One thing I think may still allow comebacks is if the team behind is in the bonus and has a player that can draw fouls. They get 2 shots and the ball, or an easier, less contested shot at least.
I think if the bonus limit was raised (are we talking about the bonus or double bonus?) to say 9 or 10, then the double bonus kicked in the rule change suggested you might see refs allow an even tougher style of play? or they might go back to calling hand checks and free things up for higher scoring. Could go either way. In both cases, you'd start to get more Paul Janish players on teams that can basically barely dribble but are good defenders.
I don't know, another thing that separates basketball from these other sports is that there are 340 division one teams. In any given year, 150 of them could win a game against a top opponent. That kind of parity is important for the health of the sport.
Simply making your free throws is a hugely important skill in the game, and one incidentally that is fading in the mens game.
Not a whole lot of research to back up that claim. In fact, FT% has stayed pretty much flat for the last 50 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sp...ted=1&_r=3&hp&
I would be for making fouls more punitive if we also lower shot clock times to 25 seconds.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
Along a different line, I got this off twitter :
Andy Katz reporting rules committee voting on lowering shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds in college basketball
Last edited by jmac; 04-22-2013 at 08:05 PM.
I would love to see the shot clock shortened. I would like the NBA's 24, but 30 is a step in the right direction.
Any sport with a clock has the same problem (albeit in different forms.) It always feels somewhat unsatisfying when a football team get a first down with 1:30 left and then takes a knee for three downs. The same goes with foul fests and time wasting in soccer. Hockey is the only clock based sport where this doesn't pose as much of an obstacle, but that is based on the speed of the game and the rapid changes in possession. Maybe all of those flaws are one of the reasons we populate a message board about a sport where you have to play completely to the end.
Variatio delectat - Cicero
I think the rule proposed will make the games move faster but they will also eliminate many comeback opportunities.
Variatio delectat - Cicero
There are other instances in sports where a team benefits from breaking the rules. Delay of game in football to get a better angle on a field goal. (I have always wondered why the defensive team could not decline that penalty and, in effect, say kick it from right here.) I have seen teams delay of game to run time off the clock. Take a delay of game to get a better distance for the punter. Icing the puck in hockey to kill off a penalty. These things happen.
A team leading late in the game and backed up towards their own endzone will sometimes purposely take a safety (if they'll still have the lead) in order to get better field position vs. punting their opponents the ball.
The only downside I see to this is how much control it would give to the referees.
That, and making the NBA All-Star Game the template for what every NBA game would look like.
Reading comprehension is not just an ability, it's a choice
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |