OT - John Feinstein - How to Make College Basketball Better

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Just two items that the Rules Committees should look at for next year.

MTD, Sr.

I hope the rules committee has more important things to look at than players holding up the FT administration by a whole five seconds.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have added a P.S. to my OP.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

The triple bonus wouldn't do anything. Most times, when a team is ahead by three and ready to foul, they aren't anywhere near 13 or 15 fouls for the half. It would only be effective for this tactic by random chance.

Unless you are going to suggest three shots for a team trailing by three when there is a common foul with less than 5 seconds left (or some other arbitrary parameters).

[JRutledge]

Teams will still foul even if they give them 3 shots. Especially if the total is close. It is not going to change things that drastically. And that is not the reason the games are taking longer in closer games for example.

Peace

[Altor]

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Altor

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

That would make the game last just as long as awarding three FTs and the team could only score no more than two points.

MTD, Sr.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

That would make the game last just as long as awarding three FTs and the team could only score no more than two points.

MTD, Sr.

I think the purpose of the idea is to discourage teams from fouling at the end of a game that is out of reach. That would cut the game length. In my opinion, 3 points unbalances the game too much to be worthy of consideration. But if they really want to go a route like this, giving the offended team an extra chance to make a second point seems reasonable.

And for the record, I don't think any change is really necessary. "Solution in search of a problem" is probably pretty accurate.

Also, my guess is that this is coming from somebody who watches mostly D-I games that are televised. It's the same people who wanted to shorten the length of football games. The problem isn't the game...it's all the stinking TV timeouts. Before the new NCAA timing rules in football, I was going to D-III games that were over in 2.5 hours. Amazingly, the timing rules were changed and we are still seeing 3.5 hour football games on television. The broadcasters just used the extra time taken from the game to add more commercials.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Altor

Three FTs may be a bit much, but I could see going to a 3-to-make-2 type of bonus.

A return to three for two (well the NBA had it) ? What's next, bringing back the foul paddles? Two shots for a backcourt foul?

[Scrapper1]

Instead of awarding more FTs or awarding FTs and possession after a certain number of fouls has been reached, how about an NFL-style "10-second runoff" after the 12th or 15th foul or whatever.

(10 seconds might be too much, but 5 or 3 seconds would still be a deterrent, I would think.)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by APG

I hope the rules committee has more important things to look at than players holding up the FT administration by a whole five seconds.

APG:

I do not believe the rule needs to be changed, I just think that it should be a POE. Nothing bugs me more that to be ready to administer a FT and I have to wait while because the FT Thrower has to slap five with her four teammates. If officials would just make one "unofficial" warning the first time it happens, 90% of the time it won't happen again, and if an Official warning is issued the next time it will not happen again period. Players learn very quickly.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

APG:

I do not believe the rule needs to be changed, I just think that it should be a POE. Nothing bugs me more that to be ready to administer a FT and I have to wait while because the FT Thrower has to slap five with her four teammates. If officials would just make one "unofficial" warning the first time it happens, 90% of the time it won't happen again, and if an Official warning is issued the next time it will not happen again period. Players learn very quickly.

MTD, Sr.

It'd be a waste of a POE if you ask me...I've never heard anyone complain about having to wait a few extra seconds to administer FT's. I think the rule is fine as it is...for situations that are truly causing a real appreciable delay in the game.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

It'd be a waste of a POE if you ask me...I've never heard anyone complain about having to wait a few extra seconds to administer FT's. I think the rule is fine as it is...for situations that are truly causing a real appreciable delay in the game.

I am curious about the history of this rule. What situation back in the day created an advantage for a team so much so that they had to make a rule about it? Anyone know?