Elam Ending

[MadDogRevival]

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

I noted that as well.
That's the thing about extremists - you typically don't have to work too hard to spot them.

 

[temery]

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.

The real gimmick is the fouling and whatever in the last three or four minutes. Nobody with even a few brain cells wants to see the last four minutes take 1/2 an hour.

It's a great idea.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

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.

Key thrown away, or not?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I noted that as well.
That's the thing about extremists - you typically don't have to work too hard to spot them.

That said, NIT would be a worthwhile testing ground: good enough set of teams & coaches to yield worthwhile observations,with stakes in a healthy balance of high & low.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Love the concept, but I'd like to see the overall impact on the length of games.

Yes, you take away the horrible fouling in the last minute, but what happens if both teams go cold and nobody scores the 7 points? That could get ugly in its own right.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

I don't know what "CORE ROOTS OF A BASKETBALL GAME" you're talking about, but here's a photo of the actual "core roots" of basketball. Thank God the game has made progress since then.

 

[intlzncster]

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

You've never seen the concept of driving for the quick two? That happens all 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.

It was defined by the guy who did the analysis in the first place. He's some professor at Ball State who's also member of mensa, so he's not a total idiot.

I can't be bothered to go find it though. You think it's more common than it is because that's what you remember by way of confirmation bias. But so many games end 'as they should' and you simply forget about them all.

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!

If it were such a disincentive to foul, that just means you'd end games early, as it would be mathematically 'impossible' for one team to come back. One team would dribble at half court for 25sec at a clip.

Of course, we know that wouldn't happen, it would be a foul fest the exact same way.

Coaches are smart, as you say. Down 10, they have two choices. Burn 25 seconds of the clock, or foul and hope the guy misses 3 FTs. A coach is going to foul everytime, because his team needs the ball back more times than there are standard possessions on the clock.

I dunno if you've thought it out completely. The only thing you would be doing is making less comebacks occur which is fine, if that's what you were going for in the first place. But it would not be for lack of trying on the losing coachs' part.

 

[auror]

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."


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.

I agree with you, but there's a very vocal contingent that does not want to limit the ability of teams to come back.

It's funny, you're arguing against it, but it sounds like you would love the Elam ending. It makes it so the only recourse a team has to come back is to play good basketball. If a team plays good D, they can come back from an infinite deficit without messing up the flow of the game.

You're arguing it's too massive a change, but it's basically pickup rules. First to 21 = first to x + 7. Not such a foreign basketball concept. But including the clock early on to allow games to get close to the normal time slot window and minutes played. 7 points after 4 minutes was derived mathematically from the typical points scored by the winning team in the timeframe.

 

[MadDogRevival]

I don't know what "CORE ROOTS OF A BASKETBALL GAME" you're talking about, but here's a photo of the actual "core roots" of basketball. Thank God the game has made progress since then.

But note that, even then, the woman was playing the game the way it was "meant to be played." Just look at that form.

 

[MadDogRevival]

I
It's funny, you're arguing against it, but it sounds like you would love the Elam ending. It makes it so the only recourse a team has to come back is to play good basketball. If a team plays good D, they can come back from an infinite deficit without messing up the flow of the game. You're arguing it's too massive a change,

I quoted this only to point out that you correctly understood my points and you summarized and reproduced them faithfully, which, around here, is about as common as finding bird crap in a cuckoo clock. Well done.

My issue with it is this - no OT. No clock. Don't like losing either of those. Otherwise, I like the concept

 

[djct1999]

Little known fact.....most of us in Mensa think Nick Elam is a doofus.

 

[the Q]

I quoted this only to point out that you correctly understood my points and you summarized and reproduced them faithfully, which, around here, is about as common as finding bird crap in a cuckoo clock. Well done.

My issue with it is this - no OT. No clock. Don't like losing either of those. Otherwise, I like the concept

I’m actually totally ok with that.

But then again, I love Baseball because there’s no clock.

I hate the saying that x team “just ran out of time”

 

[Leebo]

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.

Whether anyone thinks it's a good idea or not, the idea has been in the works for like a decade by the creator who was shopping it around. Finally a visible tournament agreed to try it out. They didn't come up with the idea, and the creator wants to use the data from the tournament to refine it more.

It's fine to see what comes of these experiments and go from there.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Why not just do away with the clock entirely, have dudes call their own fouls, and shoot for teams before the game starts. This is like taking the extra point out of football. Show me tape of a game where a team started fouling with 4 minutes left. It’s usually closer to one minute or at most, 1:30-1:45. What’s saying teams won’t start fouling earlier with this?

 

[auror]

Why not just do away with the clock entirely, have dudes call their own fouls, and shoot for teams before the game starts. This is like taking the extra point out of football. Show me tape of a game where a team started fouling with 4 minutes left. It’s usually closer to one minute or at most, 1:30-1:45. What’s saying teams won’t start fouling earlier with this?

There is no incentive for teams to foul earlier.

 

[whaler11]

What an awful idea

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.

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

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.

Solid insanity here.

I said test it in the NIT. Not the Final Four.

Jesus you guys must not watch many games. The end game is putrid.

The Aussie is right the only thing missing is buzzer beaters. But test it and tinker with it.

Unless you don’t think the end game is hurting the game in which case check out the regular season when you get a chance.

 

[Purple Stein]

Seems like a better college football overtime system than the current drek. First one to ten wins!

 

[intlzncster]

Solid insanity here.

I said test it in the NIT. Not the Final Four.

Jesus you guys must not watch many games. The end game is putrid.

I was speaking about EE in general, not about NIT or NCAAT. I'm assuming most everyone else was doing the same.

 

[the Q]

Solid insanity here.

I said test it in the NIT. Not the Final Four.

Jesus you guys must not watch many games. The end game is putrid.

The Aussie is right the only thing missing is buzzer beaters. But test it and tinker with it.

Unless you don’t think the end game is hurting the game in which case check out the regular season when you get a chance.

The second the NCAA adopts the advance the ball with a time out role for men, I’m all in to replace the ending with this.

 

[whaler11]

I was speaking about EE in general, not about NIT or NCAAT. I'm assuming most everyone else was doing the same.

I edited it before you replied - I meant to say the first time that you raise the only risk.

 

[methodology]

There is no incentive for teams to foul earlier.

If coaches started treating the 4 minute mark as 0:00 on the clock then they would start fouling earlier. Your down 12 with 7 minutes to go the coach might start fouling to get it down to 3 or whatever for the first under 4 stoppage. Coaching would change and adjust. The fouls would just happen earlier. All it would take would be a season or 2 of data to show if that would bea viable strategy for this type of set up

 

[whaler11]

If coaches started treating the 4 minute mark as 0:00 on the clock then they would start fouling earlier. Your down 12 with 7 minutes to go the coach might start fouling to get it down to 3 or whatever for the first under 4 stoppage. Coaching would change and adjust. The fouls would just happen earlier. All it would take would be a season or 2 of data to show if that would bea viable strategy for this type of set up

That’s why you test it in meaningless games.

I think they would do that at first and quickly learn it’s a bad strategy.

 

[whaler11]

Let’s test foul 10 is 1 ft and the ball. Foul 12 is 2 ft and the ball. Now play the damn game.

 

[StepbackCity]

Solid insanity here.

I said test it in the NIT. Not the Final Four.

Jesus you guys must not watch many games. The end game is putrid.

The Aussie is right the only thing missing is buzzer beaters. But test it and tinker with it.

Unless you don’t think the end game is hurting the game in which case check out the regular season when you get a chance.

Test it if you want, but I guarantee you that it will never be put in the real deal.

 

[whaler11]

Test it if you want, but I guarantee you that it will never be put in the real deal.

Really going out on a limb there.

Regular season college basketball is headed into an abyss of unpopularity. They should totally stick to exactly what they are doing and not consider anything that could make the games entertaining.