Jump to content

Experimental Rule


Bugeaters1

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, throwback said:

Yeah I think this change is coming to the men's game, sooner rather than later. Happened to catch UNO Coach Hansen on 590 today, and he said he expects it to occur at some point, just from the rumblings he's hearing from rules committee.

 

 

I don't know if I agree with the two shoot foul, seems you are helping a poor shooting free throw team which shouldn't be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. And it also changes the game for teams that foul a lot. Hanson mentioned liking the fact that if you commit a slew of fouls early in the game, it'd be nice to have that reset going into the 2nd quarter. And he thought it'd lead to fewer FTs and better game flow.

 

I'd guess it'll lead teams to be more aggressive defensively early in games, seeing what the refs will let them get away with. If they commit 8 or 9 fouls in the first quarter, it isn't as penalizing as it is now, because the fouls reset to 0 for the 2nd quarter, and at that point they can adjust to how game is being called. So I'd think it's worth the gamble for aggressive defensive teams to really push the envelope early in a quarters game vs in a halves game.

 

I personally really like the rules as they are now, including 20-minute halves. There's just something cool about it. And it makes the college game clearly different from the NBA. But I don't think the coaches agree with me. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Didn't the NBA have a 3 to make 2 FT rule at one time a few decades ago? I guess this is better than that. ;)

 

Edited by throwback
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 49r said:

They also need to move the 3 point line out in college to at least the international line, maybe the NBA line.  3 pointers as they are in college now are a joke IMO.  Way too easy.

They should enact this rule...but only for our opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, throwback said:

Agree. And it also changes the game for teams that foul a lot. Hanson mentioned liking the fact that if you commit a slew of fouls early in the game, it'd be nice to have that reset going into the 2nd quarter. And he thought it'd lead to fewer FTs and better game flow.

 

I'd guess it'll lead teams to be more aggressive defensively early in games, seeing what the refs will let them get away with. If they commit 8 or 9 fouls in the first quarter, it isn't as penalizing as it is now, because the fouls reset to 0 for the 2nd quarter, and at that point they can adjust to how game is being called. So I'd think it's worth the gamble for aggressive defensive teams to really push the envelope early in a quarters game vs in a halves game.

 

I personally really like the rules as they are now, including 20-minute halves. There's just something cool about it. And it makes the college game clearly different from the NBA. But I don't think the coaches agree with me. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Didn't the NBA have a 3 to make 2 FT rule at one time a few decades ago? I guess this is better than that. ;)

 

It does speed the game up and the flow isnt as choppy, And the NBA did have the 3 to make 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, atskooc said:

I like the quarter rule.

 

Not real high on the free throw bit, but the entire basketball-playing world is on a quarter system.  College ball might as well catch up.

 

Are we still on halves because switching to quarters would mean less commercials? I thought Miles brought that point up once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I like how the NCAA is experimenting various rules in live play. They've done it many times in the past. It brings about "innovation" or change like the USFL or XFL did for the NFL. But to me this can create too much change for postseason NIT teams to adjust to. The better "regular season rules" team might not always advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would like to eliminate the double bonus...and go back to the 1 & 1 Or (1 plus the Bonus as it is sometimes called)

 

It would put more pressure on shooting free throws and make the ends of games more exciting...I personally loved the end of  games back in the 80s where there was more fouling to help teams try to catch up...now coaches don't resort to fouling until under a minute....by then it is too late.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how opinions are all over on free throws.  My preference is that all of them are two shot fouls.  A foul is something that is not good.  It should be penalized.  Currently a one and one is hardly a penalty at all.  Why is a shooting foul 2 and a foul that prevents an easy two a 1-1?  Should be done away with IMO.  A foul should always penalize the team that commits it.  

Edited by royalfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, royalfan said:

Interesting how opinions are all over on free throws.  My preference is that all of them are two shot fouls.  A foul is something that is not good.  It should be penalized.  Currently a one and one is hardly a penalty at all.  Why is a shooting foul 2 and a foul that prevents an easy two a 1-1?  Should be done away with IMO.  A foul should always penalize the team that commits it.  

Well, to be pedantic, if a foul should "always" penalize the team committing it, then you'd have to let the opposing team shoot free throws until they make at least one.

 

Missing two free throws doesn't penalize the offending team.

Edited by atskooc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, atskooc said:

Well, to be pedantic, if a foul should "always" penalize the team committing it, then you'd have to let the opposing team shoot free throws until they make at least one.

 

Missing two free throws doesn't penalize the offending team.

I don't bother with hypothetical shooting outcomes. "Always penalize" obviosly means mathematically and has nothing to do with every hypothetical scenario.    

 

Using your logic, if a team is penalized for roughing the kicker and points are taken off the board on the fg, and a turnover follows then they were not "penalized." 

 

You don't really use results of everything to determine what something was do you? 

Edited by royalfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, royalfan said:

I don't bother with hypothetical shooting outcomes. "Always penalize" obviosly means mathematically and has nothing to do with every hypothetical scenario.    

 

Using your logic, if a team is penalized for roughing the kicker and points are taken off the board in the fg, and a turnover follows then they were not "penalized." 

 

You don't really use results of everything to determine what something was do you? 

The word "always" is pretty specific; I have come to know it to mean each and every time. I have no idea what "mathematically always" means.

 

So, with you saying the offending team should "always" be penalized, and that a 1-and-1 situation doesn't always manage that, I figured you meant that in order for the offending team to "always" be penalized, the opposing team would have to make at least one free throw (otherwise, no damage done).

 

That is, unless "always" doesn't always mean mean always. If you were using it figuratively, then I obviously missed that (I need to work on my figurative language detection, if that was the case). And if you were using it mathematically, well, I'm going to miss that every time.

 

As for the football analogy: I'm not the one saying a team should "always" be penalized after committing a foul. That's your point. I think your football example is stupid, as do I think giving two free throws for every foul is stupid. The offending team is penalized by having the player accumulate another foul; it's up to the opposing team to do further damage by making the free throw(s). 

 

But again, I was just being pedantic.

Edited by atskooc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, uneblinstu said:

I'd imagine you'd lose a media time out every half. The women's game picked up noticeably after they switched to the quarter system.

But a media timeout wouldn't be lost; it would simply move to between quarters.

 

I hate media timeouts; they don't make sense in the flow of the game.  Breaks between quarters do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atskooc said:

But a media timeout wouldn't be lost; it would simply move to between quarters.

 

I hate media timeouts; they don't make sense in the flow of the game.  Breaks between quarters do.

Not to be pedantic, but it wouldn't be a media time out any longer.  It would be a quarter break time out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...