Elam Ending

[whaler11]

If the NIT doesn’t test the Elam Ending the NCAA is insane.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I wouldn’t mind seeing that in a test
It certainly doesn’t violate the spirit of the game in my opinion , which would be a red flag for me. Old purest that I am.

 

[temery]

Now that I've googled it, and know what it is, I like it. I used something similar in tennis practice and camp games.

It kind of reminds me of a world team tennis tiebreaker, if they're still using it. Something like - if the team in the lead wins one more game, they win the match. If the team behind catches up and takes the lead first, they win.

Edit - found it:

The winner of the match will be the team that wins the most games. After all games are totaled, if the trailing team won the mixed doubles set, the match is not over. Mixed doubles play continues until the leading team wins another game or the trailing team ties the score. If a tie occurs, a Super Tiebreaker will be used to determine the winner of the match.

 

[the Q]

I wouldn’t mind seeing that in a test
It certainly doesn’t violate the spirit of the game in my opinion , which would be a red flag for me. Old purest that I am.

It violates it far less than trapezoid lanes, the ridiculous semi circle or advancing the ball via a timeout.

I’d take it at every level

 

[Leebo]

Yeah, games that are relatively close will still be very exciting, and broadcasters probably love the idea of eliminating OT.

 

[gampelcrazies]

What an awful idea

 

[the Q]

As long as the clown car idiots who handed Overseas the game don’t get in the way....it should be fine.

 

[Balker]

Since no one explained this, basically you'd establish a target score after the first stoppage of time sub 4 minutes. So if it's 60-45 and the clock stops at 3:59 with a foul (the losing team would likely want to stop the clock right away), then the game would end at 67 points for either team.

At least that's how I understand it...

 

[gwhuskyfan]

It's a gimmick

 

[auror]

It's a gimmick

It's really not. It improves the flow of the end of games.

 

[HuskylnSC]

I have played and watched this game for years. Once we could dunk the ball, then we couldn't, then we can. It's a non-contact sport. No its a non collision sport. Now its contact under the hoop, but don't touch that point guard. And if he's within the circle everything's legal including a full nelson. Once every shot from the field was for two points. (Hello Pete Maravich). Now we got guys shooting from another zip code for 3. The game is a game. (How's that for a quote.) There is nothing holy or sacred about the game. I want the excitement of the scramble to come from behind. Win on hustle and guts, not because the other team falls apart at the free throw line. Win because you earned it, not because you can make an uncontested 15 footer. That's the game I love and miss. Let's do this!

 

[the Q]

It's a gimmick

Less of a gimmick than the rules I mentioned above

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Less of a gimmick than the rules I mentioned above

The irony in that was rich. This is a gimmick? Yet fouling, time out, fouling, time out, fouling, time out, isn't a gimmick?

 

[the Q]

The irony in that was rich. This is a gimmick? Yet fouling, time out, fouling, time out, fouling, time out, isn't a gimmick?

Exactly

 

[MadDogRevival]

If the NIT doesn’t test the Elam Ending [then] the NCAA is insane.

You're starting from the position that the NCAA is sane?

I think end-of-game fouling is the worst part of the college game. That said, this solution too far afield, in my view. I'm no purist, but artificial "get to this number" without a time limit and without the possibility of overtime takes away from the game. Clock management is an essential part of the game. No OT? Bye-bye UConn/Syracuse 6 overtime game.

The obvious solution is to make it more expensive for the losing team to foul at the end of games. For example, fouls within the last 2 minutes can result in 3 free throws. Or 2 plus the ball. Or fouls on the 1st half court are 3 frees. Or fouls outside of the 3 point line are 3 frees. Or fouls committed on a reach in without ball contact are 3 frees. Or, maybe say that, within the last 2 minutes of a game, fouled team can pick which guy shoots free throws.

Lots of ways to skin that cat, if the will is there, without some hokey "reach this number" contortion.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I liked it when Calipari said he didn't foul because he knew that UConn would make the foul shots.

My signature, when it was relevant, was something like, "Defensive stops, made free throws, and reduced turnovers."

If I'm txting during a game, with 4-5 minutes left, I generally send one that says, "First team to [ ] wins,"and I pay attention to the game thereafter through that lens.

If I Google to find out what this thread is about, I'll be comparing it to what's above. I'm sure that the bettors have their own perspective filter. And there are others as well.

EDIT after reading more:

Interesting, maybe viable & even likeable, but I certainly wouldn't invoke claims of institutional insanity whether it were adopted or not.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I think it's a pretty awesome idea. Hard to argue that late-game college basketball where there's a gap between the scores is watchable, cause it isn't.

That being said, missing out on desperation half-court shots at the buzzer is a heavy price to pay.

 

[auror]

You're starting from the position that the NCAA is sane?

I think end-of-game fouling is the worst part of the college game. That said, this solution too far afield, in my view. I'm no purist, but artificial "get to this number" without a time limit and without the possibility of overtime takes away from the game. Clock management is an essential part of the game. No OT? Bye-bye UConn/Syracuse 6 overtime game.

The obvious solution is to make it more expensive for the losing team to foul at the end of games. For example, fouls within the last 2 minutes can result in 3 free throws. Or 2 plus the ball. Or fouls on the 1st half court are 3 frees. Or fouls outside of the 3 point line are 3 frees. Or fouls committed on a reach in without ball contact are 3 frees. Or, maybe say that, within the last 2 minutes of a game, fouled team can pick which guy shoots free throws.

Lots of ways to skin that cat, if the will is there, without some hokey "reach this number" contortion.

The problem is that there is no solution to this problem with the clock that both allows the team attempting to come from behind to still win and does not involve fouling.

Because you can only score with the ball, so you need the ball to come back. However, the shot clock allows the team ahead to control the ball for x number of seconds. Once you get below x seconds remaining, a team will ALWAYS look for a way to get the ball back. It doesn't matter how much you disincentive it, because there is literally no other recourse.

 

[intlzncster]

You're starting from the position that the NCAA is sane?

I think end-of-game fouling is the worst part of the college game. That said, this solution too far afield, in my view. I'm no purist, but artificial "get to this number" without a time limit and without the possibility of overtime takes away from the game. Clock management is an essential part of the game. No OT? Bye-bye UConn/Syracuse 6 overtime game.

The obvious solution is to make it more expensive for the losing team to foul at the end of games. For example, fouls within the last 2 minutes can result in 3 free throws. Or 2 plus the ball. Or fouls on the 1st half court are 3 frees. Or fouls outside of the 3 point line are 3 frees. Or fouls committed on a reach in without ball contact are 3 frees. Or, maybe say that, within the last 2 minutes of a game, fouled team can pick which guy shoots free throws.

Lots of ways to skin that cat, if the will is there, without some hokey "reach this number" contortion.

That can just lead to other problems. If you have 3 free throws, that's just going to lead to more bombing away from the other end. So it becomes, free throws, three pointer, free throws, three pointer, etc etc.

Or if a team can't afford to give up 3 free throws due to the point situation, it leads to one team dribbling down the clock at half court. Which is even worse.

I think the craziest stat from the whole analysis is that fouling to put the opponent on the line is only effective 1.5% of the time. So we watch these foul fests, yet it doesn't even work 98.5% of the time. That's a poor return.

If you implement the strategies above, then the fouling will still occur, but it will be effective even less of the time. Which makes it even more unbearable.

 

[intlzncster]

I think it's a pretty awesome idea. Hard to argue that late-game college basketball where there's a gap between the scores is watchable, cause it isn't.

That being said, missing out on desperation half-court shots at the buzzer is a heavy price to pay.

Yep, you take away a huge part of why the tournament is so glorious. Buzzer beaters are worth the pain imo.

 

[MadDogRevival]

That can just lead to other problems. If you have 3 free throws, that's just going to lead to more bombing away from the other end.

What do you mean "more"? That's what it is now. Bomb the 3, foul. Bomb the 3, foul.

This is really easy. The punishment for fouling when you're down is currently the other guy shooting 2 frees. If they shoot at 60%, then the penalty is is giving up 1.2 points on average.
If the rule is changed to 3 frees, then the penalty for fouling goes up to 1.8 points.
Quite obviously, the trailing team then has a much greater incentive to play defense to get the ball back rather than fouling.

Or if a team can't afford to give up 3 free throws due to the point situation, it leads to one team dribbling down the clock at half court. Which is even worse.

This is the point - if you have a lead, the other team comes back and wins by playing defense and making shots. If there is not enough time to do that, then they lose. If they can't foul, then they need to play pressure D to try to force the TO. Much better result.
In other words, if a team is trailing by 8 with 60 seconds left, THEN THEY PROBABLY SHOULD LOSE. That seems about right to me. Problem is the currently mentality that a team trailing by 10 with 35 seconds left should actually have a shot by fouling a 40% shooter 4 times and hitting 4 threes.

I think the craziest stat from the whole analysis is that fouling to put the opponent on the line is only effective 1.5% of the time.

It's not crazy, it's just not defined.
In other words, 1.5% of what time? When trailing by 10 or more within 2 minutes?
Anybody who watches basketball knows that fouling late results in a win substantially more than 1.5% of the time.
I can't stand when naked, conclusory stats are offered as evidence.

If you implement the strategies above, then the fouling will still occur, but it will be effective even less of the time.

Absolutely disagree. Coaches aren't stupid. They are going to go with whatever strategy works best. That's why the game has turned into a 3 point bombing run punctuated by occasional drives to the rim.
When you make it a mathematically worse outcome to foul, then they will stop fouling and just play defense.
And yes, one "downside" to this is that a team that outplayed its opponent for 38 minutes and is up 10 will almost certainly win the game, and not have to seal the victory by shooting 8 or 10 free throws.

What a bizarre result!

 

[auror]

What do you mean "more"? That's what it is now. Bomb the 3, foul. Bomb the 3, foul.

This is really easy. The punishment for fouling when you're down is currently the other guy shooting 2 frees. If they shoot at 60%, then the penalty is is giving up 1.2 points on average.
If the rule is changed to 3 frees, then the penalty for fouling goes up to 1.8 points.
Quite obviously, the trailing team then has a much greater incentive to play defense to get the ball back rather than fouling.

There is no option to play defense when the shot clock turns off. There will always be fouling in this situation with a running clock. The last 30 seconds will always take several minutes and be a free-throw shooting contest. OR if the incentives are changed the team attempting to come back will never be able to. (e.g. 2 shots + ball)

 

[MadDogRevival]

The problem is that there is no solution to this problem with the clock that both allows the team attempting to come from behind to still win and does not involve fouling.

There are two different problems:
1. Fouling at the end of games.
2. Teams that are trailing coming from behind.

1 is a huge problem, and makes me like the game less.
2 is not a problem. As I noted in a previous post, fouling and the ascension of the 3 point shot have made it so that it seems normal that team 10 points down with 45 seconds left has a shot. Maybe in today's ADD world, that's just wonderful. Yeah, instant gratification of bomb 3, foul, bomb 3, foul, SC top 10. Yaaah.
To me that's cheap and fake and stupid.

I don't see trailing team having to play D and hit shots to come back as a "problem."

Once you get below x seconds remaining, a team will ALWAYS look for a way to get the ball back. It doesn't matter how much you disincentive [fouling], because there is literally no other recourse.

Plainly incorrect. The other recourse is to play hard D and make your shots. Sure, at some point that won't work. But the foul and bomb 3 doesn't work at some point as well, it just happens to be closer to 00:00 than playing D.
Regarding fouling, if you make it enough of a disincentive, of course they won't do it. That's just math.
If you give 10 foul shots for every foul within 2 minutes, then you'd agree that there would be little or no fouling, right? Of course.

End of games suck now. I don't need the artificial excitement of a team coming back bombing the 3 and fouling. I'd rather have the better team win, exclusive of lucky 3s and bad free throw shooting down the stretch.

 

[MadDogRevival]

OR if the incentives are changed the team attempting to come back will never be able to. (e.g. 2 shots + ball)

I'm fine with that. It's like life. At some point, it's just over. Let it die.

 

[StepbackCity]

If you think replacing THE CORE ROOTS OF A BASKETBALL GAME with a gimmick made in some random basketball tournament that’s only used to get some type of buzz... You should be locked up.