OT: NIT to continue experimenting with rule changes
SIAP. The NIT is continuing some experimental rule changes from last year (deeper 3pt line, wider lane), and adding an interesting twist to fouls and free throws:
— Team fouls will reset at the 10-minute mark of each half for the purpose of determining free throws.
— One-and-one free throws will be eliminated. Teams will shoot two bonus free throws after the fifth team foul of each 10-minute segment.Additionally, teams will be awarded two bonus free throws if a is foul committed with under two minutes remaining in each half, if that foul occurs before the fifth team foul of the segment. Team fouls will reset in overtime periods, and teams will shoot two free throws beginning with the fourth team foul (or the second team foul committed under two minutes remaining if that comes before the fourth team foul of the overtime period).
Seems overly complicated to me, but I'm also a simpleton.
Whoever thought that up was thinking too hard.
Boy my thoughts exactly. It's funny - when somebody presents an equally over-thought and complicated program they want to enact at my company I always ask the same question:
"What problem are you trying to solve?"
Needless to say if they cant give a cogent answer to that question we dont waste any additional time and certainly no money on their proposal.
I wonder if anybody on the experimental rule change committee with the NIT asked that question when that foul shot labyrinth was proposed. My guess is no.
I think the idea is fair. In a game where one team hits the bonus 7 minutes into the half, the rest of the game isn't just watching foul shots. Resetting is good I think. Also, under 2 minutes having 2 shots would eliminate a scenario like the B1G championship game and also take away the advantage the losing team has at the end of the game by just continuing to foul. Ends of games suck because of all the bs fouling.
Edit - thought I should clarify. MSU still probably would have fouled, but they wouldn't have had 2 fouls to give before free throws. We could have actually got up a shot since they wouldn't foul with 13 seconds left if it was automatically 2 shots.
They probably would have fouled since they were up by 3, but your point stands. They could really eliminate intentional fouling if you got 3 shots for being anywhere outside the arc. Jk I know that would complicate things even more.
Defense. The problem they're trying to solve is that teams play defense. They believe more effective offense = better ratings = more $$$.
Freedom of Movement was the first rendition of this but it failed miserably. The end was more effective offense - the means was calling a foul on the defense on virtually any sort of contact, discouraging teams from getting in the way of offensive players trying to score. This went really poorly because teams didn't stop playing defense like they intended -- instead we got three-hour-long free throw contests. An unmitigated disaster.
So now they're trying to figure out Freedom of Movement 2.0 -- here, the goal is to continue to discourage defense without the side-effect of a zillion free throws per game.
It's always about money. Consequently the rule changes will always relate to ratings growth - more specifically, marketing the game to casual viewers (with no concern for the hardcore basketball fans who will continue to tune in to the game no matter what you do with it).
Yep. There are so many other things that need to be changed, yet they decide to turn this into rocket science by amending other things.
I like the one-and-one. It adds a lot of drama. Dropping it is a mistake IMO. I'd go the other direction and make all non-shooting bonus fouls be one-and-ones, not just the first three.
We fully support this idea.
- “ The hack a Shaq club of America”
That's his fault for sucking at an important part of the game (free throws). He should have tried shooting them underhand like Rick Barry.
Two "Flagrant 1s" in the same game, and you get a....full, invasive body cavity search at center court...
Why does the NCAA have to be like the NBA?
I would probably change it to this:
If a team has less than 6 fouls with two minutes left, their foul total will be bumped up to 6.
Basically it would get rid of fouls to give, but keep the 1 and 1 shots, and not reset midway through the half. Which if you want to do that, why not just switch to quarters? Resetting midway through the half seems very weird, and I'm not sure I see the purpose.
The catch is if you are the team that is ahead and have less then 6 team fouls, you lose the ability to foul and make the opponent take the ball out of bounds.
I like resetting fouls for overtime, but I don't understand resetting after 10 minutes each half.
So we don't have to watch a team shoot foul shots for 14 minutes if the bonus is hit early.
I've never understood why they don't switch to quarters instead of halves. Men's college basketball is literally the only level of basketball (high school through professional) that still operates using halves.
Personally, I like that it's different. Different levels of basketball can have different rules.
I like the suspense of one and ones but the net result is less actual basketball being played.
Might as well test it out. Good job making yourself useful NIT.
I'm in the minority on here but I like those. Especially when a ref decides to go all in on screwing us by calling touch fouls like the did to start the second half a couple times. I wonder how its execution will go. It will be interesting to see
Damn Iowa would've been shooting 2 foul shots 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the half.
It seems to me in order to deter fouling at the end of a half/game (my perception that that's at least some of the reason these changes are being tested) is to call intentional fouls as they are - intentional/flagrant. The team would get 2 shots and the ball back.
Maybe that idea sucks I haven't really thought it through.
The line b/w an intentional foul and a "basketball play" so to speak is too easy to blur. Instead of putting two hands on a guy's back, a defender will make an aggressive play on the ball with no concern whatever for whether a foul is called - and even if a player is substantially certain he's going to get called for a foul in trying to make the play, it's still technically a basketball play and I don't think you can call an intentional there.
IDK that intentionally fouling at the end of games is a problem that needs to be addressed. It was an accepted and interesting strategy for a long time. I think the bigger problem, since the Freedom of Movement era began, is the amount of calls and free throws that happen throughout the rest of the game. It's much more frustrating to deal with the game-extending intentional fouls when you've already sat through a three-hour-long free throw contest.
Except for that weird stuff in the last two minutes, this basically brings the rules closer to NBA rules.
Interestingly, I like most NBA rules better. I think resetting the penalty at the end of a quarter is good, and helps guard against (as someone already mentioned in this thread) some flukey or bad foul calls affecting the rest of the half.
On the other hand, one-and-ones are pretty cool and increase the opportunity for a team to come from behind. Prominently, Michigan took advantage of a missed front end to tie Kansas in 2013.
I doubt this gets passed the "experimental" stage, but I like that they're giving it a try in the NIT.
I wish they'd go to the NBA rule where the clock stops after a made basket in both halves, rather than just the second half. It just makes sense, and, more importantly, it allows for teams to play 2 for 1, thus adding some additional strategy to the game (plus, it would be amusing to see how many teams screw it up).
Except for the weird stuff in the last two minutes, the foul rules are the same as in WBB.
The first rule that needs changed is that nonsense when a shooter pump fakes, the defender jumps to block, then the shooter initiates contact by purposely jumping into the defender. This has been called a foul forever, but it simply doesn't make sense. I have wondered about this foul for so many years and don't understand how it's a defensive foul when the SHOOTER initiates contact. That should be an offensive foul every time. That said, if it were an offensive foul, no one would do that, which is good.
In your example the "shooter" isn't gaining any advantage be initiating contact, so don't call it a foul.
It seems like they are allowing defenders "verticality" but it's not getting called evenly. Similar to the randomness of how charging calls are officiated.
Preach! I can’t stand that a foul is called on the defender in these situations.
Was going to login to say this as well. These kinds of foul calls is what draws my attention to other sports.
Bring back the “3 to make 2” rule!!! Anarchy!!!
I'd like to see travelling be legal for a few plays a game, where a dude could run from the 3 point line all the way to the rim.
They also need to change the fucking replay system. It's atrocious and the referees abuse it. How do these guys have jobs if they're constantly checking the monitor in the last two minutes of games? Clearly they're not good at their jobs if they need to constantly do that. A challenge system needs to be implemented. Maybe one or two challenges per half. I don't know. They need to do something else, though, because the constant reviewing is absurd. Also, when the refs review, I don't think the teams should be allowed to go to the bench (this goes for football, too). That's a free timeout. With the amount of constant reviewing, these teams are getting an even higher amount of timeouts.
Other ideas being kicked around:
* After making a shot, the shooter can challenge the opposing team to make the same shot. If they miss, the scoring team gets two additional points. If they make, the original basket does not count.
* Free throws can be taken from the three point line and count for two points each
* Any points scored by anyone who plays less than five minutes of game time count for double
* Removal of the game long five personal foul limit. Instead, you get one foul for every 10 minutes of play. If you run out of eligible players, you have to play short handed.
* Hook shots are worth 3 points. Hook shot three pointers are worth 4 points.
* Dunks are worth between 1 and 5 points depending on degree of difficulty
So, kinda like NCAA Jams instead of NBA jams? I like it.
A simpler idea would have been to do nothing other than make the game 4 quarters, 4 fouls/quarter puts you in a 1-and-1, 6th foul double bonus. Overtime carries directly over from the 4th quarter with no reset. F the "last two minutes" caveats.
A helluva lot less complicated.
So, basically, eliminate the pesky "play defense" part of the game to enhance the "fan experience" and basically turn the game into a free-throw-shooting contest the last 5 min of the game.
We're getting to that point anyways without terrible new rules.
Experimenting with quarters would achieve at least some of the same outcomes. Why do a live action reset at 10 mins if you can just as easily break for a quarter and reset?
Rule change I really want to see, and not just because it hosed Michigan Sunday: On near-simultaneous touches that go OOB (if you have to go to replay, it's near-simultaneous), if one player appears to intentionally put the ball OOB, possession is awarded to the other team. This is basically how it worked before replay, and I think it was generally better.
I could also live with this scenario just being called a jump ball (award based on possession arrow).
Basically, if you knock a ball out of a guy's hands OOB, it's really, really dumb for you to be awarded possession just because technically the ball spent a couple extra milliseconds rolling off that guy's pinky. The ball is OOB by your intentional action, possession awarded to other team.
In the case of Teske v. Tillman on Sunday, it was obvious that Teske was attempting to get a rebound while Tillman was just trying to knock it out of his hands to prevent an easy putback. It's stupid that State got possession based on the two extra frames of video where the ball was technically touching Teske's fingers, when clearly, barring Tillman's intentional action, the ball would have stayed in play. And Tillman had no reasonable chance to possess the ball - it was a one handed slap because that was his only option.
Yeah the way it was called is totally against the intention of the rule. Tillman knocked it out. The problem is I'm not sure how you change the rule book without making it overly conplex. Because then you're sort of judging intent. Did Tillman intentionally knock it out? Or was he going for a rebound and was just flailing about? Maybe not the best example but you get the point.
May the 3 Lollipop Kids all pee in your corn flakes.
The NIT has long been the NCAA's laboratory for testing out potential rules changes (such as the 30-second shot clock and the Shane Battier memorial restricted area under the basket). That being said, the lane probably does need to be widened to improve driving lanes and spacing. Resetting the shot clock to 20 after an offensive rebound would also help speed the game up, although the primary reason the game is so slow will remain overcoaching. Bigger picture, it would help if high school and lower levels moved to the use of a shot clock across the board, but that won't happen anytime soon if ever.
Can you imagine the confussion for fans when this happens during the game...boy peoples heads are going to blow-up
March 19th, 2019 at 11:07 PM ^
Love the first part. Don't need the second.