Should the men move to quaters also?

[cozrulz]

I'm probably against the majority but I actually like 2 half's instead of 4 quarters.  If it would eliminate some media timeouts and team timeouts, then I'd be more in favor of it.  I still think each team gets to many timeouts and they are just used to bail your team out of a bad situation.  No other sport can call timeout right in the middle of a play just to bail you out of a bad situation. 

 

They should go FIBA rules on timeouts.  Ball has to be dead.  Timeouts come from the bench beforehand.

 

The best thing about going 4 quarters would be resetting the fouls.

[Bugeaters1]

 

I'm probably against the majority but I actually like 2 half's instead of 4 quarters.  If it would eliminate some media timeouts and team timeouts, then I'd be more in favor of it.  I still think each team gets to many timeouts and they are just used to bail your team out of a bad situation.  No other sport can call timeout right in the middle of a play just to bail you out of a bad situation. 

 

They should go FIBA rules on timeouts.  Ball has to be dead.  Timeouts come from the bench beforehand.

 

The best thing about going 4 quarters would be resetting the fouls.

 

The negative that I see about the fouls at least in the women's game is that there is no one & one, It is strictly a two shot foul which gives a poor free throw shooting team a chance at one point instead on none if they don't make the first free throw.

[cozrulz]

 

 

I'm probably against the majority but I actually like 2 half's instead of 4 quarters.  If it would eliminate some media timeouts and team timeouts, then I'd be more in favor of it.  I still think each team gets to many timeouts and they are just used to bail your team out of a bad situation.  No other sport can call timeout right in the middle of a play just to bail you out of a bad situation. 

 

They should go FIBA rules on timeouts.  Ball has to be dead.  Timeouts come from the bench beforehand.

 

The best thing about going 4 quarters would be resetting the fouls.

 

The negative that I see about the fouls at least in the women's game is that there is no one & one, It is strictly a two shot foul was gives a poor free throw shooting team a chance at one point instead on none if they don't make the first free throw.

 

 

Good point.  They could keep it the same.  It would be the same as high school basketball.

 

One other thing I forgot to mention with quarters.  End of clock situations become a bigger part of the game.

[Ron Mexico]

24sec clock would be a disaster especially with how defense is played. It works in the NBA because of the restrictions on defense.

[Dean Smith]

Would you stop watching Nebraska games if they switched to quarters?

That's a good point. I would still watch the games. However, the more people talk about a 24 second clock, and now maybe quarters, the more, just IMO, it would lessen the college game.

The Euro-step, traveling, palming, continuation have crept into the college game the last several years and yes it has affected the number of college basketball games I watch. My sons call me old school because I point out officials are lazy and don't call the game as it is written in the rulebook. For the record I am okay being labeled old school as I am NOT a fan of street ball.

The difference between the Eurostep and traveling and palming is the first one is legal and the second two are violations. The only difference between a Eurostep and an old-school layup is the directions of the steps. Old-school is a straight line to the basket and the euro adds lateral movement to avoid a defender.

[Chuck Taylor]

The Eurostep is an amazing development, imo. It's not a degradation of the game, it's an advancement. There's less traveling on Euro layups than on regular ones, if you ask me. Because it always looks like traveling, a player sneaking in an extra step would be so much easier to catch. Unless (fill in the blank) is reffing.

 

Makes you wonder why nobody thought of it before. Kind of like when Hank Luisetti popularized the jump shot. What? You mean we can jump when we shoot?

[Bugeaters1]

http://btn.com/video/660440643854/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Huskerpapa]

I was listening to a national sports talk show today and one of the talking heads said that moving to a quarter system is all but a done deal.  I guess I am still a fan of two halves, but I doubt my vote counts.

[Bugeaters1]

I was listening to a national sports talk show today and one of the talking heads said that moving to a quarter system is all but a done deal.  I guess I am still a fan of two halves, but I doubt my vote counts.

If they do move to quarters, I hope that the men's game doesn't do what the women did in that when a team reaches five fouls it is a two shot foul.

[kldm64]

 

I was listening to a national sports talk show today and one of the talking heads said that moving to a quarter system is all but a done deal.  I guess I am still a fan of two halves, but I doubt my vote counts.

If they do move to quarters, I hope that the men's game doesn't do what the women did in that when a team reaches five fouls it is a two shot foul.

 

 

And hope they eliminate another timeout for each team then.

[Miles ahead of the rest]

 

I was listening to a national sports talk show today and one of the talking heads said that moving to a quarter system is all but a done deal.  I guess I am still a fan of two halves, but I doubt my vote counts.

If they do move to quarters, I hope that the men's game doesn't do what the women did in that when a team reaches five fouls it is a two shot foul.

 

The college game is trying to become identical with the NBA game so this will most definitely be the case. a two shot foul after 5 fouls in a quarter will almost definitely be the new rule to go along with it.

[Huskerpapa]

Here is a radical thought. Do away with the five foul and your gone rule.  Instead give free throws and ball possession; and let the player remain in the game.  That would ramp up coaches strategy.

[Blindcheck]

I hate the double bonus.

I wish we could have 1&1 as the bonus....will keep games closer and prevent bad free throw shooters from getting additional bad attempts.

[Bugeaters1]

I hate the double bonus.

I wish we could have 1&1 as the bonus....will keep games closer and prevent bad free throw shooters from getting additional bad attempts.

I second this thought. Unless of course it's your team that is bad at free throws. but this rule benefits the bad FT shooting teams.

[kldm64]

 

I hate the double bonus.

I wish we could have 1&1 as the bonus....will keep games closer and prevent bad free throw shooters from getting additional bad attempts.

I second this thought. Unless of course it's your team that is bad at free throws. but this rule benefits the bad FT shooting teams.

 

 

No, it benefits teams that don't foul alot and put teams in the double bonus.

[Red Don]

I hate the double bonus.

I wish we could have 1&1 as the bonus....will keep games closer and prevent bad free throw shooters from getting additional bad attempts.

 

This caught my eye. 

 

Somehow it does not seem quite right that a closely-fought game, i.e. 1 or 2 points down to the wire, often finishes with a double-digit win, because of necessity to foul by the underdog and bonus free-throw opportunities.  How disappointing for the losing team, and it can make the winner seem better than they really are.  When you see a team winning by double-digits one tends to think the game was no contest.

 

I'm sure there are some that have different points of view.

[Blindcheck]

To me...the 1&1 is great...it puts pressure on the free throw shooter....and pressure on the free throw shooter is good for fans of the game.

I remember Nebraska beating Missouri and Kansas coming back from large deficits in the mid 80s....thanks to those pressure free throws...great drama

Much better than watching a point guard dribble the ball for 25 seconds at mid court...because one team won't play offense and the double bonus is too much to give up to foul.

The end of games is horrible with the double bonus....watch NC state on their run in early 80s...that is much more entertaining than running clock....

And if you want two free throws, just make the first.

[Blindcheck]

End of game situations is another reason, I think the 45 second shot clock was better than 35 or 30.

The shot clock was essentially put in place to get rid of the five minute stall game....but now teams run 25 seconds standing at half court....and defenses feel 25 seconds isn't long enough to warrant fouling......

If the shit clock was 45, 40 seconds off the clock....teams would have to start fouling earlier....as 40 seconds is probably worth a foul.

I hate watching guys dribble for 10, 15, 20 seconds...boring....I would like to see the five second call put back in and not require closely guarded......if you want to run clock fine, but you have to at least pass the ball around.

[hskr4life]

End of game situations is another reason, I think the 45 second shot clock was better than 35 or 30.

The shot clock was essentially put in place to get rid of the five minute stall game....but now teams run 25 seconds standing at half court....and defenses feel 25 seconds isn't long enough to warrant fouling......

If the shit clock was 45, 40 seconds off the clock....teams would have to start fouling earlier....as 40 seconds is probably worth a foul.

I hate watching guys dribble for 10, 15, 20 seconds...boring....I would like to see the five second call put back in and not require closely guarded......if you want to run clock fine, but you have to at least pass the ball around.

 

Mines a lot faster than that after Mexican Night.  

[49r]

Heh.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Norm Peterson]

 

End of game situations is another reason, I think the 45 second shot clock was better than 35 or 30.

The shot clock was essentially put in place to get rid of the five minute stall game....but now teams run 25 seconds standing at half court....and defenses feel 25 seconds isn't long enough to warrant fouling......

If the shit clock was 45, 40 seconds off the clock....teams would have to start fouling earlier....as 40 seconds is probably worth a foul.

I hate watching guys dribble for 10, 15, 20 seconds...boring....I would like to see the five second call put back in and not require closely guarded......if you want to run clock fine, but you have to at least pass the ball around.

 

Mines a lot faster than that after Mexican Night.  

 

Or when you're prepping for your colonoscopy.

[royalfan]

The thirty-second shot clock has been a good change. Going down to 24 would not be an improvement, IMHO; only precision passing, exquisite shooting, & an imposing front court are able to produce effectively in the face of the short clock at the highest level.

Reducing the shot clock further would slow the pace of play, not improve it.  College coaches don't have to worry about energy levels as much as NBA coaches.  They don't have a ton of back to backs or 4 or 5 games in 7 day stretches.  The good coaches would be able to use annoyance pressure to really make the game a poor product.  If I were a smart coach, I would welcome the change.  If I were Miles, I would want me on his staff immediately, so I could explain why token pressure is a must, since he clearly doesn't understand it already should be done. 

[AuroranHusker]

 

The thirty-second shot clock has been a good change. Going down to 24 would not be an improvement, IMHO; only precision passing, exquisite shooting, & an imposing front court are able to produce effectively in the face of the short clock at the highest level.

Reducing the shot clock further would slow the pace of play, not improve it.  College coaches don't have to worry about energy levels as much as NBA coaches.  They don't have a ton of back to backs or 4 or 5 games in 7 day stretches.  The good coaches would be able to use annoyance pressure to really make the game a poor product.  If I were a smart coach, I would welcome the change.  If I were Miles, I would want me on his staff immediately, so I could explain why token pressure is a must, since he clearly doesn't understand it already should be done. 

 

 

The premium is put on passing the ball. That accentuates the best teams away from the mediocre. Wouldn't be that much different at the collegiate level - essentially since the rich would become richer. The NBA-ready players would be concentrated to those teams willing to play an NBA-type game. That's how I see it....

[royalfan]

 

 

The thirty-second shot clock has been a good change. Going down to 24 would not be an improvement, IMHO; only precision passing, exquisite shooting, & an imposing front court are able to produce effectively in the face of the short clock at the highest level.

Reducing the shot clock further would slow the pace of play, not improve it.  College coaches don't have to worry about energy levels as much as NBA coaches.  They don't have a ton of back to backs or 4 or 5 games in 7 day stretches.  The good coaches would be able to use annoyance pressure to really make the game a poor product.  If I were a smart coach, I would welcome the change.  If I were Miles, I would want me on his staff immediately, so I could explain why token pressure is a must, since he clearly doesn't understand it already should be done. 

 

 

The premium is put on passing the ball. That accentuates the best teams away from the mediocre. Wouldn't be that much different at the collegiate level - essentially since the rich would become richer. The NBA-ready players would be concentrated to those teams willing to play an NBA-type game. That's how I see it....

 

It depends on what team you are playing against and how good their scheme is.  The great teams would leave about 16 seconds or so after crossing half court to get a shot off if the shot clock was taken to 24.  Combined with many junk defenses and the lack of creating own shot ability that exists in the NBA, it would be an unmitigated disaster if the clock went shorter is how I see it. 

[Blindcheck]

I suspect that scoring will start creeping down again...as coaches realize the defensive benefits of a 30 second shot clock.

Scoring went up year 1, after the shot clock went from 45 to 35, but defenses started utilizing the shot clock as a sixth man and scoring started falling.

I believe we will start seeing that as well...also, we will start comparing scores against the new hands off defensive calls...again coaches will adjust.