Proposed rule changes from the ACC

[UrinalCake]

A few days ago the ACC coaches met and came away with a list of proposed rule changes that they are presenting to the NCAA. The first one has garnered the most media attention, mostly by people bitterly opposed to it, but there were four total changes:

- Expand the tournament to 72 teams. This would be done by adding a second "First Four" pod of the next four at-large teams, which would play on tueday and wednesday of the first tournament weekend concurrent to the existing First Four pod in Dayton.
- Widen the lane. I don't know the details, but I assume they would go to the NBA width of 16 feet. This would reduce post play even further
- Move back the three point line. Again I haven't been able to Google the exact distance that they are proposing, whether it's the NBA line or the slightly shorter International distance, or something else. I do remember several years ago there were different lines for NBA, college mens, and college women's, and it was really confusing to see three physical lines drawn on the court.
- Reset the shot clock to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound. This would speed up the game and prevent a team from milking a ton of time after grabbing a board, especially near the end of games.

I'm curious what the board thinks of these proposed changes. I thought I remembered that the last two were enacted in this past season's NIT, but I don't remember what sort of response there was to it. For me personally, I like moving back the three point line so that shooting threes is more of a specialty and not something that any old chump can do. Would prefer that the lane stay the same size and that we don't expand the tourney. I'm fairly apathetic about the shot clock.

[mkirsh]

A few days ago the ACC coaches met and came away with a list of proposed rule changes that they are presenting to the NCAA. The first one has garnered the most media attention, mostly by people bitterly opposed to it, but there were four total changes:

- Expand the tournament to 72 teams. This would be done by adding a second "First Four" pod of the next four at-large teams, which would play on tueday and wednesday of the first tournament weekend concurrent to the existing First Four pod in Dayton.
- Widen the lane. I don't know the details, but I assume they would go to the NBA width of 16 feet. This would reduce post play even further
- Move back the three point line. Again I haven't been able to Google the exact distance that they are proposing, whether it's the NBA line or the slightly shorter International distance, or something else. I do remember several years ago there were different lines for NBA, college mens, and college women's, and it was really confusing to see three physical lines drawn on the court.
- Reset the shot clock to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound. This would speed up the game and prevent a team from milking a ton of time after grabbing a board, especially near the end of games.

I'm curious what the board thinks of these proposed changes. I thought I remembered that the last two were enacted in this past season's NIT, but I don't remember what sort of response there was to it. For me personally, I like moving back the three point line so that shooting threes is more of a specialty and not something that any old chump can do. Would prefer that the lane stay the same size and that we don't expand the tourney. I'm fairly apathetic about the shot clock.

I'm most in favor of the 3 point line moving back as I agree with your point that the shot should be harder and I believe it would improve court spacing and flow, but think (as I do with the NBA) the court should be widened to eliminate the shorter corner 3 (which won't happen). Also good with the shot clock only resetting to 20 on an offensive rebound. I don't think widening the lane will make a difference, as 3 second violations only getting called seemingly twice per season, and there is no defensive 3 seconds like in the NBA where this makes a bigger difference. On the "second first 4" - don't really have strong opinions here. Just 2 more games I likely won't watch that make filling my brackets out harder since I don't know who will be playing until late Wed night. I strongly prefer 64 teams, but since that isn't happening, the difference between 72 and 68 doesn't really matter to me.

We also had a good thread maybe last summer with suggested rule changes and this board had really good ideas, so that is likely where this thread is headed, but that is what the off-season is for.

[BLPOG]

I don't like the idea of expanding the tournament. I don't even like the "First Four". If they really want to expand they should dispense with their Fabianism and just advocate another full round.

I'd be against widening the lane, but have no strong feelings there. I like the proposal to move back the three, but also also don't feel too strongly about it.

I really like the shot clock proposal. I prefer the longer shot clock in general but see this proposal as a good way to mitigate its drawbacks. I expect it would make some end-game situations more exciting.

[JasonEvans]

I know a local sports guy who says the ACC is soon going to announce a fairly big change to transfer rules. The schools will agree that they will not put any transfer restrictions on any player. So, if a guy wants to leave, he can go wherever he wants. We will see if it happens. I would expect other conferences to follow suit if the ACC does this.

[UrinalCake]

I know a local sports guy who says the ACC is soon going to announce a fairly big change to transfer rules. The schools will agree that they will not put any transfer restrictions on any player. So, if a guy wants to leave, he can go wherever he wants. We will see if it happens. I would expect other conferences to follow suit if the ACC does this.

Huh, I thought that was an NCAA rule and not an ACC rule.

[hallcity]

Huh, I thought that was an NCAA rule and not an ACC rule.

Unless a school releases a player, he or she has to sit out two years instead of one. Schools normally release players as long as they are moving to another conference but not always. Apparently, this would be a conference rule requiring that schools release players no matter where they're heading.

[brevity]

I don't like the idea of expanding the tournament. I don't even like the "First Four". If they really want to expand they should dispense with their Fabianism and just advocate another full round.

So I learned something today. Fabianism (https://www.britannica.com/event/Fabianism) can be described as a movement to bring about changes gradually and incrementally, and not the condition of being a pretty boy teen idol.

Oh, and do a 96-team tournament. 24 teams per region, 3 rounds in the opening week sites (Tuesday/Wednesday, Thursday/Friday, Saturday/Sunday). Idle people have half as much time to fill out brackets, and, with apologies to UMBC, the 16-seeds would no longer be the weakest teams in the field -- more likely major conference at-large teams or mid-major upstarts who used to be on the wrong side of the bubble.

[Wander]

- Expand the tournament to 72 teams. This would be done by adding a second "First Four" pod of the next four at-large teams, which would play on tueday and wednesday of the first tournament weekend concurrent to the existing First Four pod in Dayton.

College sports coaches really are some of the greediest people around. Hopefully everyone unanimously tells Boeheim to go away.

[mattman91]

Can we just get 4 quarters?

[UrinalCake]

Unless a school releases a player, he or she has to sit out two years instead of one. Schools normally release players as long as they are moving to another conference but not always. Apparently, this would be a conference rule requiring that schools release players no matter where they're heading.

Oh, I guess I was reading too much into Jason's post. I read it as if they were going to allow players to transfer without sitting out a year at all, something that has been mentioned previously amongst the powers that be.

[UrinalCake]

Oh, and do a 96-team tournament. 24 teams per region, 3 rounds in the opening week sites (Tuesday/Wednesday, Thursday/Friday, Saturday/Sunday). Idle people have half as much time to fill out brackets, and, with apologies to UMBC, the 16-seeds would no longer be the weakest teams in the field -- more likely major conference at-large teams or mid-major upstarts who used to be on the wrong side of the bubble.

Basically that would let all of the NIT teams into the tournament. That's way too watered down for me. I know this includes some decent teams that would be capable of winning a game or two, but it's too much. You have to draw the line somewhere. If we did this, then the 97th best team in the country who got left out would complain that the tournament needed to be expanded even further.

64 is the right number. I can live with 68. Trying to explain the current system to my 11 year old daughter is difficult enough as it is.

[BigWayne]

I really don't like the shot clock change. I used to run the shot clock for my kids high school games and it is a stressful and error prone job as it is. Having to have to make a decision based on who comes down with the ball from the scorers table is going to be impossible to get right. You can see the rim pretty well so making that decision is not a problem. Now you are asking the guy to wait and see who catches it first. You are going to get all sorts of game stoppages while they make corrections.

[jimsumner]

Or eliminate the conference tournaments and go with 256.

That would only add a week

Or go to the top 1024.

Might have to get creative with the last proposal. Adds another week and team number 1025 would be so steamed.

[BD80]

Hopefully, the lane and 3-point line changes comport to international rules. I'm all in favor of it.

20 second rule is smart, the ball is already in the offensive end.

I hear the new ACC transfer rule will only apply to transfers to real educational institutions. unc is fighting this provision tooth and nail.

Adding 4 teams to the tourney will greatly benefit the ACC, as they usually have one or two teams that are the "first out."

[JasonEvans]

Unless a school releases a player, he or she has to sit out two years instead of one. Schools normally release players as long as they are moving to another conference but not always. Apparently, this would be a conference rule requiring that schools release players no matter where they're heading.

Exactly. This is not a change that would make transfers immediately eligible. It would just say that all ACC teams agree to not block a transfer from going to another team, so any transfer from an ACC school would only have to sit out one year.

The ACC has no power to completely waive the one-year sitout rule.

[Lar77]

I agree with setting the 3 point line back - half the players take their shots further out anyway.
No reason for widening the lane - borrowing from another thread, there are no more Wilts.
Shot clock is already a problem, why make it more complicated.
I'm not a fan of the current transfer rule.

Which brings me to the tournament. Instead of 1 First Four, make it 4 First Fours (naming would have to change) and populate it with the 16 "minor-major" (one bid) conference winners. They all finish their conferences a week before the big dance selection anyway. Then take the 4 winners and stick them into the big dance with 60 mid- and major- majors. It makes 76 teams, which should please the coaches. It gives the minor-majors something to shoot for beyond a bid and a first round knockout, and the NCAA has something else to sell. If a team really impresses in the prelims, then they could get a better seed than a
1-16 game because the games are completed before selection sunday.

[hallcity]

Exactly. This is not a change that would make transfers immediately eligible. It would just say that all ACC teams agree to not block a transfer from going to another team, so any transfer from an ACC school would only have to sit out one year.

The ACC has no power to completely waive the one-year sitout rule.

If this passes, it might still be a good idea if Duke, UNC and NCSU all agreed not to accept basketball transfers from each other. I think it might get a bit too intense if a player transferred from UNC to Duke or from Duke to NCSU, for instance. Can you imagine, for instance, what it would be like if Yertseven were transferring to UNC instead of Georgetown?

[MarkD83]

Or eliminate the conference tournaments and go with 256.

That would only add a week

Or go to the top 1024.

Might have to get creative with the last proposal. Adds another week and team number 1025 would be so steamed.

I think a quadruple elimination tournament starting in November (at least teams can play 4 games). Transfers are then allowed once your team is eliminated and players are immediately eligible to play.

[MarkD83]

Exactly. This is not a change that would make transfers immediately eligible. It would just say that all ACC teams agree to not block a transfer from going to another team, so any transfer from an ACC school would only have to sit out one year.

The ACC has no power to completely waive the one-year sitout rule.

Let's see...the commissioner is a UNC grad and UNC just got into a tiff with Pitt about this...I wonder who proposed this rule.

[devildeac]

Let's see...the commissioner is a UNC grad and UNC just got into a tiff with Pitt about this...I wonder who proposed this rule.

Nothing to see. Move along, please.

(they're still lying, cheating vermin)

[Lar77]

If this passes, it might still be a good idea if Duke, UNC and NCSU all agreed not to accept basketball transfers from each other. I think it might get a bit too intense if a player transferred from UNC to Duke or from Duke to NCSU, for instance. Can you imagine, for instance, what it would be like if Yertseven were transferring to UNC instead of Georgetown?

His GPA would go up?

[ChillinDuke]

Yeah, I'm generally in favor of all of these proposals except the tournament expansion.

Frankly, expanding the NCAAT any further is teetering on Bowl Game territory. That is, Bowl Games already get a lot of grief when 6-6 (or 5-7) teams actually play in a "postseason" game. That's ridiculous - might as well give everyone a participation trophy at that point.

Expanding the NCAAT to 72 nearly guarantees that teams with losing conference records will make the field. Look no further than OSU last year who was 21-15 (8-10); many clamored for them to make it into a 68-team field, let alone a 72-team field. [Sidebar: OSU was a 2-seed in the NIT, although I bet they would have made the NCAAT in a hypothetical 72-team field last year.]

Frankly, even 68 teams is too many for me. The incremental 4 teams do little to improve the quality of the tournament and add confusion for the casual fan that generally only takes interest when bracket season rolls around. I can't tell you how many work colleagues leave scratching their head after I try to explain the play-in format to them.

- Chillin

ETA - And Syracuse was 8-10 last year, so there you go. Keep on piling in the teams that can't even win half their conference games.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree with setting the 3 point line back - half the players take their shots further out anyway.
No reason for widening the lane - borrowing from another thread, there are no more Wilts.
Shot clock is already a problem, why make it more complicated.
I'm not a fan of the current transfer rule.

Which brings me to the tournament. Instead of 1 First Four, make it 4 First Fours (naming would have to change) and populate it with the 16 "minor-major" (one bid) conference winners. They all finish their conferences a week before the big dance selection anyway. Then take the 4 winners and stick them into the big dance with 60 mid- and major- majors. It makes 76 teams, which should please the coaches. It gives the minor-majors something to shoot for beyond a bid and a first round knockout, and the NCAA has something else to sell. If a team really impresses in the prelims, then they could get a better seed than a
1-16 game because the games are completed before selection sunday.

Agree but disagree. I don't mind 16 play in games, but make it the at large bubble teams and call it the Seth Greenberg Invitational. Let the small conference champs have a bye through to the real deal, and all those teams with .500 records in conference decide once and for all who deserves to get in.

[UrinalCake]

Agree but disagree. I don't mind 16 play in games, but make it the at large bubble teams and call it the Seth Greenberg Invitational. Let the small conference champs have a bye through to the real deal, and all those teams with .500 records in conference decide once and for all who deserves to get in.

Totally agree. The winners of the small one-bid leagues deserve to play in the “real” dance and get their shot at upsetting a giant. It’s totally unfair to make them win a play-in game against another automatic qualifier before they can get to that point. Let the middle-tier P5 schools fight it out for those last spots.

[UrinalCake]

Expanding the NCAAT to 72 nearly guarantees that teams with losing conference records will make the field. Look no further than OSU last year who was 21-15 (8-10); many clamored for them to make it into a 68-team field, let alone a 72-team field. [Sidebar: OSU was a 2-seed in the NIT, although I bet they would have made the NCAAT in a hypothetical 72-team field last year.]


The "First Four Out" this past year were
Baylor 17-14 (8-10)
ND 19-14 (8-10)
Saint Mary's 28-5 (16-2)
USC 23-10 (12-6)

In 2017 they were
Rhode Island 21-9 (13-5)
Cal 21-11 (10-8)
Illinois State 26-6 (15-1)
Illinois 17-14 (8-10)

So a mix of middling P5 schools hovering around 0.500 and some good mid major schools that probably lacked marquee out of conference wins. In the case of ND they were hit with injuries, yet many thought they still should have gotten in over Syracuse. Syracuse's performance (making it to the S16) proved that a middling P5 school is capable of winning a game or two, but I still am not losing any sleep over those types of schools getting left out. They had opportunities to help their cause by winning more games, and they just didn't. For the schools like Saint Mary's and Illinois State, I mean it'd be cool if a few more of them got in because it's a special moment for those programs and for the players, but again I don't think that's enough reason to expand.

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

[Wander]

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

I think it mostly has to do with selfish coaches wanting to say they "made the NCAA tournament" for job security.

[DU82]

[/B]

His GPA would go up?

As would the average for his new team.

[jimsumner]

I think it mostly has to do with selfish coaches wanting to say they "made the NCAA tournament" for job security.

It's not just that. Most coaches have assorted post-season incentives written into their contracts.

[ChillinDuke]

The "First Four Out" this past year were
Baylor 17-14 (8-10)
ND 19-14 (8-10)
Saint Mary's 28-5 (16-2)
USC 23-10 (12-6)

In 2017 they were
Rhode Island 21-9 (13-5)
Cal 21-11 (10-8)
Illinois State 26-6 (15-1)
Illinois 17-14 (8-10)

So a mix of middling P5 schools hovering around 0.500 and some good mid major schools that probably lacked marquee out of conference wins. In the case of ND they were hit with injuries, yet many thought they still should have gotten in over Syracuse. Syracuse's performance (making it to the S16) proved that a middling P5 school is capable of winning a game or two, but I still am not losing any sleep over those types of schools getting left out. They had opportunities to help their cause by winning more games, and they just didn't. For the schools like Saint Mary's and Illinois State, I mean it'd be cool if a few more of them got in because it's a special moment for those programs and for the players, but again I don't think that's enough reason to expand.

Let's be honest here, the reason the ACC wants to expand has nothing to do with the quality of play or fairness. It has to do with earning a few extra dollars by adding some more games.

I agree 100% with your punchline.

But your above bolded sentence should not be a consideration (and I know you're not losing sleep, nor am I). I think this year, if anything, proved that plenty of teams out there can win a game or two or four (Loyola). So clearly a team like Syracuse '18 can win 2 games. The point is not if you can win games in the NCAAT. The point is if you win enough games to earn that privilege. Going 8-10 in a conference of your peers, assuming most conferences are mostly level, should almost be disqualifying. I hesitate to make that a line in the sand. But at the very least, we shouldn't be making it easier for these sorts of teams to be playing in the NCAAT. The regular season needs to mean something (see: baseball playoffs; not a direct comp but you all get the point).

- Chillin

[RPS]

Exactly. This is not a change that would make transfers immediately eligible. It would just say that all ACC teams agree to not block a transfer from going to another team, so any transfer from an ACC school would only have to sit out one year.

The ACC has no power to completely waive the one-year sitout rule.The one year sit-out rule (as Jason so eloquently calls it) is indeed the purview of the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/current/transfer-terms). However, transfers to D2 and D3 schools are immediately eligible to play while D1 transfers in sports other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey can be immediately eligible. Full terms here (http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/current/transfer-terms). In the "money" sports, coaches routinely break contracts and coach at a new school right away. Players can't do that, even if/when their coach leaves just that way.

[sagegrouse]

The NCAA hoops community would be totally nuts to further expand the field for the NCAA tournament.

College basketball fans IMHO (where the H was left in the football end zone) fall into three categories:

(1) "The Fervent," who love college hoops and live and die on each possession of their team. Whadaya think? A million people? Maybe 3-4 million recognizing the diehards for "blue"-chip programs.

(2) "The Sports Nuts," who follow anything that's being covered on TV. This means college hoops from the time of the Super Bowl to early April and the Master Golf tournament. These are two months when the national sports focus is on college hoops. Maybe ten million sports nuts? At most, 15 million.

(3) "The Bracket Fillers," who follow college hoops only to get some basic insights into how to fill out their bracket for March Madness. Fifty million people -- I would guess, but maybe a lot more. (I think there were 15 million entries ahead of me in the ESPN contest.)

The eyeballs are in Category 3. Why would you screw with the one event -- the NCAA Tournament -- that would threaten to drive away this group, which contains three-fourths of college basketball fans? "First Four" is bad enough, and probably should be junked. Adding four teams? Going to 96 teams? Are you kidding me? This would be financial suicide, as the brackets would be impossible to decipher and people would lose interest.

The "expand March Madness" movement is designed to benefit basketball coaches in promoting job retention, and maybe a few AD's as well.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Add another week to the tournament? Not any time soon. CBS covers both March Madness and The Masters, and the Masters ain't moving from the second weekend in April'

[ChillinDuke]

The NCAA hoops community would be totally nuts to further expand the field for the NCAA tournament.

College basketball fans IMHO (where the H was left in the football end zone) fall into three categories:

(1) "The Fervent," who love college hoops and live and die on each possession of their team. Whadaya think? A million people? Maybe 3-4 million recognizing the diehards for "blue"-chip programs.

(2) "The Sports Nuts," who follow anything that's being covered on TV. This means college hoops from the time of the Super Bowl to early April and the Master Golf tournament. These are two months when the national sports focus is on college hoops. Maybe ten million sports nuts? At most, 15 million.

(3) "The Bracket Fillers," who follow college hoops only to get some basic insights into how to fill out their bracket for March Madness. Fifty million people -- I would guess, but maybe a lot more. (I think there were 15 million entries ahead of me in the ESPN contest.)

The eyeballs are in Category 3. Why would you screw with the one event -- the NCAA Tournament -- that would threaten to drive away this group, which contains three-fourths of college basketball fans? "First Four" is bad enough, and probably should be junked. Adding four teams? Going to 96 teams? Are you kidding me? This would be financial suicide, as the brackets would be impossible to decipher and people would lose interest.

The "expand March Madness" movement is designed to benefit basketball coaches in promoting job retention, and maybe a few AD's as well.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Add another week to the tournament? Not any time soon. CBS covers both March Madness and The Masters, and the Masters ain't moving from the second weekend in April'

The term, as it's been used in other mediums, is over-saturation. Institutions, particularly in the realm of entertainment, largely appear that they have to learn the hard way that expansion is not possible indefinitely. There are limits. ESPN, for example, is feeling this in many ways both internally (programming) and externally (macro factors for television watching).

Expanding the NCAAT would be similar, IMO. Eventually, there's too much for the "three-fourths" to consider. Too much time, too complicated, too unfamiliar. Whatever the reason, 3/4 turns into 1/2, and now you have a massive problem. Ratings crash, contracts slim down the next time they are up for renewal, and suddenly everything's different.

People consistently underestimate how easy it is to cross this threshold, IMO. Especially in today's environment where it's near effortless to substitute your viewing/entertainment habits away and to a new fix.

- Chillin

[wilson]

Can we just get 4 quarters?I'm interested to know why you'd favor this rule change. Assuming the total number of minutes would remain at 40, how would you envision this changing game play?

[UrinalCake]

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

Jumping in here... the biggest difference is how team fouls accumulate and getting rid of the one and one. That has an impact on game strategy. Also with the extra natural break you would probably take away a timeout per half, providing fewer interruptions.

Every other level of basketball plays in quarters - high school, pros, international, even women’s college ball. The fact that the men play halves is an anomaly.

[rsvman]

My thoughts:

1) The tournament has too many teams already.

2) Widening the lane is OK. Won't change much.

3) Moving back the 3-point line makes perfect sense. Need to do it.

4) I HATE the idea of shortening the shot clock after an offensive rebound. I think the shot clock is already too short, and I can't see why you would want to punish the team for pulling off a great play down the stretch of a tough game. Any move whatsoever that furthers the descent of the game into even more of a shuttle run should be roundly opposed by everybody who loves basketball. Basketball is not a game where you run as fast as you can into the frontcourt and toss up a shot as quickly as possible, or, at least, it shouldn't be. There was a time when people ran offenses. I kind of miss that. If it were up to me I'd lengthen the shot clock back out to at least 40 seconds for college ball. Keep the game as separate from the NBA game as possible.

[Wander]

The term, as it's been used in other mediums, is over-saturation. Institutions, particularly in the realm of entertainment, largely appear that they have to learn the hard way that expansion is not possible indefinitely. There are limits. ESPN, for example, is feeling this in many ways both internally (programming) and externally (macro factors for television watching).

Expanding the NCAAT would be similar, IMO. Eventually, there's too much for the "three-fourths" to consider. Too much time, too complicated, too unfamiliar. Whatever the reason, 3/4 turns into 1/2, and now you have a massive problem. Ratings crash, contracts slim down the next time they are up for renewal, and suddenly everything's different.

People consistently underestimate how easy it is to cross this threshold, IMO. Especially in today's environment where it's near effortless to substitute your viewing/entertainment habits away and to a new fix.

- Chillin

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

[rasputin]

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

Obviously 64 was the most appropriate number for bracketing purposes. The field consisted of 65 teams from 2001 to 2010 (according to Wikipedia, anyway). I recall that the stated rationale for adding the 65th team was so that the Committee would still have X number of at-large berths to award; this came about because of the addition of another automatic qualifier that would have reduced the at-large field by one. Then they went to the current 68.

I would be happy to see the field go back to 64, and I sure don't want to see it go to 96, given that this would just be another step to eventually creeping up to 128. There's just no stopping it at that point.

And I feel this way despite the fact that I do normally watch the First Four games, but then again, I'm one of the category 1 junkies.

[UrinalCake]

4) I HATE the idea of shortening the shot clock after an offensive rebound. I think the shot clock is already too short, and I can't see why you would want to punish the team for pulling off a great play down the stretch of a tough game. Any move whatsoever that furthers the descent of the game into even more of a shuttle run should be roundly opposed by everybody who loves basketball.

I think the idea is that in a normal possession you have 10 seconds to get the ball across halfcourt and then 20 seconds to run a play, hence the 30 second shot clock. But after an offensive rebound you’re already on your side of the court so you don’t need those 10 seconds to get down the court. You’re not forcing teams to hurry, you’re just giving them the normal amount of time.

Another way of looking at it could be, why punish a team who plays good defense and forces their opponent to heave up a bad three only to have the long rebound bounce right back to the offensive team by chance.

[ChillinDuke]

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on this for college basketball. I don't think anyone believes expanding the tournament would be better for the sport, and I'm not even sure anyone believes that expanding the tournament would be better at making television money in the long term. It's just about coaches being selfish about their own personal job security/benefits/salaries. The problem is that coaches have way too much power in the sport, so even though basically everyone recognizes tournament expansion as a terrible idea, it may happen anyway.

Fair point. Which is why a "commissioner" would be nice, assuming we are able to get that right.

- Chillin

[jimsumner]

The women have used four 10-minute quarters the last few years and I've come to prefer that.

There is an extra stoppage of play between Q1 and Q2 and between Q3 and Q4.

But there are fewer media timeouts.

And the timeouts between quarters come after watching the game clock count down to zero and therefore seem more organic, less disruptive of the game's rhythms.

FWIW.

[BigWayne]

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

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

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

[English]

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

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

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

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

[jimsumner]

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

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

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

[HereBeforeCoachK]

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


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

[UrinalCake]

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

[HereBeforeCoachK]

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

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

[Acymetric]

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

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

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

[jimsumner]

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

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

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

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

[sagegrouse]

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

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

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

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

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

[devilsadvocate85]

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

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

[UrinalCake]

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

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

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

[Wahoo2000]

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

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

[sagegrouse]

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

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

[BigWayne]

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

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

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

[MartyClark]

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

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

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

Economics dictate against my wish and I get it.