OT - John Feinstein - How to Make College Basketball Better

[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.

[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?

[j51969]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I stopped listening to this clown years ago. Not sure I want to listen to him now. He as usual is trying to act like he knows more about the game than those that are directly around the game.

He lost me totally when he said the NCAA told officials how to call a "Block" rather than knowing the rule changed to make situations a block. I honestly d not care about the rest of his suggestions when he is that stupid.

Peace

+1

Just another talking head trying to look smart. No different IMO when an official makes a close call (usually block/charge). After which they look at 16 replays in slow motion (from 10 camera angles), and the annoucers talk about how that was a bad call. In all fairness we do this every day on here. Except we us these situations as a teaching/discussion tool. Not for ripping someone who just made a judgment call in a split second. These guys are why I have a mute button and a DVR.

[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 JRutledge

I stopped listening to this clown years ago. Not sure I want to listen to him now. He as usual is trying to act like he knows more about the game than those that are directly around the game.

He lost me totally when he said the NCAA told officials how to call a "Block" rather than knowing the rule changed to make situations a block. I honestly d not care about the rest of his suggestions when he is that stupid.

Peace

Best. Comment. Ever.

[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.)

[APG]

Originally Posted by 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.)

That would lead to teams to start fouling earlier.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.)

I think it would be a decent idea, if it was a problem that needed solving.