Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 132
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville
    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

  2. #22

    I would add

    Quote Originally Posted by Ima Facultiwyfe View Post
    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

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TruBlu View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by TruBlu View Post
    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.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by ricks68 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by sagegrouse; 05-20-2017 at 02:24 PM. Reason: The eternal search for clarity of expression
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta 'burbs
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by TruBlu View Post
    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?
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    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.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ima Facultiwyfe View Post
    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).

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    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.


    "If you don't address the things you're not doing well when you're winning the winning will eventually stop."

    -David Cutcliffe

  12. #32
    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.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    near Charleston, SC
    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.

  14. #34
    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.

  15. #35
    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?

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    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

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by lucybluebear View Post
    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).

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by lucybluebear View Post
    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

  19. #39
    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.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. My Proposal for the NBA
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-18-2014, 06:55 AM
  2. WBB: nightmare ending
    By dukelifer in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-10-2013, 08:34 AM
  3. A New Proposal for The Olympics
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 12:18 AM
  4. Proposal Stories!
    By ugadevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 03:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •