Elam ending...NCAA

Discussion in 'General College Sports' started by UNI1ISU2, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. Jerms

    Jerms Active Member

    May 13, 2011
    293
    54
    28
    Atlantic, IA
    Ratings:
    +222 / 3 / -0
    #61 Jerms, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    No. Part of the excitement of the buzzer beater is it's do or die. Make it they win. Miss it they lose. In this scenario, if he misses, they just keep playing. If they get the rebound they will try again. And again. Some of the best buzzer beaters are shot in desperation, adding to the shock value when they go in. It will take away a lot of the drama and excitement of those games. Would Monte's winner against Texas in the Big XII's or Naz's shots against OSU be viewed the same way without the buzzer going off in mid flight? Sure, it'd be exciting, but not the same.

    Don't want to see this implemented. Ever.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. GrindingAway

    GrindingAway Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2006
    3,317
    200
    63
    Ratings:
    +343 / 0 / -0
    I actually have been listening to you. Just don't agree with your solution. You mentioned earlier at 10 fouls the penalty for a foul would go from 2 shots (roughly 1.5 PPP penalty) to 2 shots plus possession (roughly 1.5PPP + 1.1 PPP = 2.6 PPP). I agree that would eliminate intentional fouling, but it would also make the penalty for a non intentional foul devastating which wouldn't fly.

    I'll listen to the option of giving the team that is fouled the option of shooting free throws or taking the ball out of bounce likely with some level of shot clock reset (something like 1/2 the original?). I think that likely has some issues as well, but might be workable.
     
  3. Sigmapolis

    Sigmapolis Well-Known Member
    SuperFanatic SuperFanatic T2

    Aug 10, 2011
    14,926
    4,732
    113
    Male
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +17,564 / 1,051 / -2
    84-80 with 0:40 on the clock

    State is leading Tech. State has the ball.

    Tech fouls State.

    Under you system, State could decline the penalty and take the ball back.

    Why would they do that, though?

    I can see them doing that if they were about to have a bad FT shooter on the line, but assuming they have a guy who can do more than 1.1/2, why would they?

    A good shooter is going to do 1.8 PPP for you -- better than you get from your typical half-court set of something like 1.0 to 1.2 PPP, so best let your guy shoot it, right?

    Why not take the shots, let their Matt Thomas equivalent go out there and drill two, and now be up six with 0:35 or 0:30 left on the clock? You basically eliminate one of the few viable late-game "catch up" mechanics that teams have in targeting bad shooters.
     
  4. benman82

    benman82 Active Member

    Nov 17, 2009
    282
    26
    28
    Ratings:
    +105 / 6 / -0
    Calling intentional fouls when teams intentionally foul at the end of games would solve most of the problems. It makes sense to play more aggressively on defense and risk a foul when you're down at the end, but it's obvious that players foul and make no attempt at playing defense. Almost all late gate fouls should be called intentional and be two shots plus the ball.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. jbhtexas

    jbhtexas Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    13,023
    972
    113
    Male
    Arlington, TX
    Ratings:
    +2,263 / 42 / -0
    #65 jbhtexas, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    The same rule would apply to both teams, and both teams would have the same opportunity to capitalize on the rule, so I don't really understand the "devastating" argument . Teams would need to adjust their play to stay under the 10-foul (or whatever number it is limit), or to not foul when they get to that limit. In a 20-minute half, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Yes, this will be hard for the teams that try to turn basketball into rugby.
     
  6. GoClone

    GoClone Active Member

    Apr 16, 2006
    117
    38
    28
    Ratings:
    +92 / 0 / -0
    I am no Mensa member, but I have watched and played plenty of basketball. The goal of fouling late is to "extend" the game. Therefore, you have to have a penalty that reduces the incentive to extend a game. The easy way is to have a time run-off for fouling. Perhaps under three minutes you run five seconds off for fouls 7,8, and 9. Fouls 10+ would be ten second run-offs.

    Perhaps fouls 7,8, and 9 would be ten second run-offs if a team if more than ten points down. I think waiting until bonus time would be fair as teams that haven't fouled a lot would not be penalized for playing a clean game. Ultimately, every foul matters in this system as you want to avoid the ten second run-off.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Gomer80

    Gomer80 Active Member

    May 17, 2011
    459
    100
    43
    Nevada, Iowa
    Ratings:
    +429 / 26 / -4
    The Elam Ending also sets things up for the always exciting walk-off free throw. I'm pretty sure this was the way TBT ended. Pretty anticlimactic, in my opinion.
     
  8. VeloClone

    VeloClone Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    33,129
    4,978
    113
    Male
    Brooklyn Park, MN
    Ratings:
    +17,125 / 259 / -2
    With five second run offs you run the risk of the leading team fouling at the very end of a game in certain situations.
     
  9. Sigmapolis

    Sigmapolis Well-Known Member
    SuperFanatic SuperFanatic T2

    Aug 10, 2011
    14,926
    4,732
    113
    Male
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +17,564 / 1,051 / -2
    The NFL runoff run only applies to a team that is trailing.

    You could put the same restriction in for basketball.

    A trailing team committing a foul engenders a ten-second runoff if the clock is under... two minutes? Maybe just 1:00...? I thought 2:00 would prevent any abuse.

    That would force the team that is down to play defense (and put an end to the foul and hope for the best things that teams down between 4 and 10 do) as best they could, assuming they had enough possessions to catch up, but it would not lead to teams in the lead abusing the rule to shorten the game at the same time if they had a relatively secure lead.

    You could also allow teams to take a timeout to prevent it, which would speed up the game by adding incentives to hold onto their timeouts late into the second half.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. GrindingAway

    GrindingAway Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2006
    3,317
    200
    63
    Ratings:
    +343 / 0 / -0
    In a close game situation making a penalty that is worth 2.6 PPP is devastating. A simple hand check ends the game in lots of cases. I know your argument is going to ok foul less, but you also know teams are going to get to 11+ fouls.

    Also letting the situation would eliminate many opportunities for buzzer beaters just in a more subtle way.

    Situation Kansas is up 1 In Hilton with 10 seconds left. In your scenario it's essentially game over. Getting two shots plus the ball eliminates the opportunity to get the ball back and hit a buzzer beater three to win or the.

    Neither ending is perfect. It's maintaining buzzer beaters vs 1) every game ends with a walk off jump shot and 2) games never end with a twenty minute foul fest. You prefer 1 I prefer the other.
     
  11. GrindingAway

    GrindingAway Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2006
    3,317
    200
    63
    Ratings:
    +343 / 0 / -0
    More dramatic than the very common walk off stand and dribble the ball for 12 seconds.
     
  12. jbhtexas

    jbhtexas Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    13,023
    972
    113
    Male
    Arlington, TX
    Ratings:
    +2,263 / 42 / -0
    I could get behind something like this as well...
     
  13. isucy86

    isucy86 Well-Known Member

    Apr 13, 2006
    2,148
    201
    63
    Ratings:
    +838 / 172 / -7
    Follow the money- how will the Elam ending impact sports betting?

    I always felt the best way to eliminate end of game fouling would be at 7+ fouls & under 2 minutes shooting team automatically shoots 2 free throws. After 10 fouls they get 3 free throws.

    Another option, allow fouled team to inbounds ball instead of shooting free throws and don't allow defensive team substitution after foul.
     
  14. cyclones500

    cyclones500 Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    22,962
    4,029
    113
    Male
    writer/editor
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +8,739 / 118 / -1
    Not in favor of it. Other stuff should be addressed first (such as the hour-long monitor reviews, for starters).
     
  15. JD720

    JD720 Active Member

    Jan 3, 2009
    849
    62
    28
    Ratings:
    +137 / 1 / -0
    The Elam Ending would help with some of that as there would be no need for a review just to check the clock.
     
  16. Knownothing

    Knownothing Well-Known Member

    Nov 22, 2006
    16,650
    1,742
    113
    Ratings:
    +8,783 / 812 / -114
    How about we just don't mess with basketball anymore. College basketball is one of the greatest sports with the greatest tournaments in sports. The endings are fantastic. Some games draw on a little long from fouls but who cares. Leave or turn the channel. This ending won't improve anything in college basketball.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  17. JD720

    JD720 Active Member

    Jan 3, 2009
    849
    62
    28
    Ratings:
    +137 / 1 / -0
    I doubt that. I think the fouling strategy is more likely to increase the lead than decrease it. That doesn't matter at the end of the game because the trailing team is desperate and it doesn't matter if you lose by 5 or 10 points. However, being down 5 vs 10 when the elam ending starts is a huge difference.
     
  18. Clonefan94

    Clonefan94 Well-Known Member

    Oct 18, 2006
    8,502
    548
    113
    Male
    Graphic Designer
    Schaumburg, IL
    Ratings:
    +1,841 / 82 / -4
    Why not just on a foul on the floor, inside the last 4 minutes, the team with the ball gets the choice to shoot or take it out? Like football where you can decline a penalty. The Elam Ending seems like an idea to up the entertainment value, which is fine for stuff like TBT, but seems like something that isn’t really needed for NCAA.
     
  19. cyclones500

    cyclones500 Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    22,962
    4,029
    113
    Male
    writer/editor
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +8,739 / 118 / -1
    That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it that way.

    I suppose the purist in me prefers they fix or tweak other late-game time stoppage issues within the traditional rules framework -- distribution of timeouts, intentional fouls, free-throw overload and officiating reviews -- instead of revamping with something like elam approach.
     
  20. cyclones500

    cyclones500 Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    22,962
    4,029
    113
    Male
    writer/editor
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +8,739 / 118 / -1
    Regarding option discussed here for the FTs or keep possession choice for leading team, it could be made to work with the proper balance of details. I think CBB experimented with it in early-season games (maybe back in the '90s (?)) and it was dropped before the experimental period officially ended. Can't recall exactly why, but it proved unpopular.

    A reason I think it's worth considering, in some form, isn't only the time required for the FTs themselves, but a lot of the fouls happen in backcourt and it eats time for everyone to go to the other end, set up their positions on the lane. If a main goal is to reduce interruption of game flow, that rule change couldn't hurt, and might not disrupt strategy too much.

    Feel free to poke holes in my analysis, for purposes of discussion.
     

Share This Page