Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

NCAA Women's Basketball Rule Changes

I'm not a fan of the changes, but CBF at a tailgate seemed pretty unconcerned. The rule about putting a forearm or hand on the back of a post player seems to reflect what already happens. Maybe the refs will be watching for the bent elbow. I don't like that a team gets 8 fouls per half with before shots and no more one and one - a small tweak which slightly favors fouling and poor ft shooting.
 
BenEClone said:
I'm not a fan of the changes, but CBF at a tailgate seemed pretty unconcerned. The rule about putting a forearm or hand on the back of a post player seems to reflect what already happens. Maybe the refs will be watching for the bent elbow. I don't like that a team gets 8 fouls per half with before shots and no more one and one - a small tweak which slightly favors fouling and poor ft shooting.
Click to expand...

Its 5 fouls per quarter, not 8 fouls per half.
 
I like it in concept. We will see in actual game play. MBB should do the same.
 
Not a fan of the foul changes especially. Seems like it'd promote more fouling if the penalty is drastically reduced..
 
IMHO the free throws aren't drastically reduced. I'd be interested in running the numbers on prior games to find out. I'll see if there's an easy-ish way to do that.
 
mred said:
You shoot on the 5th foul, so there are 8 fouls to give per half (4 per quarter) compared to 6 per half now.
Click to expand...

Thats not a very good way to look at it though. Its not like if you commit no fouls in the first quarter, you get 8 fouls in the second half.

It does take away the 1 and 1. It also allows you do over if you have a bad quarter. No more "They are into the double bonus with 12:17 to play. We'll be shooting free throws from here on out."

In both cases, it will improve the flow of the game. Removing the 1 and 1 removes the strategy of purposely fouling a bad free throw shooter 3 times as soon as you get to 6 fouls to take advantage of the 1 and 1.
 
mred said:
IMHO the free throws aren't drastically reduced. I'd be interested in running the numbers on prior games to find out. I'll see if there's an easy-ish way to do that.
Click to expand...

Here's a quick and dirty analysis.

Notes:

I looked at ISU's 9 conference games this season:
* Home games so I have a consistent pbp stat format
* Conference games because the non-conf home schedule is weak and I didn't want creampuffs to skew it
* This season only because the prior season used a different live-stat provider

I do not consider whether the foul was a shooting foul. I'm only looking at the timing of the fouls (1H 20:00-10:01 = Q1, 1H 10:00-00:01 = Q2, etc) .

Results:

Under the old system, the teams combined for an average of 5.33 fouls in the single bonus (one-and-one situation) and 2.78 fouls in the double bonus. Given an average of around 70% FT shooting (so 1.7 FTA per one-and-one), this leads to around 14.6 FTA per game combined for both teams (ignoring shooting fouls).

Under the new system, the teams combined for an average of 5.67 fouls in the bonus. This leads to around 11.3 FTA per game combined for both teams (again, ignoring shooting fouls)

So if there were no shooting fouls, there'd be 3.3 fewer total FTA per game (combined for both teams) under the new rules. I suspect shooting fouls would slightly lower that gap but not significantly.

Given ISU's propensity to not foul (especially at home), this gap is likely higher for other teams. I may find another team that uses the same stats provider and rerun the analysis.
 
Last edited:
Same analysis on OU:

22.0 FTA under the old system and 16.2 under the new system, a difference of 5.8 FTA (again, not taking shooting fouls into account).
 
If you assume 30% of fouls are shooting fouls (a number I completely made up but seems reasonable):

The change in FTA in ISU home conference games decreases from 3.3 to 2.3
The change in FTA in OU home conference games decreases from 5.8 to 4.1
 
mred said:
Here's a quick and dirty analysis.

Notes:

I looked at ISU's 9 conference games this season:
* Home games so I have a consistent pbp stat format
* Conference games because the non-conf home schedule is weak and I didn't want creampuffs to skew it
* This season only because the prior season used a different live-stat provider

I do not consider whether the foul was a shooting foul. I'm only looking at the timing of the fouls (1H 20:00-10:01 = Q1, 1H 10:00-00:01 = Q2, etc) .

Results:

Under the old system, the teams combined for an average of 5.33 fouls in the single bonus (one-and-one situation) and 2.78 fouls in the double bonus. Given an average of around 70% FT shooting (so 1.7 FTA per one-and-one), this leads to around 14.6 FTA per game combined for both teams (ignoring shooting fouls).

Under the new system, the teams combined for an average of 5.67 fouls in the bonus. This leads to around 11.3 FTA per game combined for both teams (again, ignoring shooting fouls)

So if there were no shooting fouls, there'd be 3.3 fewer total FTA per game (combined for both teams) under the new rules. I suspect shooting fouls would slightly lower that gap but not significantly.

Given ISU's propensity to not foul (especially at home), this gap is likely higher for other teams. I may find another team that uses the same stats provider and rerun the analysis.
Click to expand...

Great analysis. Do you have the breakdown of fouls by quarters? I'm especially interested if the first 10 mins of the first half are called different than the first 10 mins of the second half. IMO that's the biggest potential benefit of a quarter system, more consistent officiating throughout the game.

Also, do you have men's team data? I'd love to see the men switch to quarters also.
 
clone52 said:
Removing the 1 and 1 removes the strategy of purposely fouling a bad free throw shooter 3 times as soon as you get to 6 fouls to take advantage of the 1 and 1.
Click to expand...

Absolutely does not "remove" it! It may slightly diminish the attractiveness of the strategy, but if you're behind and need multiple possessions to catch up - you're still going to foul.
 
LivntheCyLife said:
Great analysis. Do you have the breakdown of fouls by quarters? I'm especially interested if the first 10 mins of the first half are called different than the first 10 mins of the second half. IMO that's the biggest potential benefit of a quarter system, more consistent officiating throughout the game.

Also, do you have men's team data? I'd love to see the men switch to quarters also.
Click to expand...

Average fouls by quarter:
ISU Data:
1: 4.4
2: 7.3
3: 7.0
4: 10.9 (includes OT, and 1 out of the 9 games had 1 OT)

OU Data:
1: 7.7
2: 7.3
3: 8.4
4: 11.7 (includes OT, but there were no OT games)

I can throw together MBB shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom