(02-24-2017 04:27 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  Why is everyone in this thread so hell bent on removing almost any chance of a team coming back from a deficit in the last few minutes of a game? Yes you can play good defense and try and get turnovers but having that be the only option means much less close games/buzzer beaters/etc. because teams simply won't be able to cut into leads as easily. This would end up making games a whole hell of a lot more boring than the current situation where you watch free throws being shot. I'll take watching free throws over watching the team with the lead pass the ball around for 30 seconds every time they get it.

That's not it at all. Come back by hitting 3's and playing good D. Not by making fans sit through hack a ????? every possession the last 2 minutes.

MAybe shorten the shot clock in the last 2 minutes or make a 4 point line but free throw competitions are not what basketball is about. People want action, not guys standing at a line throwing a ball in a ring like a f-ing circus game.

Well, one thing: part of the "magic" of the early rounds of March Madness are the upsets. Those are what make for "must-see TV".

Giving the underdog a better chance, at least in the early rounds, will always be favored by TV.



Such a sentiment obviously isn't applicable in the NBA. Though it should be for women's college basketball, but perhaps it gets so little TV attention that they didn't care.

(02-24-2017 11:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

It depends on how much it speeds the game up. Right now, broadcasters show games in 2-hour blocks. If your reduce playing time it would give them more commercial time. If you reduce playing time too much it will start costing them money and throw off their schedule.

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

The irony is that I would be more likely to watch the last 3 minutes if there was no fouling and no chance to catch up. Even if my favorite team has a better chance to catch up with fouling, I still don't want to watch that. I turn it off the first time a team gets fouled as a strategy. But if it is just running the clock out with no fouls, I will keep watching.

(02-24-2017 10:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Heh, take away the shot clock, and you're getting those high school-like scores of 41-33. You're praying for death by the end of regulation.

I like the rules. I wish they'd just adopt the pro rules with the 10-minute quarter schema, but this isn't bad. Dropping the 1 and 1 while perhaps getting a mulligan with the slate-clearing is fair.

Gotta think if this gets into a permanent place, it makes Coach K retire. Dude basically wrote the book on how to play "catch up" with the fouling structure as it stands. Foul a bad shooter, miss the first shot, and rally. Now, regardless of how bad the shooter is, they get the second shot. It's a whole different kind of strategy and dynamic. You wonder how it incentivizes teams who are losing...do you even try to rally? Or, is there a need for counterbalance, and refs swallow their whistles...and Big East thug ball returns?

Pretty sure Jim Valvano wrote the book on strategic late game fouling (glass breaks in the background). Oh, sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time when I get mad about someone ruining Houston's one shining moment.

(02-24-2017 04:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The 3-point shot has been great for basketball but one side effect is that it increases intentional fouling at the end of a game because the trailing team can narrow the margin with a 3-pointer even if the leading team makes both free throws at the other end. I see no way to address that issue, except moving the college 3-point line back to the NBA distance to make it less likely a trailing team could get 3 after giving up 2 on foul shots at the other end.

If a non-shooting foul occurs in three point territory, the fouled team should get three shots with less than 1:00 (2:00 in the NBA) remaining in each quarter.

(02-24-2017 10:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  Anything that speeds up the end of game instead of a long slumber to the foul line, I am in favor of. I just don't understand the entertainment value of fouling to help your chances of winning. It just makes the end of the game unbearable to watch.

Personally, I would like to see a rule that when a team gets fouled, it gets to shoot 1 free throw, and then gets the ball back. Hard fouls get 2 free throws, and then you get the ball back. Intentional fouls get4 free throws, and then you get the ball back.

If a shooter gets fouled, and does not make the shot, he gets 2 or 3 free throws, and then his team gets the ball back. If a shooter gets fouled and he makes it, the team gets 2 or 3 points for making the shot, and the shooter gets 1 free throw, but then the other team gets the ball back instead.

I think the NBA should go back to and colleges adopt the 3 to make 2 in the last two minutes. If you are in the bonus, you get 3 shots to make 2 free throws. It will lower the benefit of the quick foul.

I like going back to 4 quarters. However, do not mess with fouls.

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

Unfortunately you're probably right. I hate lucky comebacks - luckbacks.

(02-25-2017 04:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Heh, take away the shot clock, and you're getting those high school-like scores of 41-33. You're praying for death by the end of regulation.

I like the rules. I wish they'd just adopt the pro rules with the 10-minute quarter schema, but this isn't bad. Dropping the 1 and 1 while perhaps getting a mulligan with the slate-clearing is fair.

Gotta think if this gets into a permanent place, it makes Coach K retire. Dude basically wrote the book on how to play "catch up" with the fouling structure as it stands. Foul a bad shooter, miss the first shot, and rally. Now, regardless of how bad the shooter is, they get the second shot. It's a whole different kind of strategy and dynamic. You wonder how it incentivizes teams who are losing...do you even try to rally? Or, is there a need for counterbalance, and refs swallow their whistles...and Big East thug ball returns?

Pretty sure Jim Valvano wrote the book on strategic late game fouling (glass breaks in the background). Oh, sorry about that, I'll be more careful next time when I get mad about someone ruining Houston's one shining moment.

Houston stopped playing that game that's why they lost...And of course extreme luck at the end.

(02-25-2017 08:45 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 04:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The 3-point shot has been great for basketball but one side effect is that it increases intentional fouling at the end of a game because the trailing team can narrow the margin with a 3-pointer even if the leading team makes both free throws at the other end. I see no way to address that issue, except moving the college 3-point line back to the NBA distance to make it less likely a trailing team could get 3 after giving up 2 on foul shots at the other end.

If a non-shooting foul occurs in three point territory, the fouled team should get three shots with less than 1:00 (2:00 in the NBA) remaining in each quarter.

If you really want to put the screws on late-game fouling by trailing teams, give 3 FTs for every defensive foul outside the 3-point circle in the last 2 minutes AND let the shooting team choose which of its players shoots the FTs.

(02-24-2017 05:26 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 11:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

It depends on how much it speeds the game up. Right now, broadcasters show games in 2-hour blocks. If your reduce playing time it would give them more commercial time. If you reduce playing time too much it will start costing them money and throw off their schedule.

ESPN used to block them as 90 minutes a decade ago. CBS had them at two hours. ESPN would tend to go a bit over, and they adjusted accordingly over time. Partially because of the difference between broadcast and cable.

(02-25-2017 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 05:26 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 11:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

It depends on how much it speeds the game up. Right now, broadcasters show games in 2-hour blocks. If your reduce playing time it would give them more commercial time. If you reduce playing time too much it will start costing them money and throw off their schedule.

ESPN used to block them as 90 minutes a decade ago. CBS had them at two hours. ESPN would tend to go a bit over, and they adjusted accordingly over time. Partially because of the difference between broadcast and cable.

no they did not. It's ALWAYS been 2 hour blocks. look at this from March of 2001-
http://www.espn.com/tvlistings/menshoops...h2001.html

(02-26-2017 11:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 05:26 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 11:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I imagine the media folks like the foul rules the way they are. While we may not like having the team that is leading get victimized by deliberate fouling at the end of the game, ESPN doesn't want fans changing the channel once the lead goes to double digits with 3 minutes left. They want excitement, not fairness, and the ability of a lesser team to make a comeback gives them a better chance for that.

QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

It depends on how much it speeds the game up. Right now, broadcasters show games in 2-hour blocks. If your reduce playing time it would give them more commercial time. If you reduce playing time too much it will start costing them money and throw off their schedule.

ESPN used to block them as 90 minutes a decade ago. CBS had them at two hours. ESPN would tend to go a bit over, and they adjusted accordingly over time. Partially because of the difference between broadcast and cable.

no they did not. It's ALWAYS been 2 hour blocks. look at this from March of 2001-
http://www.espn.com/tvlistings/menshoops...h2001.html

I'd like to see a TV Guide from that month and year, or Nielsen's numbers from that time, especially for any of the content those first two weeks in March during Championship Week. Yes, the games start every two hours (and that's all that is there - game start times, not the daily schedules for all content on both networks); what of the pre-/post-game content? Those wraps are/were considered separate content to advertisers; buffers between games, sure, but definitely pre-arranged so that viewers weren't tuning in five minutes before the end of a time-slot to find the game already wrapped up, and frustrating both viewer and advertiser.

Maybe I'm blurring memories from the 90's about how sectioned the blocks were, but I do know that a decade ago, after the final whistle and when a game went from the court to the studio, that program was over to us tracking content and writing survey questions. They could have been impromptu, like a Baseball Tonight following a MLB game that didn't run its fully alloted slot.

(02-27-2017 11:13 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 11:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 05:26 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 11:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  QFT.

I'm sure CBS will be like "get this the **** out of our face." Probably why the NCAA stuck this on the NIT.

It depends on how much it speeds the game up. Right now, broadcasters show games in 2-hour blocks. If your reduce playing time it would give them more commercial time. If you reduce playing time too much it will start costing them money and throw off their schedule.

ESPN used to block them as 90 minutes a decade ago. CBS had them at two hours. ESPN would tend to go a bit over, and they adjusted accordingly over time. Partially because of the difference between broadcast and cable.

no they did not. It's ALWAYS been 2 hour blocks. look at this from March of 2001-
http://www.espn.com/tvlistings/menshoops...h2001.html

I'd like to see a TV Guide from that month and year, or Nielsen's numbers from that time, especially for any of the content those first two weeks in March during Championship Week. Yes, the games start every two hours (and that's all that is there - game start times, not the daily schedules for all content on both networks); what of the pre-/post-game content? Those wraps are/were considered separate content to advertisers; buffers between games, sure, but definitely pre-arranged so that viewers weren't tuning in five minutes before the end of a time-slot to find the game already wrapped up, and frustrating both viewer and advertiser.

Maybe I'm blurring memories from the 90's about how sectioned the blocks were, but I do know that a decade ago, after the final whistle and when a game went from the court to the studio, that program was over to us tracking content and writing survey questions. They could have been impromptu, like a Baseball Tonight following a MLB game that didn't run its fully alloted slot.

I think you are blurring memories. I remember the old Big Monday's always had a Big East game at 7 and then a Big Ten game at 9(changed to Big 12 later on).