular offense at the end of games.

This is an very creative and outside of the box plan that could really improve the game. In fact I'm not sure why you would only apply this to the last 4 minutes, I'd actually be fine with just making the entire game the first team to 70 wins.

None of this will happen of course because it's too radical a change from the current game.

kmspeaks
05-22-2017, 12:46 PM
I think it's a brilliant plan. Not only does it get rid of the foulfest at the end of games, but it also gets rid of the other thing many (and Duke fans especially) dread, STALLBALL.

Think about it, you're up 10 with 4 minutes left, what do most teams do, they dribble the ball for 20 secs trying to run out the clock, which is incredibly boring to watch. With a rule change like this, there is no point in running out the clock, so teams would run their regular offense at the end of games.

This is an very creative and outside of the box plan that could really improve the game. In fact I'm not sure why you would only apply this to the last 4 minutes, I'd actually be fine with just making the entire game the first team to 70 wins.

None of this will happen of course because it's too radical a change from the current game.

Virginia basketball games would take 5 hours to complete.

weezie
05-22-2017, 01:07 PM
Virginia basketball games would take 5 hours to complete.

Been away this past weekend but this is, by far, the smartest post in the thread. Great laugh.

Eternal Outlaw
05-22-2017, 01:10 PM
So a game can never end on a great defensive play (that doesn't turn into offense) like Thornton blocking Berry? Or JJ playing the UNC play perfectly in 2005 and UNC doesn't even get a shot off?

No thank you, not everything has to end in an offensive score.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-22-2017, 01:55 PM
Let's take it further... play 39 minutes, then the last minute becomes "golden goal" regardless of score or possession.

/sarcasm

Let 'em play basketball.

LasVegas
05-22-2017, 02:13 PM
Let's take it further... play 39 minutes, then the last minute becomes "golden goal" regardless of score or possession.

/sarcasm

Let 'em play basketball.

Like the golden gun in goldeneye 007 for the n64? I'm game!

ChillinDuke
05-22-2017, 02:32 PM
Teams would absolutely put their starters back in once the clock got turned off, though even if they didn't, I don't see forcing benchwarmers to score as any kind of benefit.

Personally, I strongly oppose the Elam thing. It would just give the favorite another advantage, greatly reducing the number of upsets. If a 15-point underdog has managed to be ahead by 5 after 36+ minutes (44+ minutes in the NBA), how is it fair to then start a new game and give the favorite an unlimited amount of time to outscore them by 12? Since upsets are basically what makes the NCAA tournament so popular, if the NCAA adopted this rule it would essentially be gutting the golden goose.

I can't yet decide whether I am for or against the Elam Ending. But I certainly find it interesting, at least.

To guard against the the untimed game issue, what if the clock continued to run, but the 7-point concept remained intact as well? Said differently, what if the 7-point concept was only invoked if/when a team got to within 7 points of the other team with the clock still running the entire time?

I'm starting to think about it more, and I think I still don't like my tweak. But I'll keep thinking about it...

- Chillin

niveklaen
05-22-2017, 02:40 PM
I think that it would reduce the number of commercials that could be shown at the end of the game. While we as fans would like this, it would reduce revenue to the NCAA and its member institutions. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is a non-starter.

ChillinDuke
05-22-2017, 02:45 PM
I think that it would reduce the number of commercials that could be shown at the end of the game. While we as fans would like this, it would reduce revenue to the NCAA and its member institutions. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is a non-starter.

If viewership continues to decline rapidly across all televised sports, as some analysts strongly believe, I don't believe any viewer-focused proposal will be a non-starter.

- Chillin

JasonEvans
05-22-2017, 02:51 PM
So a game can never end on a great defensive play (that doesn't turn into offense) like Thornton blocking Berry? Or JJ playing the UNC play perfectly in 2005 and UNC doesn't even get a shot off?

No thank you, not everything has to end in an offensive score.

What's more, the buzzer beater would be a thing of the past. Tyler Thornton's half-court heave to destroy Va Tech; Austin River's dagger in Zeller's face; Chris Duhon racing the length of the floor weaving his way through 13 Carolina defenders; Jeff Capel sending an epic game to overtime, and so on and so on...

Oh, and Grant Hill to Christian Laettner.

Yeah, I'll take timed games until the end of time.

ChillinDuke
05-22-2017, 03:00 PM
What's more, the buzzer beater would be a thing of the past. Tyler Thornton's half-court heave to destroy Va Tech; Austin River's dagger in Zeller's face; Chris Duhon racing the length of the floor weaving his way through 13 Carolina defenders; Jeff Capel sending an epic game to overtime, and so on and so on...

Oh, and Grant Hill to Christian Laettner.

Yeah, I'll take timed games until the end of time.

Well, technically yes. But practically, you'd have countless other epic shots to hit the 7-point mark. And for that reason, I think people would generally like the Elam concept. At least that part of the concept.

- Chillin

Richard Berg
05-22-2017, 03:06 PM
I dig the concept. Responding to misc objections:

* You'd still have plenty of buzzer-beating finales, thanks to the shot clock.

* Stats measured on a possession basis (the most valuable ones, IMO) would remain valid.

* I don't see why underdogs would be any less likely to pull off an upset. It may require a different kind of underdog, however: more emphasis on turnovers (causing them when behind, preventing them when ahead), less emphasis on heroic shots and FTs.

Wander
05-22-2017, 03:14 PM
Tyler Thornton's half-court heave to destroy Va Tech

I don't remember that one :)

Seriously though, this proposal is just a more complicated version of "First to X points wins." That's fine for playground stuff, but there are reasons that approach is never taken in the higher levels of any sport.

Richard Berg
05-22-2017, 03:17 PM
I don't remember that one :)

Seriously though, this proposal is just a more complicated version of "First to X points wins." That's fine for playground stuff, but there are reasons that approach is never taken in the higher levels of any sport.
Tennis and volleyball, to name two.

Wander
05-22-2017, 03:19 PM
Tennis and volleyball, to name two.

You're right. I should have qualified my statement more.

Indoor66
05-22-2017, 04:39 PM
You're right. I should have qualified my statement more.

I understand. You meant REAL sports! [Ducks]

Turk
05-22-2017, 05:25 PM
I think it's a brilliant plan. Not only does it get rid of the foulfest at the end of games, but it also gets rid of the other thing many (and Duke fans especially) dread, STALLBALL.

Think about it, you're up 10 with 4 minutes left, what do most teams do, they dribble the ball for 20 secs trying to run out the clock, which is incredibly boring to watch. With a rule change like this, there is no point in running out the clock, so teams would run their regular offense at the end of games.



Ah, young grasshopper, you know nothing about this STALLBALL of which you speak. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a shot clock. One coach, perhaps too clever for his own good, even tried to play an entire HALF just holding the ball. No, I am not making this up, it's even on youtube, so it MUST be true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRVmc6dO0g8

You'll have to find the cuddliest Crusty in your neighborhood, bring him a six, no, make that twelve pack of fine craft beer, crawl up onto his lap, and let him tell you how EXCITING that game was, as well as other stories and legends not found on youtube. (Alas, I'm not Crusty enough - I wasn't there either).

Now, as to this "proposal", I have never heard of anything more stupid in all my born days. This "foul fest" is not an "epidemic" any more. We fixed this "problem" with the shot clock and automatic 2 shots on the 10th foul and beyond.

Only two simple steps are needed to prevent a so-called "foul fest":
1. Make your free throws.
2. Get out of my yard.

devildeac
05-22-2017, 05:32 PM
How about a soccer clock?

I'll give you 4 minutes "extra" time to work on that proposal.

:rolleyes:;)

Ian
05-22-2017, 07:30 PM
Virginia basketball games would take 5 hours to complete.

Precisely the point, under the new system it would force teams to abandon that boring style of play.

Newton_14
05-22-2017, 07:47 PM
When I used the word "favorite," I wasn't talking about Vegas, I meant "better team." That said, a 15-point favorite in Vegas clearly is the better team, so I'm not sure why the distinction would be relevant. As for Duke/SC, if I understand the proposal properly, Duke was down 10 with 3:30 to play when the timed game would have been stopped. So Duke would've had to outscore SC 17-6 in the unlimited-time game to win it. Would we have done that? Probably not, but we would have had a much better chance to do it than to make up 10 points with 3:30 to play.

All I know is this "Elam Ending" "idea" might be the single dumbest idea ever come up with. Talk about ruining the game. It is an off the charts "junk up, ruin the game" idea. For one, the situation is not as bad as it's being portrayed. It only gets bad when a team is too far behind to realistically catch up, and they keep fouling anyway. That is on the coaches. Coaches should call off the fouling when it gets like that.

I personally find it exciting when a team chokes on their FT's and the other team comes from behind to win. I think they experimented with a new rule in the NIT this year where the fouls reset at the 10 minute mark of each half. So in both halves of the half, you don't shoot until the 5th foul and it is 2 shots, not 1 and 1 thereafter. Not sure if they are planning to go to that rule or not.

There are many different ways to address this without a complete junk up of the game via the suggested manner imo.

Bluedevil114
05-22-2017, 07:48 PM
Duke beat Maryland in the gone in 60 second game because Drew Nicholas could not hit his free throws. I am sure that game creeped into Maryland's minds when they were up against us in the Final Four and let it slip away. What a game. I saw that game live at Cole Field House.

MarkD83
05-22-2017, 08:00 PM
Sean Dockery vs vt

sagegrouse
05-22-2017, 11:47 PM
I think they experimented with a new rule in the NIT this year where the fouls reset at the 10 minute mark of each half. So in both halves of the half, you don't shoot until the 5th foul and it is 2 shots, not 1 and 1 thereafter. Not sure if they are planning to go to that rule or not.
o.
The proposal you cite is an NCAA idea to keep its unique "two halves, not four quarters" format while incorporating some aspect of the four quarters' rules.

flagellaman
05-23-2017, 09:24 AM
How about this...? A judgement call on the part of the ref, of course. When the ref (and everyone in the stadium) knows the fouls are intentional, then either the foul count as two fouls (thus expediting the exit of a player from the game), and/or the player shooting the free throws gets three charity shots if fouled outside the three-point line.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-23-2017, 11:37 AM
How about this...? A judgement call on the part of the ref, of course. When the ref (and everyone in the stadium) knows the fouls are intentional, then either the foul count as two fouls (thus expediting the exit of a player from the game), and/or the player shooting the free throws gets three charity shots if fouled outside the three-point line.

Please no more judgment calls. Always a recipe for disaster.

rsvman
05-23-2017, 12:27 PM
How about this...? A judgement call on the part of the ref, of course. When the ref (and everyone in the stadium) knows the fouls are intentional, then either the foul count as two fouls (thus expediting the exit of a player from the game), and/or the player shooting the free throws gets three charity shots if fouled outside the three-point line.

You could make it three free throws no matter where the foul occurs. That would be much better than two shots and the ball, which had been suggested multiple times in this thread.


I think the Elam suggestion is pretty stupid, but if I were to go with it, I, too, would do it for the entire game, not just the end. The number 7 is completely made up, anyway, right? I mean, why not eight, or six, or nine?

To do it for the entire game, I'd make another change. I'd get rid of the shot clock entirely. Get rid of the game clock, too. Get rid of the ten-second halfcourt clock, as well. Play to sixty. Halftime when one team reaches thirty.

The only thing timed would be the time-outs. If you're going to entirely change the game, go ahead and entirely change the game.

Indoor66
05-23-2017, 12:30 PM
You could make it three free throws no matter where the foul occurs. That would be much better than two shots and the ball, which had been suggested multiple times in this thread.


I think the Elam suggestion is pretty stupid, but if I were to go with it, I, too, would do it for the entire game, not just the end. The number 7 is completely made up, anyway, right? I mean, why not eight, or six, or nine?

To do it for the entire game, I'd make another change. I'd get rid of the shot clock entirely. Get rid of the game clock, too. Get rid of the ten-second halfcourt clock, as well. Play to sixty. Halftime when one team reaches thirty.

The only thing timed would be the time-outs. If you're going to entirely change the game, go ahead and entirely change the game.

Now you are just being testy and a purist. You must be inclusive of all viewpoints and ideas. Diversity of thinking on the issue will set you free. Of course, the game will stink.

Fish80
05-23-2017, 12:47 PM
I personally find it exciting when a team chokes on their FT's and the other team comes from behind to win. I think they experimented with a new rule in the NIT this year where the fouls reset at the 10 minute mark of each half. So in both halves of the half, you don't shoot until the 5th foul and it is 2 shots, not 1 and 1 thereafter. Not sure if they are planning to go to that rule or not.

I didn't do the math, but isn't half of a half remarkably similar to a quarter?

Let's break the game down into eighths. 5 minutes each. 8 fouls per eighth puts a team in quadruple bonus. Four free throws per foul. Reset the team foul counter at the end of each eighth. Give each player 8 fouls. Don't call it basketball. Call it crazy eight balls.

ChillinDuke
05-23-2017, 12:51 PM
I didn't do the math, but isn't half of a half remarkably similar to a quarter?

Let's break the game down into eighths. 5 minutes each. 8 fouls per eighth puts a team in quadruple bonus. Four free throws per foul. Reset the team foul counter at the end of each eighth. Give each player 8 fouls. Don't call it basketball. Call it crazy eight balls.

And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion is crowned.

- Chillin

DukeandMdFan
05-23-2017, 01:16 PM
I came across this article from 2008 http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

Richard Berg
05-23-2017, 01:45 PM
Duke beat Maryland in the gone in 60 second game because Drew Nicholas could not hit his free throws. I am sure that game creeped into Maryland's minds when they were up against us in the Final Four and let it slip away. What a game. I saw that game live at Cole Field House.
For those who appreciate such things, note that Elam rules would not prevent this strategy from working. Hack-a-Shaq is still viable, just a bigger gamble (assuming Shaq isn't actually one of the options).

DukeandMdFan
05-23-2017, 02:16 PM
It would be a radical change, but probably would change the game less than when they added the three-point shot.

Pickup games almost everywhere are played to some set number.

I would modify the Elam Ending by putting the ending in place at the end of regulation. Then, play the game to "winning score plus two" and give the winning team the ball first at halfcourt. Keep the 24-, 30-second clock. If the game is tied, start it with a jump ball.

There would still be a big incentive to have the lead at the end of regulation. Having a big lead would be even better so taking 20 seconds off the clock before starting your offense would be less appealing. It would also provide an incentive for the losing team to keep the game as close as possible. It might lessen the debate of whether the winning team should foul when they are on defense with a three point lead. Plus, the game would never be over until it was over.

The bucket that seals the game would be more like a "walk-off" hit in baseball rather than a buzzer beater. "Walk-offs" are also exciting and there would be one every game.

uh_no
05-24-2017, 06:53 PM
I didn't do the math, but isn't half of a half remarkably similar to a quarter?

Let's break the game down into eighths. 5 minutes each. 8 fouls per eighth puts a team in quadruple bonus. Four free throws per foul. Reset the team foul counter at the end of each eighth. Give each player 8 fouls. Don't call it basketball. Call it crazy eight balls.

the idea is to not have another end-of-clock scenario, which changes the flow of play a good deal.

frankly i like that the game divides nicely into two halves better than the nba/HS 4Qs. I appreciate that they're trying to maintain that uniqueness while also changing other things. I DO like 1-1....and am not a huge fan of the change overall, but i'd be more upset if they ditched halves.

Ian
05-25-2017, 01:24 PM
It would be a radical change, but probably would change the game less than when they added the three-point shot.

Pickup games almost everywhere are played to some set number.

I would modify the Elam Ending by putting the ending in place at the end of regulation. Then, play the game to "winning score plus two" and give the winning team the ball first at halfcourt. Keep the 24-, 30-second clock. If the game is tied, start it with a jump ball.

There would still be a big incentive to have the lead at the end of regulation. Having a big lead would be even better so taking 20 seconds off the clock before starting your offense would be less appealing. It would also provide an incentive for the losing team to keep the game as close as possible. It might lessen the debate of whether the winning team should foul when they are on defense with a three point lead. Plus, the game would never be over until it was over.

The bucket that seals the game would be more like a "walk-off" hit in baseball rather than a buzzer beater. "Walk-offs" are also exciting and there would be one every game.

This wouldn't work. the whole point of the proposal is to take away the foul to stop the clock scenario. Your proposal would be the worst of both worlds, where you still have to play the last 2 minutes with fould fest like we have now, and then add another possession to it.

sagegrouse
05-25-2017, 01:58 PM
Elam has three main points:

Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.

My main interest in this post (#10,003 on DBR, but who's counting?) is point #2. Here's the excerpt from the Zach Lowe ESPN story:


Elam has tracked thousands of NBA, college, and international games over the last four years and found basketball's classic comeback tactic -- intentional fouling -- almost never results in successful comebacks. Elam found at least one deliberate crunch-time foul from trailing teams in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season, according to a PowerPoint presentation he has sent across the basketball world. The trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.

That undersells the effectiveness of the strategy, of course. Elam's sample doesn't include most NBA games. There were a lot of instances in which fouling teams came from behind to tie games, but lost later.

Still: The process was ugly, and it rarely upended outcomes. It didn't seem worth it to Elam. "Comebacks are just so startlingly rare," Elam said. "And the method teams used to get there was so artificial and unsightly." He would devise a better way.
"...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true? Then, maybe we should shoot the losing coach who tries this strategy if it is painful to watch and doesn't change the outcome. I wonder if Elam's data are correct, and what the comparable data are for college hoops.

Wander
05-25-2017, 02:10 PM
My main interest in this post (#10,003 on DBR, but who's counting?) is point #2. Here's the excerpt from the Zach Lowe ESPN story:


"...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true? Then, maybe we should shoot the losing coach who tries this strategy if it is painful to watch and doesn't change the outcome. I wonder if Elam's data are correct, and what the comparable data are for college hoops.

I highly doubt it's true. Kansas-Memphis in 2008 and Duke-UNC in 2012 come to mind as examples of where the intentionally foul strategy worked. If I can think of 2 famous games off the top of my head, I'm sure there are tons (probably hundreds) of others in the same timespan.

Turk
05-25-2017, 04:13 PM
Elam has three main points:

Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.



This is a good split. I hate #3, and I challenge #1 in that several rules changes have been implemented to lessen the effectiveness of fouling as a strategy over the years. Therefore it is shorter and less frequent. This is a good thing; Problem Solved.

For #2, we have some dubious stats of games with "at least one deliberate crunch-time foul". How many times are you allowed to foul before we use the dreaded term "foul fest"? There are "intentional" fouls throughout any given game. Perhaps a team is pressing late in the game, and a guy gets loose and goes one-on-one, and the defender fouls to prevent the layup - that seems like a basketball play to me, not a so-called "deliberate crunch-time foul". I will theorize that a team can foul 2-4 times at the end of a game without wrecking it. Maybe six fouls or more is too much. The stats need to be adjusted accordingly. Like other posters, I call BS on some cooked-up numbers. Perhaps the rate of fouls per minute is a better metric to measure.

I will also posit that many games that we might agree are "foul fests" in the last two minutes were also unwatchable slam-dancing rock fights between teams with inept offenses during the first 38 minutes. (I'm looking at you, Coach John Chaney, no matter how much I miss you and love you. That goes for you too, Huggy Bear. Tom Izzo, Frank Martin - you guys are on the list too, but I won't miss you, and I won't ever love you neither).

Therefore #3 is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist or is at best overblown. Some have compared the #3 solution to pickup, where games are played to 11, 15, 21 or whatever the local rules are. I don't think these people have played very much, or haven't thought it all the way through. Case in point: there is a lunchtime pickup run in my neighborhood that I play sometimes if I have a day off, a doctor's appt, or I'm "working from home" (nudge nudge wink wink). Once in a while, on Fridays, holiday time, etc. there might be more than 20 guys in the gym. If you lose that first game, you know you're not getting back on the court no matter what happens. If you want to see a "foul fest", just wait until the game gets to "next basket wins" on those days. The phrase we often hear is "no autopsy, no foul."

I stand by my original assessment:
1. Make your free throws.
2. Get out of my yard.

Ian
05-25-2017, 04:27 PM
Thinking about it some more, I think you;d have to just have the whole game played that way for this to work.

Because with this rule change people are just going to treat the last 2 minutes before the 36 minutes mark like they do now the last 2 minutes of the game. They will do whatever they can to gain an advantage for that first to 7+lead scenario.

House P
05-25-2017, 04:36 PM
Elam has three main points:

Foul-fests in futile attempts to overcome a lead are awful experiences for the fans.
Intentional fouling rarely results in a changed outcome. So, the pain is pointless.
The Elam Ending would solve the problem -- by making the goal the number of points scored and get rid of the game clock (but not the shot clock).

OK. Lots of people on this thread hate #3. I am skeptical but would like to see it tried somewhere.


"...in 397 of 877 nationally televised NBA games from 2014 through the middle of this season ... [t]he trailing team won zero of those games, according to Elam's data.
The "foul-fest strategy" worked ZERO times out of 397. Is that really true?

I am also highly skeptical of data implying that fouling NEVER works. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to Google "NBA game winner buzzer beaters" and find two NBA games from March 2017 (Phoenix-Boston (https://youtu.be/4PDEnywl7V4?t=8m34s) and Oklahoma-Orlando (https://youtu.be/mbCsCITk7K8?t=1m22s)) where a trailing team came back to win after their opponent missed a free throw in the last 30 seconds of the game.

That being said, I suspect that most "foul-induced comebacks" occur when a team is only trailing by a couple points. Personally, I find it painful when the final minute of a nominally competitive game takes 10+ minutes of real time because a team repeatedly fouls in the hopes of increasing their chance of winning from 0.1% to 0.3%. The Elam Ending certainly removes the incentive to foul intentionally, so I am curios to see how it works out.

Another option might be to have some form of automatic clock runoff for "excessive fouling". For example, you could run 15 or 20 seconds off the clock if a trailing team commits more than X defensive fouls in the final Y seconds of a game. Perhaps the clock runoff would only occur when the fouling team trails by a certain threshold (more than 3 points?). This would speed games along while allowing some (limited) fouling to enable a comeback (and you would avoid situations where there are 9 fouls in the final 1:01 of a game which never got closer than 5 points). (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/playbyplay?gameId=400946442)

ChillinDuke
05-25-2017, 04:53 PM
I am also highly skeptical of data implying that fouling NEVER works. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to Google "NBA game winner buzzer beaters" and find two NBA games from March 2017 (Phoenix-Boston (https://youtu.be/4PDEnywl7V4?t=8m34s) and Oklahoma-Orlando (https://youtu.be/mbCsCITk7K8?t=1m22s)) where a trailing team came back to win after their opponent missed a free throw in the last 30 seconds of the game.

That being said, I suspect that most "foul-induced comebacks" occur when a team is only trailing by a couple points. Personally, I find it painful when the final minute of a nominally competitive game takes 10+ minutes of real time because a team repeatedly fouls in the hopes of increasing their chance of winning from 0.1% to 0.3%. The Elam Ending certainly removes the incentive to foul intentionally, so I am curios to see how it works out.

Another option might be to have some form of automatic clock runoff for "excessive fouling". For example, you could run 15 or 20 seconds off the clock if a trailing team commits more than X defensive fouls in the final Y seconds of a game. Perhaps the clock runoff would only occur when the fouling team trails by a certain threshold (more than 3 points?). This would speed games along while allowing some (limited) fouling to enable a comeback (and you would avoid situations where there are 9 fouls in the final 1:01 of a game which never got closer than 5 points). (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/playbyplay?gameId=400946442)

This is the best idea I've heard: a clock run-off. The NFL instituted it when teams tried to commit penalties to stop the clock. Doesn't that essentially feel like the same thing that is happening in these late-game foulfests?

- Chillin

niveklaen
05-25-2017, 05:11 PM
Do we run off the clock if the leading team fouls too? Up 3 with 10 seconds left foul on purpose - they can make 2 fts but you just caused the game clock to go to zero. - it doubles down on the incentive of the leading team to foul on purpose to avoid a 3pt shot - now they both avoid the 3pt attempt and literally end the game.

Coach K's stall ball tactic would then involve deliberate fouls to maximize the time used in each opponent's possession. The free throws that we give up would be no more damaging than the layups we give up now to avoid stopping the clock with a foul...

awhom111
06-19-2017, 01:41 AM
The first eleven Elam Ending games are in the books and you can watch replays on ESPN3.

The recaps and most of the boxscores are here, but I wish they had play by play and that we had some measure of how much additional game time was played:
https://www.thetournament.com/news/champions-size-and-experience-too-much-stars-stripes
https://www.thetournament.com/news/uknighteds-epic-comeback-falls-just-short
https://www.thetournament.com/news/selbys-game-winner-lifts-bdb-over-atl
https://www.thetournament.com/news/citi-team-holds-against-charlotte-elite
https://www.thetournament.com/news/reach-1-teach-1-pulls-away-2nd-half-big-win
https://www.thetournament.com/news/peoria-all-stars-fend-late-run-philly-dimes
https://www.thetournament.com/news/broad-street-too-much-chess-center-jamboree
https://www.thetournament.com/news/champions-fill-64th-and-final-spot-tbt2017
https://www.thetournament.com/news/tevin-glass-leads-citi-team-tbt2017-bid
https://www.thetournament.com/news/tbt2017-west-field-set-after-broad-streets-win
https://www.thetournament.com/news/peoria-all-stars-first-jamboree-team-advance-tbt2017

It does sound like the format resulted in some interesting finishes.

Bluedog
06-29-2017, 12:32 PM
Joe Lunardi seems to like what it's done to the games for TBT. Obviously, I realize Lunardi is not universally held in the highest esteem...

Is it time for a different way to end basketball games?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/19760667/is-ditch-game-clock-closing-minutes

I personally think it should be considered more seriously as well and more than just a gimmick. I can't recall how many times "casual" basketball fans lament me for watching end of games with a team up and the other one fouling constantly. "Is this game over yet?!?" I don't mind the drawn out endings as much, but it might broaden the appeal of end of games to have a system that does not incentive fouling, and there is something "fun" about every game ending with a made basket. (Yes, traditionalists will hate it and you can't win with D at the end I realize).

sagegrouse
06-29-2017, 12:42 PM
Joe Lunardi seems to like what it's done to the games for TBT. Obviously, I realize Lunardi is not universally held in the highest esteem...

Is it time for a different way to end basketball games?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/19760667/is-ditch-game-clock-closing-minutes

I personally think it should be considered more seriously as well and more than just a gimmick. I can't recall how many times "casual" basketball fans lament me for watching end of games with a team up and the other one fouling constantly. "Is this game over yet?!?" I don't mind the drawn out endings as much, but it might broaden the appeal of end of games to have a system that does not incentive fouling, and there is something "fun" about every game ending with a made basket. (Yes, traditionalists will hate it and you can't win with D at the end I realize).

I thought it was worth trying to see what flaws or complexities emerge from a different type of game ending. Sounds like it worked well and teams played tough, smart basketball to the end of the game. I hate all the BS as the end of both college and NBA games. I'd be for trying this approach. I like the analogy to playground hoops's "Get to 15; win by two." Taking hoops back to its origins? Yes!

Kindly,
Sage
'At the same time I am not eager for a new game metric involving length of game -- we would need a whole new set of shortcuts'

killerleft
06-29-2017, 04:44 PM
Apologies if this has been proposed by someone upthread (I haven't read some posts), but there is a fairly simple solution if the trailing team starts the (un)intentional fouling very early. After a certain number of fouls in the last three minutes (or two, or four), take away the three-point shot value from the trailing team. After a couple more fouls (or so), take away the two-shot value and let the trailing team only score one point per made basket.

I like it better than any other option, but then I would, wouldn't I?:D

rsvman
07-01-2017, 09:34 AM
Before they shortened the shot clock, there was a mathematical formula somewhere on the web with which you could calculate when a basketball game was "over" (meaning that the trailing team's chances of winning approximated zero). Again, that was when the shot clock was 35 seconds, so it would have to be tweaked, and I'm pretty sure there has been at least one game that went counter to the prediction since then (didn't somebody come back from down 12 with something like a minute and a half left within the last few years?).

Anyway, what I was getting at was what if a computer was constantly crunching the numbers of this tweaked formula and then as soon as the chances of a comeback win reached less than, say, 1 in 10,000, the buzzer just sounded and the victory was awarded to the leading team?

Some games might only last 30 minutes of play. The longer a game lasted, the more competitive it would be. Nobody would have any idea when the game would end. "Good game last night between Kansas and Kentucky; went 39 minutes."

OK, so maybe I was just trying to see if I could come up with a stupider idea than the Elam proposal and it looks like I did, lol.

-jk
07-01-2017, 12:43 PM
Before they shortened the shot clock, there was a mathematical formula somewhere on the web with which you could calculate when a basketball game was "over" (meaning that the trailing team's chances of winning approximated zero). Again, that was when the shot clock was 35 seconds, so it would have to be tweaked, and I'm pretty sure there has been at least one game that went counter to the prediction since then (didn't somebody come back from down 12 with something like a minute and a half left within the last few years?).

Anyway, what I was getting at was what if a computer was constantly crunching the numbers of this tweaked formula and then as soon as the chances of a comeback win reached less than, say, 1 in 10,000, the buzzer just sounded and the victory was awarded to the leading team?

Some games might only last 30 minutes of play. The longer a game lasted, the more competitive it would be. Nobody would have any idea when the game would end. "Good game last night between Kansas and Kentucky; went 39 minutes."

OK, so maybe I was just trying to see if I could come up with a stupider idea than the Elam proposal and it looks like I did, lol.

I think it was Bill James Safe Lead (from my notes):

Take the number of points team is ahead, and subtract three.
Add a half-point if leading team has ball, or subtract a half-point if not
Square the result - if that's greater than the seconds left in the game it's safe

<grumble> 9f </grumble>

-jk

rsvman
07-01-2017, 01:30 PM
I think it was Bill James Safe Lead (from my notes):

Take the number of points team is ahead, and subtract three.
Add a half-point if leading team has ball, or subtract a half-point if not
Square the result - if that's greater than the seconds left in the game it's safe

<grumble> 9f </grumble>

-jk

Yep. That was it. Made during the 35-second shot clock.

And of course, a couple of exceptions:

1) Texas A&M, down 12 with 44 seconds left in their game against Northern Iowa, ended up winning. The rule says they should have required 72.25 seconds.

2) Nevada, down 25 points with 1:14 remaining, came back to win in double OT. The rule says they should have required 462.25 seconds (7.7 minutes), but they only required 74 seconds.


The latter is probably the most unlikely/nearly impossible come-back in NCAA basketball history. I know that Oklahoma State was down 31 to LSU at LSU and came away with the victory, but I think the lead reached 31 with well more than 10 minutes remaining. I'm not exactly sure, but it wasn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the Nevada game.

sagegrouse
07-01-2017, 02:21 PM
Yep. That was it. Made during the 35-second shot clock.

And of course, a couple of exceptions:

1) Texas A&M, down 12 with 44 seconds left in their game against Northern Iowa, ended up winning. The rule says they should have required 72.25 seconds.

2) Nevada, down 25 points with 1:14 remaining, came back to win in double OT. The rule says they should have required 462.25 seconds (7.7 minutes), but they only required 74 seconds.


The latter is probably the most unlikely/nearly impossible come-back in NCAA basketball history. I know that Oklahoma State was down 31 to LSU at LSU and came away with the victory, but I think the lead reached 31 with well more than 10 minutes remaining. I'm not exactly sure, but it wasn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the Nevada game.

I am racing to post this before someone else does. Tulane ahead by 31 points at halftime, 56-27, WITH NO SHOT CLOCK. Duke wins 74-72. It appears to be the the third place game at Reynolds Coliseum in the old Dixie Classic, December 30, 1951. Dick Groat had 32 points in the comeback win. Tulane scored only 16 points in the second half, after putting up 56 in the first. It was the third game in three days for both teams. If Tulane was gassed, the Wave could have won by just holding the ball. I guess that wasn't the ethos of 1950 basketball.

-jk
07-01-2017, 06:35 PM
Yep. That was it. Made during the 35-second shot clock.

And of course, a couple of exceptions:

1) Texas A&M, down 12 with 44 seconds left in their game against Northern Iowa, ended up winning. The rule says they should have required 72.25 seconds.

2) Nevada, down 25 points with 1:14 remaining, came back to win in double OT. The rule says they should have required 462.25 seconds (7.7 minutes), but they only required 74 seconds.


The latter is probably the most unlikely/nearly impossible come-back in NCAA basketball history. I know that Oklahoma State was down 31 to LSU at LSU and came away with the victory, but I think the lead reached 31 with well more than 10 minutes remaining. I'm not exactly sure, but it wasn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the Nevada game.

I have this vague recollection of 8 points in 17 seconds being the only exception James noted when he published his guidance...

<grumble> 9f </grumble>

-jk

Green Wave Dukie
07-03-2017, 12:13 PM
I am racing to post this before someone else does. Tulane ahead by 31 points at halftime, 56-27, WITH NO SHOT CLOCK. Duke wins 74-72. It appears to be the the third place game at Reynolds Coliseum in the old Dixie Classic, December 30, 1951. Dick Groat had 32 points in the comeback win. Tulane scored only 16 points in the second half, after putting up 56 in the first. It was the third game in three days for both teams. If Tulane was gassed, the Wave could have won by just holding the ball. I guess that wasn't the ethos of 1950 basketball.

Well, personally, my day would have been just fine without having to learn this little factoid.

sagegrouse
07-03-2017, 03:34 PM
Well, personally, my day would have been just fine without having to learn this little factoid.

Sorry, Greenie, but this reflects well on Tulane. It could have shut the game down after intermission and cruised to a victory.

subzero02
08-01-2019, 10:56 PM
"The Basketball Tournament" is currently being shown on ESPNU. The Elam Ending is again being used this year but instead of the target score being set at the leading team's score+7 it is being set at the leading score+8. I really am starting to like the concept of the Elam Ending and I imagine that its use will continue to find support on other basketball stages.

https://www.inquirer.com/sports/elam-method-the-basketball-tournament-fran-fraschilla-kyle-hines-samme-givens-20190801.html

nmduke2001
08-01-2019, 11:26 PM
"The Basketball Tournament" is currently being shown on ESPNU. The Elam Ending is again being used this year but instead of the target score being set at the leading team's score+7 it is being set at the leading score+8. I really am starting to like the concept of the Elam Ending and I imagine that its use will continue to find support on other basketball stages.

https://www.inquirer.com/sports/elam-method-the-basketball-tournament-fran-fraschilla-kyle-hines-samme-givens-20190801.html

I like that it takes away the need to foul simply to stop the clock. It’s a more interesting end to the game.

RPS
08-02-2019, 12:04 AM
I like that it takes away the need to foul simply to stop the clock. It’s a more interesting end to the game.
I still think there is a simpler and better answer, one which is truer to the history and spirit of the game.

Whenever a player is fouled and it is a shooting foul (other than an "and one"), play continues as always unless the fouled team's coach immediately asks for the ball instead of free throws. In that case, the fouled team gets to inbound the ball from the point out of bounds nearest the spot where the foul occurred. That way, the fouling team can't foul and gain an advantage. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a simple and workable fix.

subzero02
08-02-2019, 01:45 AM
I still think there is a simpler and better answer, one which is truer to the history and spirit of the game.

Whenever a player is fouled and it is a shooting foul (other than an "and one"), play continues as always unless the fouled team's coach immediately asks for the ball instead of free throws. In that case, the fouled team gets to inbound the ball from the point out of bounds nearest the spot where the foul occurred. That way, the fouling team can't foul and gain an advantage. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a simple and workable fix.

The Elam Ending doesn't just discourage intentional fouling, it also limits the extent to which the team with the lead is able to "take the air out the ball". The system you've described would still encourage teams with the lead to run a clock killing offense.

uh_no
08-02-2019, 10:03 AM
I still think there is a simpler and better answer, one which is truer to the history and spirit of the game.

Whenever a player is fouled and it is a shooting foul (other than an "and one"), play continues as always unless the fouled team's coach immediately asks for the ball instead of free throws. In that case, the fouled team gets to inbound the ball from the point out of bounds nearest the spot where the foul occurred. That way, the fouling team can't foul and gain an advantage. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a simple and workable fix.

this is oft cited and would never work. the losing team would just foul again....indefinitely....and you would risk a turnover every time.

RPS
08-02-2019, 01:47 PM
The Elam Ending doesn't just discourage intentional fouling, it also limits the extent to which the team with the lead is able to "take the air out the ball". The system you've described would still encourage teams with the lead to run a clock killing offense.
Given the existence of the shot clock, a "clock killing offense" should be of minimal concern.


this is oft cited and would never work. the losing team would just foul again...indefinitely...and you would risk a turnover every time.
It seems to me that "would never work" is more than a little strong. I don't see a significant advantage for a team defending an OOB play versus one defending open play. When you add player disqualifications with a constant fouling "strategy," I wouldn't expect it to be tried all that often. It should be at least worth some testing.

subzero02
08-03-2019, 05:23 AM
Given the existence of the shot clock, a "clock killing offense" should be of minimal concern.


I've only watched basketball during the shot clock era. The "prevent offense" that's run by teams in order to kill the clock while protecting a lead is one of my least favorite aspects of the game. While the presence of a shot clock might diminish the need for concern regarding end of game offensive stagnation, it is still a significant drawback for many casual viewers and diehard fans.

killerleft
08-03-2019, 11:26 AM
I've only watched basketball during the shot clock era. The "prevent offense" that's run by teams in order to kill the clock while protecting a lead is one of my least favorite aspects of the game. While the presence of a shot clock might diminish the need for concern regarding end of game offensive stagnation, it is still a significant drawback for many casual viewers and diehard fans.

Perhaps Duke will field a jai-alai team soon.

subzero02
08-04-2019, 06:01 AM
Perhaps Duke will field a jai-alai team soon.


I doubt they'll field a team but perhops they'll field a Jai Alai club...

9660



I expect that old men sworn to protect the sanctity of front yards and walk-ons will be the most vocal critics of further evaluating the expansion of the elam ending.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article233387232.html

Bluedog
08-04-2019, 07:48 AM
I doubt they'll field a team but perhops they'll field a Jai Alai club...

9660



I expect that old men sworn to protect the sanctity of front yards and walk-ons will be the most vocal critics of further evaluating the expansion of the elam ending.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article233387232.html

Well, the timing of putting in walk-ons would just change. If you're up 20 points with 8 minutes remaining, you put them in until four minutes and then get guys who can score back in. But I agree with Self that it's not gonna happen in college ball, but I do like it from a viewing perspective.

HereBeforeCoachK
08-04-2019, 08:32 AM
The Elam Ending doesn't just discourage intentional fouling, it also limits the extent to which the team with the lead is able to "take the air out the ball". The system you've described would still encourage teams with the lead to run a clock killing offense.

This is an answer in dire need of a question. And think of all the amazing magic memorable endings that the Elam Ending....WOULD HAVE PREVENTED!!!!!
You think the "magic" of hitting that 7th point would come anywhere close to a buzzer beater? Not even close. Think of foul shots as the "4 foot putts" of basketball. A mental and emotional exercise that is part of close contests.

killerleft
08-04-2019, 12:55 PM
I doubt they'll field a team but perhops they'll field a Jai Alai club...

9660



I expect that old men sworn to protect the sanctity of front yards and walk-ons will be the most vocal critics of further evaluating the expansion of the elam ending.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article233387232.html

LOL, I'm 66! And I have that very beer in my fridge, which put me in mind of that sport(?). I bought it along with several other IPAs to prepare for National IPA Day, which I'm celebrating all week.

Basketball without a timed ending? Put that one with the X-Games or 3-on-3 Tournament.

subzero02
08-04-2019, 06:16 PM
Well, the timing of putting in walk-ons would just change. If you're up 20 points with 8 minutes remaining, you put them in until four minutes and then get guys who can score back in. But I agree with Self that it's not gonna happen in college ball, but I do like it from a viewing perspective.

Icing one's starters for 4 minutes while leaving the walk-ons to defend a 20 point lead sounds like a recipe for disaster.

House P
08-06-2019, 07:50 PM
This is an answer in dire need of a question. And think of all the amazing magic memorable endings that the Elam Ending...WOULD HAVE PREVENTED!!!!!
You think the "magic" of hitting that 7th point would come anywhere close to a buzzer beater? Not even close. Think of foul shots as the "4 foot putts" of basketball. A mental and emotional exercise that is part of close contests.

As you point out, the Elam Ending eliminates the possibility of “all or nothing” buzzer beaters. With the Elam Ending, the drama wouldn’t have been nearly as great for the Hill-to-Laettner, Austin Rivers, or Gordon Hayward shots. That being said, “all or nothing” buzzer beater opportunities are not all that common. I would guess that about 90% of Duke games end with the winning team uncontestedly dribbling out the clock as the coaches shake hands. The Elam Ending makes sure every game ends with a made basket.

I finally watched a couple Elam Ending games this weekend when I had nothing better to do than watch the TBT semifinals. Both games were close and I didn’t really have a rooting interest. Based on this very limited experience, I would say that the jury is still our for me regarding the Elam Ending. On the positive side, the final minutes of each game flowed a lot better than the usual end game where one team is trying to foul immediately and the other is only trying to run out the clock. On the other hand, the game ending shots just didn’t have the same drama as a true “all or nothing” buzzer beater.

My take is that the Elam Ending probably makes the ending of the average game more interesting to watch, but this is at the expense of the extreme drama of the occasional buzzer beater attempt.

###################

For those interested, the TBT championship is on ESPN at 9 Eastern tonight. If you don’t want to watch to see how the Elam Ending plays out, you might consider watching just to see how Jeff Gibbs (a 39 year old, 6-2, 250 pound, power forward who played D3 ball) manages be the leading rebounder and top inside presence for a team full of former Big 10 starters.

Bluedog
08-06-2019, 10:56 PM
Anybody watch the championship? That was the only game I watched. Pretty fun with a back and forth affair but actually the ending wasn't as dramatic with the Ohio St alumni taking control and then winning on FTs which isn't as much fun. Regardless, I like the ending personally.

Acymetric
08-07-2019, 12:05 AM
File it under "neat gimmick, but not appropriate for serious levels of competition".

Want to fix the end of games? Fix the endless reviews.

Truth&Justise
08-07-2019, 10:16 AM
Anybody watch the championship? That was the only game I watched. Pretty fun with a back and forth affair but actually the ending wasn't as dramatic with the Ohio St alumni taking control and then winning on FTs which isn't as much fun. Regardless, I like the ending personally.

Agree it seems anticlimactic at first, but then I thought about the pressure of stepping to the line knowing you can end the game right there. Could you make a free throw with $2 million on the line? Kind of like a last-minute penalty kick in soccer. It really amps up the pressure.

House P
08-07-2019, 10:17 AM
Anybody watch the championship? That was the only game I watched. Pretty fun with a back and forth affair but actually the ending wasn't as dramatic with the Ohio St alumni taking control and then winning on FTs which isn't as much fun. Regardless, I like the ending personally.

I watched the final. I thought that, despite the somewhat anti-climatic ending of the Ohio State alumni winning the game with a made free throw, the Elam Ending probably provided a better finish (from a casual viewer's perspective) than what would likely have happened with the normal rules.

Based on this play-by-play description (https://www.fibalivestats.com/u/TBT/1288560/pbp.html), it appears that Buford's game winning free throw put the Ohio State team up by 6 with what would have been 1:10 on the clock in a normal game. If there was still 1:10 left on the clock, I would expect a "normal" game to end with a series of increasingly more desperate three point attempts by the Marquette team, followed by a series of time consuming series trips to the free throw line by Ohio State (interrupted by a several timeouts by both coaches). Now if Marquette made a couple threes and Ohio State missed a couple free throws, this might have led to a more compelling viewing experience. However, the odds a pretty good that a "normal" game would have taken 10+ minutes of real time without ever getting closer than 4 points. At some point, if I was a casual viewer, I might change the channel during one of the commercial breaks and not go back.

####################

One other thing that occurred to me last night is that, while the Elam Ending succeeds in removing the incentive for the trailing team to foul intentionally, I wonder if it creates scenarios where the leading team has an incentive to foul intentionally. For example, in last night's game, Marquette had the ball needing 6 points to win. At this point, Ohio State only needed 2 points (one basket) to win. Marquette's best chance of winning probably involved making a pair of 3 pointers and getting one defensive stop.

If I am Ohio State, why not foul intentionally every time Marquette gets the ball? If this happens, Marquette's best chance is probably to make all their free throws. Even if this happens, Ohio State is guaranteed to get at least two possessions to get the one basket they need to win. More realistically, Marquette is probably going to miss at least one free throw (a 70% shooter only has about a 10% chance of making six in a row). In this case Ohio State gets now gets at least three possessions to make the one basket they need.

House P
08-07-2019, 10:32 AM
Agree it seems anticlimactic at first, but then I thought about the pressure of stepping to the line knowing you can end the game right there. Could you make a free throw with $2 million on the line? Kind of like a last-minute penalty kick in soccer. It really amps up the pressure.

I suppose the closest the Elam Ending gets to the feeling of a do-or-die buzzer beater is when each team is within one basket of winning. While no single shot is going to be win or lose the game, the stakes are very high for each possession.

I guess this scenario probably feels somewhat like Duke's final possession versus Kansas in 2018. If Grayson's shot goes in, Duke wins. If he misses, the game goes on. If you compound that feeling over a couple possessions (if each team keeps getting stops) and you get some pretty good drama. But still nothing like the drama of the Laettner or Heyward shots.

Acymetric
08-07-2019, 11:23 AM
Agree it seems anticlimactic at first, but then I thought about the pressure of stepping to the line knowing you can end the game right there. Could you make a free throw with $2 million on the line? Kind of like a last-minute penalty kick in soccer. It really amps up the pressure.

But uh...isn't ending the game at the free throw line supposed to be what the Elam ending solves? I thought we had (apparently) decided that wasn't an acceptable ending.

-jk
08-07-2019, 12:58 PM
But uh...isn't ending the game at the free throw line supposed to be what the Elam ending solves? I thought we had (apparently) decided that wasn't an acceptable ending.

I think it’s trying to end the all too common parade of free throws...

-jk

Acymetric
08-07-2019, 01:09 PM
I think it’s trying to end the all too common parade of free throws...

-jk


Sorry, I was just kind of being tongue in cheek ("free throws at the end of games are terrible, but this free throw at the end of the game was what basketball is all about!"), I do understand that. I just think the Elam ending is a bad solution. Neat, but not something I want to see 30-60 times a year or whatever while watching basketball.

Truth&Justise
08-07-2019, 04:55 PM
Sorry, I was just kind of being tongue in cheek ("free throws at the end of games are terrible, but this free throw at the end of the game was what basketball is all about!"), I do understand that. I just think the Elam ending is a bad solution. Neat, but not something I want to see 30-60 times a year or whatever while watching basketball.

That's a fair point.

I was trying to come up with a comparison of a game where un-timed free throws decided the outcome. The only one I could think of was the 2005 Conference USA finals, which is one of the most agonizing, gut-wrenching things I've ever seen on a basketball court:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA13mfhVMsY

Not sure how this evidence weighs in favor or against the Elam ending, just wanted to point out this historical precedent.

Billy Dat
08-09-2019, 02:50 PM
That's a fair point.

I was trying to come up with a comparison of a game where un-timed free throws decided the outcome. The only one I could think of was the 2005 Conference USA finals, which is one of the most agonizing, gut-wrenching things I've ever seen on a basketball court:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA13mfhVMsY

Not sure how this evidence weighs in favor or against the Elam ending, just wanted to point out this historical precedent.

Darius Washington's miss in the aforementioned game inspired a Phish song, "The Line". It's not their best song, but interesting source material:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcUhg2ttOM

JetpackJesus
08-09-2019, 05:36 PM
I watched the final. I thought that, despite the somewhat anti-climatic ending of the Ohio State alumni winning the game with a made free throw, the Elam Ending probably provided a better finish (from a casual viewer's perspective) than what would likely have happened with the normal rules.

Based on this play-by-play description (https://www.fibalivestats.com/u/TBT/1288560/pbp.html), it appears that Buford's game winning free throw put the Ohio State team up by 6 with what would have been 1:10 on the clock in a normal game. If there was still 1:10 left on the clock, I would expect a "normal" game to end with a series of increasingly more desperate three point attempts by the Marquette team, followed by a series of time consuming series trips to the free throw line by Ohio State (interrupted by a several timeouts by both coaches). Now if Marquette made a couple threes and Ohio State missed a couple free throws, this might have led to a more compelling viewing experience. However, the odds a pretty good that a "normal" game would have taken 10+ minutes of real time without ever getting closer than 4 points. At some point, if I was a casual viewer, I might change the channel during one of the commercial breaks and not go back.

####################

One other thing that occurred to me last night is that, while the Elam Ending succeeds in removing the incentive for the trailing team to foul intentionally, I wonder if it creates scenarios where the leading team has an incentive to foul intentionally. For example, in last night's game, Marquette had the ball needing 6 points to win. At this point, Ohio State only needed 2 points (one basket) to win. Marquette's best chance of winning probably involved making a pair of 3 pointers and getting one defensive stop.

If I am Ohio State, why not foul intentionally every time Marquette gets the ball? If this happens, Marquette's best chance is probably to make all their free throws. Even if this happens, Ohio State is guaranteed to get at least two possessions to get the one basket they need to win. More realistically, Marquette is probably going to miss at least one free throw (a 70% shooter only has about a 10% chance of making six in a row). In this case Ohio State gets now gets at least three possessions to make the one basket they need.
http://i.imgur.com/rYtsduR.gif?1

Kidding aside, this is a really interesting angle I hadn't thought about while casually following this thread since it resurfaced. It seems to make sense for the winning team to foul in the scenario you described. I guess it's somewhat similar to the winning team fouling intentionally while up three to prevent the losing team from having the ability to tie the game with one shot. But with the Elam ending, that strategy could play out over a greater number of possessions if the winning team struggles to get those final points.

lotusland
08-09-2019, 08:59 PM
I know the bookmakers would find a way but seems like it would be more difficult to handicap games this way. A lot of people are still watching 21 point blowouts with bated breath and every made or missed free throw is meaningful. Let’s not underestimate how much gambling drives revenue for televised sporting events.

subzero02
08-09-2019, 11:21 PM
I know the bookmakers would find a way but seems like it would be more difficult to handicap games this way. A lot of people are still watching 21 point blowouts with bated breath and every made or missed free throw is meaningful. Let’s not underestimate how much gambling drives revenue for televised sporting events.

I think the Elam Ending is perfect for bookmakers. They will still be able to handicap games and additionally there will be plenty of live betting opportunities once the Elam Ending's target score is set. People will still be watching 21 point blowouts with bated breath. I think the Elam Ending could have an impact on the over/under. With less intentional fouling at the end of games, point totals should be lower on average.

HereBeforeCoachK
08-10-2019, 03:23 PM
Kidding aside, this is a really interesting angle I hadn't thought about while casually following this thread since it resurfaced. It seems to make sense for the winning team to foul in the scenario you described. I guess it's somewhat similar to the winning team fouling intentionally while up three to prevent the losing team from having the ability to tie the game with one shot. But with the Elam ending, that strategy could play out over a greater number of possessions if the winning team struggles to get those final points.


Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences rearing its head.

-jk
02-21-2022, 10:39 PM
Dereck Lively tries the Elam Ending (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/the-elam-ending-came-to-high-school-hoops-for-a-night-with-phelps-vs-westtown-the-ending-was-e2-80-98a-blast-e2-80-99/ar-AATTsV0).


Despite being down eight points when the clock was turned off, Phelps made it a close finish, cutting the deficit to two points at 78-76.

The ending also included a one shot and the ball opportunity — a potential four-point swing — for Phelps with the score, 80-76, but Kelley missed the front-end free throw. Phelps’ Malcolm Wisby-Jefferson missed a three-pointer on the ensuing possession.

A few possessions later, Westtown’s Jameel Brown, a Penn State signee, knocked down a three-pointer with his team leading 81-76. Ballgame.

“What we were planning on doing [in the final four minutes] was coming down and executing our half-court offense,” Berger said. “Then we realized that was not gonna work. We better just go and just hope that our kids have enough talent to get us to 84, and obviously our kids had just enough talent.”

Said Lively: “It is new for me, so I’m not opposed to it, but it was something new, so I didn’t know what to do.”

-jk

jv001
02-22-2022, 08:18 AM
Dereck Lively tries the Elam Ending (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/the-elam-ending-came-to-high-school-hoops-for-a-night-with-phelps-vs-westtown-the-ending-was-e2-80-98a-blast-e2-80-99/ar-AATTsV0).



-jk

I guess the Elam ending pretty much eliminates stall ball and fouling at the end of the game. I like that.

GoDuke!

Dr. Maturin
02-22-2022, 08:54 AM
The Elam Ending is interesting. I get why people don't like all the fouls and timeouts at the end of games. But I still think basketball has the best end-game in sports, and the clock is an essential part of that. In basketball, the lead can change hands several times in the final minute - I don't know of any other sport where that happens so regularly. The urgency involved in late games, not to mention the strategy, is fundamentally shaped by the clock. I think you would lose a lot, even if you gained something by using the Elam Ending.

mkirsh
02-22-2022, 09:28 AM
The Elam Ending is interesting. I get why people don't like all the fouls and timeouts at the end of games. But I still think basketball has the best end-game in sports, and the clock is an essential part of that. In basketball, the lead can change hands several times in the final minute - I don't know of any other sport where that happens so regularly. The urgency involved in late games, not to mention the strategy, is fundamentally shaped by the clock. I think you would lose a lot, even if you gained something by using the Elam Ending.


Elam ending doesn't preclude lead changes. If the score is close when the clock is shut off it can be back and forth until the target score is hit. It's just about getting buckets and not managing time, but there is still plenty of urgency. The dynamic is certainly different, but games played this way still have a lot of late game excitement.

CDu
02-22-2022, 09:47 AM
Elam ending doesn't preclude lead changes. If the score is close when the clock is shut off it can be back and forth until the target score is hit. It's just about getting buckets and not managing time, but there is still plenty of urgency. The dynamic is certainly different, but games played this way still have a lot of late game excitement.

Yeah, and it also eliminates the "foul and pray they miss the FTs" aspect of the end-game, which basically causes the end-game to stop being basketball.

I'm still intrigued by the idea, and I'd love to see it in a meaningless game to see how it would actually play out. There are certainly appealing parts of the idea.

Dr. Maturin
02-22-2022, 09:50 AM
Elam ending doesn't preclude lead changes. If the score is close when the clock is shut off it can be back and forth until the target score is hit. It's just about getting buckets and not managing time, but there is still plenty of urgency. The dynamic is certainly different, but games played this way still have a lot of late game excitement.

That's fair. I just feel that managing the clock is such an integral part of basketball strategy. And there's nothing like watching the final seconds tick down knowing that this is it, one way or the other. When a team trails by 1, then shoots a buzzer beater, you know that the game hinges on that one shot. The Elam Ending doesn't have that.

I saw an idea somewhere. Play normal basketball for 40 minutes. Then, if tied, use the Elam Ending for overtime - first to 10 points or something. I'd be open to some experimentation in pre-season tournaments or the like.

weezie
02-22-2022, 10:29 AM
We could save time and make it the first to 21 wins.

Then call it the hoo rule

uh_no
02-22-2022, 11:18 AM
That's fair. I just feel that managing the clock is such an integral part of basketball strategy. And there's nothing like watching the final seconds tick down knowing that this is it, one way or the other. When a team trails by 1, then shoots a buzzer beater, you know that the game hinges on that one shot. The Elam Ending doesn't have that.

I saw an idea somewhere. Play normal basketball for 40 minutes. Then, if tied, use the Elam Ending for overtime - first to 10 points or something. I'd be open to some experimentation in pre-season tournaments or the like.

We could barely get soccer in the US on the non-countdown clock model. The elam ending is reasonable enough, but unlikely to ever be accepted.

Shooting FTs at the end of a game of basketball is as much of the game as pulling the goalie at the end of a hockey game. It's just part of the sport. THAT said, I think there are ways to mitigate the negative impact of it....like....when there's a foul, how about the teams go shoot the FTs instead of having unofficial timeouts on the court, followed by an unofficial timeout on the bench, followed by the ref nagging the teams to come over, followed by the teams getting those last 5-10s of timeout before the ref will nag them again, followed by lollygagging it over to the FT line, arguing about who stands where, the ref making sure all 10 players on the floor, both benches, the scorers table and every fan in the stands knows how many shots there are, then passing the ball to the shooter.

you get 15s after the foul is called. the ref passes the ball to the shooter, and he gets 10s to shoot. You stay on your spot after the first shot. No high fiving the world, talking about what you're going to have for dinner or what your grandma got you for christmas. 5s and the ref passes you the ball again.

Free throws are like a 2 minute ordeal and there's no reason they should take more than 30s.

Phredd3
02-22-2022, 11:35 AM
We could barely get soccer in the US on the non-countdown clock model. The elam ending is reasonable enough, but unlikely to ever be accepted.

Can we get the NCAA to do away with the soccer countdown clock? It wastes the end of every single half, and the timing precision is illusory, anyway.


Free throws are like a 2 minute ordeal and there's no reason they should take more than 30s.

Plunk the ball down on the line, and the player gets 10 seconds to shoot it, whether he's standing there or not. You see refs occasionally do that on inbounding plays when the offense seems confused or causing delay for other reasons. There's no reason they couldn't do essentially the same thing on free throws. The mini-huddles would stop in short order.

Indoor66
02-22-2022, 11:39 AM
Can we get the NCAA to do away with the soccer countdown clock? It wastes the end of every single half, and the timing precision is illusory, anyway.



Plunk the ball down on the line, and the player gets 10 seconds to shoot it, whether he's standing there or not. You see refs occasionally do that on inbounding plays when the offense seems confused or causing delay for other reasons. There's no reason they couldn't do essentially the same thing on free throws. The mini-huddles would stop in short order.

Thank Dean Smith for the mini huddles - used to call the next defense.

uh_no
02-22-2022, 11:49 AM
Can we get the NCAA to do away with the soccer countdown clock? It wastes the end of every single half, and the timing precision is illusory, anyway.

There are a LOT of problems with NCAA soccer rules. Infinite subs, gazillion games, and practice limited to a very small % of the year. They are major reasons why top talent largely no longer comes out of the NCAA, but out of professional academies.




Plunk the ball down on the line, and the player gets 10 seconds to shoot it, whether he's standing there or not. You see refs occasionally do that on inbounding plays when the offense seems confused or causing delay for other reasons. There's no reason they couldn't do essentially the same thing on free throws. The mini-huddles would stop in short order.

yes please. If we could get a serve clock in volleyball that would be great, too. There are something like 160 points in an average volleyball match...you don't need to celebrate each one like you won the world series.

Don't get me wrong, I get excitement over something good, but there are 160 of them. Pitchers don't go off every time they throw a strike and have the whole infield run over to group hug. Tennis players don't even celebrate that much after winning a game, let alone each point. Big points? Super good plays? yeah....but every point just bugs me...it bogs the match down.

Also get off my lawn.

BigWayne
02-22-2022, 12:22 PM
yes please. If we could get a serve clock in volleyball that would be great, too. There are something like 160 points in an average volleyball match...you don't need to celebrate each one like you won the world series.



I got perturbed by this when my daughter was playing organized volleyball. She was on a succession of not very successful teams and they would do the group handslap/hug after every point, including ones where they had lost the point due to very bad self inflicted errors. When you're sitting there burning up your weekend waiting for them to finally lose so you can start the long drive home, it's particularly painful.

That being said, volleyball timing is somewhat a lost cause. I believe I saw when watching the olympic beach volleyball that they did have a serve clock timer. However, the timer doesn't start until after they complete the celebratory/consolatory hug after each point.
https://www.lx.com/tokyo-summer-olympics/team-hugs-in-volleyball-give-a-chance-to-rest-and-show-the-love/39039/

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-22-2022, 01:01 PM
What would the Elam Ending mean for Vegas point spreads?

-jk
02-22-2022, 05:55 PM
What would the Elam Ending mean for Vegas point spreads?

Modify them, but they'd still be there.

-jk

rsvman
02-22-2022, 06:14 PM
That's fair. I just feel that managing the clock is such an integral part of basketball strategy. And there's nothing like watching the final seconds tick down knowing that this is it, one way or the other. When a team trails by 1, then shoots a buzzer beater, you know that the game hinges on that one shot. The Elam Ending doesn't have that.

I saw an idea somewhere. Play normal basketball for 40 minutes. Then, if tied, use the Elam Ending for overtime - first to 10 points or something. I'd be open to some experimentation in pre-season tournaments or the like.

The Elam ending has as much drama as a regular game, because you still know that if you score on a certain possession you will win the game. Why does there have to be a clock to make a last possession suspenseful?

The only thing that the Elam ending would be certain to eliminate would be overtimes. There would be no overtimes at all.

I am all for the Elam ending and I really wish basketball would make this change. Think about all the times you were unable to watch the beginning of a Duke game because some lame game was going on in which a team trailing by ten points or so was fouling over and over again and the team that was ahead was letting the other team score layups so they could get the ball back and be fouled again. It is soooo tedious.

uh_no
02-22-2022, 06:23 PM
The Elam ending has as much drama as a regular game, because you still know that if you score on a certain possession you will win the game. Why does there have to be a clock to make a last possession suspenseful?

The only thing that the Elam ending would be certain to eliminate would be overtimes. There would be no overtimes at all.

I am all for the Elam ending and I really wish basketball would make this change. Think about all the times you were unable to watch the beginning of a Duke game because some lame game was going on in which a team trailing by ten points or so was fouling over and over again and the team that was ahead was letting the other team score layups so they could get the ball back and be fouled again. It is soooo tedious.

The Shot.

I rest my case.

rsvman
02-22-2022, 06:25 PM
Oh, and, super tangentially, speaking of changing the game (but in a way not changing the game at all), my eldest son had this idea for scoring a basketball game (I believe that it would be UNIVERSALLY hated if it were done, by the way; my son might be the ONLY person in the entire world who liked it).

His idea was this: the scoreboard should only show the difference between the point totals of the two teams. His argument is that 4-2 is no different from 88-86, so why do we display them differently?

In his scenario, if Duke were playing UNC, for example, and Duke scored the first basket of the game, the scoreboard would look like this:


Duke 2 UNC

Then if UNC scored a two-point basket, the scoreboard would look like this:


Duke UNC

If we then made a three-pointer, it would say:

Duke 3 UNC

And then if they made a 2-pointer it would change to:

Duke 1 UNC



I guess it would take all the math out of the game, at least! Of course, the last time we played them, the final score was Duke 20, which was nice.


Can you imagine the sports report on the news? "In the Big Ten it was Indiana 5 over Maryland, and Purdue 16 over Penn State. Closer to home it was Duke 2 with Wake Forest on the losing end."

If the game ended at ZERO for both teams, they would go to overtime, and continue to do so until there was a difference in the scores when the buzzer sounded. That would be the final score.

Dr. Maturin
02-22-2022, 07:22 PM
The Elam ending has as much drama as a regular game, because you still know that if you score on a certain possession you will win the game. Why does there have to be a clock to make a last possession suspenseful?

The only thing that the Elam ending would be certain to eliminate would be overtimes. There would be no overtimes at all.

I am all for the Elam ending and I really wish basketball would make this change. Think about all the times you were unable to watch the beginning of a Duke game because some lame game was going on in which a team trailing by ten points or so was fouling over and over again and the team that was ahead was letting the other team score layups so they could get the ball back and be fouled again. It is soooo tedious.

I didn't say you needed a clock to be suspenseful, but I did explain above why a clock makes things *more* suspenseful in my opinion. With the Elam ending, there are no do-or-die shots. The added difficulty that comes with playing against the clock is the genesis of all our favorite buzzer beaters.

House P
02-22-2022, 08:40 PM
I didn't say you needed a clock to be suspenseful, but I did explain above why a clock makes things *more* suspenseful in my opinion. With the Elam ending, there are no do-or-die shots. The added difficulty that comes with playing against the clock is the genesis of all our favorite buzzer beaters.

The Elam ending removes the possibility of an occasional buzzer beater. Instead, every game ends with a team attempting to defend one or more potential walk-off shot(s). There is still plenty of drama in a close game*, just not the extreme drama of trying to beat the clock on a final 'do-or-die' possession.


*The most dramatic Elam ending games occur when both teams are one possession away from winning and the "next bucket wins".

camion
02-22-2022, 11:45 PM
The Elam ending removes the possibility of an occasional buzzer beater. Instead, every game ends with a team attempting to defend one or more potential walk-off shot(s). There is still plenty of drama in a close game*, just not the extreme drama of trying to beat the clock on a final 'do-or-die' possession.


*The most dramatic Elam ending games occur when both teams are one possession away from winning and the "next bucket wins".

One feature of the Elam ending is that a team cannot lose a game while on offense. Or to put it another way, a game will always end with a defensive failure.

Is there an Elam tweak that would make it possible for the game to end with either an offensive or defensive success?

rsvman
02-23-2022, 07:49 AM
One feature of the Elam ending is that a team cannot lose a game while on offense. Or to put it another way, a game will always end with a defensive failure.

Is there an Elam tweak that would make it possible for the game to end with either an offensive or defensive success?

Couldn't a 'defensive failure' also be viewed as an 'offensive success'?

camion
02-23-2022, 07:59 AM
Couldn't a 'defensive failure' also be viewed as an 'offensive success'?

Sure. One could look at it either way. My point is that a game will only end one way. There would never be an offensive failure and defensive success to end a game.

For example the Duke/Butler ending would never happen under Elam. And if that shot had gone in, that would never happen either, no reason for desperate shots.

I am in favor of reducing the march to the foul line at the end of games, but Elam causes other changes too.