|
Those alleging the game is "fine" are just fooling themselves. The game is not fine and has been going downhill for many years. The issues the OP raises, I raised here 10+ years ago. Too many on here have bought into the idiotic idea that committing rules infractions to gain an advantage is an acceptable part of any sport. Honestly, it is no wonder there is a college basketball recruiting scandal. Coaches know they can cheat on the floor and get away with it; why not do it in recruiting?
The first thing that needs to change is to eliminate the idea that stopping the clock by fouling is an acceptable strategy. Not only does this lead to the last 2 minutes taking forever, it guarantees coaches will foul as a strategy earlier so they don't have to "catch up" to get to the bonus. In other words, the first 10 fouls are basically free. So when you say fouling to stop the clock is acceptable, remember that you are saying fouling the entire game is acceptable. Go watch a football game where they throw 40 flags and tell me how enjoyable and well played that game was. But the system we're in now almost guarantees 40 fouls in most basketball games. 28 at the very least.
Yes, I know teams can help themselves by actually making free throws, but even that misses the point. Coaches are more than willing to trade 2 made free throws by the other team for multiple attempts at a 3 point shot. If they've got a couple of good outside shooters, all the better. So the rules inherently give the team breaking those rules an advantage -- at least in some cases. In what other sport does that exist? What's bizarre is that in the first half, the coach will complain that you called a foul on his player; then late in the game when they're behind, he WANTS you to call a foul to stop the clock when there was even less contact. Everyone on here has experienced that situation. This alone should tell you there is a problem.
My starting proposal for years has been very simple: allow, either during the entire game or at least the last 2 minutes of each half, the ability of a coach to "decline" the penalty (i.e. free throws) for a foul and accept the ball out of bounds. This makes stopping the clock much less attractive since it gives the offense 10 additional seconds in the backcourt if needed every time there is a throw in. If a team can make their free throws and defend the 3, they accept the penalty and shoot when there is a foul. But I would argue that this concept would significantly decrease overall fouling.
The next idea is to eliminate the 1-and-1, shoot 2 shots at either 5 or 7 fouls, and shoot 3 at 10. This takes care of the 2 free throws/3 point shot attempt problem, and is consistent with the above idea.
Excessive contact has ruined the game and the reason officials often don't call it as they should is because they don't want to endure a 50 foul game. You can't blame them for that, but the main problem is that coaches, for some idiotic reason, are fine with allowing the other team to "cheat" as long as they can "cheat." In other words, they want the ability to stop the clock late in the game by fouling even if that gives the other team the same ability.
In what other competition is committing a rules infraction an "acceptable strategy?"
|