CaliHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,184
|
Post by CaliHoya on May 17, 2015 13:44:39 GMT -5
Why is any of that great stuff? I like the changes because: 1) the advancing the ball rule is great for making it more likely there are exciting end of game plays. I love that rule in the NBA 2) I generally hate the 1-and-1 rule. It generally tends to not be a "bonus" for teams that are shooting. I like the two foul rule better because I'd rather see intentional fouling be more penalized. There also will be fewer FTs with 5 fouls to bonus in a quarter, its effectively at least 8 fouls till the bonus per half.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,325
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on May 17, 2015 13:55:04 GMT -5
Why is any of that great stuff? I like the changes because: 1) the advancing the ball rule is great for making it more likely there are exciting end of game plays. I love that rule in the NBA 2) I generally hate the 1-and-1 rule. It generally tends to not be a "bonus" for teams that are shooting. I like the two foul rule better because I'd rather see intentional fouling be more penalized. There also will be fewer FTs with 5 fouls to bonus in a quarter, its effectively at least 8 fouls till the bonus per half. Respectfully disagree. The advance on time-outs thing seems idiotic to me. The ball should come back in play where it went out/where play was stopped. To change that just to "add excitement" is NBA-style circusry. I suppose you could also let the game officials at their discretion give free points to the trailing team at the end of the game as well, so that every game ends in an "exciting finish" As far as the 1-1, I kind of like that it forces teams to execute what should be a fairly simple skill. The problem is that college bball (and the NBA to an extent) have become foul fests late in the game, making the final 2 minutes interminable. Its not the 1-1 thats making this the case, its that basketball essentially allows intentional fouls late in the game. If there were a rule change to give a technical foul shot and possession for any foul for which there was no attempt at the ball, whether or not it was excessive contact, it would speed up the final minutes. The drawback to this, however, is that it would mean that teams down 10 with 2 minutes to go are essentially dead in the water, so there would be less "excitement". But at least we would have fewer 2 1/2 hour games...
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 18, 2015 7:07:57 GMT -5
Awful, horrible rule changes. I disagree with all of them and hold out hope that they may not be implemented.
The buy-in to the Jay Bilas LIE that college basketball is somehow being held back by its rules is disgusting to me.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on May 18, 2015 7:51:28 GMT -5
I know that it is swimming against the tide, but I find the NBA game boring and am immediately biased against any rule change that moves in that direction. I believe that the 1 and 1 rule actually adds excitement to the game by creating an element of uncertainty in a foul shot. Have no issue with quarters instead of halves but do not like the ability to advance the ball on a timeout.
The changes to the men's game are gong to require more adjustment by JT III. I understand that calling more physical play, including holds and hand-checks on the defense may free up cutters and assist the Hoyas on offense, but it could prove much more difficult for the Hoya defense, particularly with a young team next year. Not certain what the problem is with the 5 second closely guarded rule. Why does this need to change? Also, does it really add anything to the offense? Seems like an invitation for quality guards to just dribble out the clock waiting to be fouled. I understand wanting to help the offense along, but that could be done by just shortening the shot clock.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 18, 2015 8:05:30 GMT -5
There is no need to do any of it. What a bunch of garbage.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on May 18, 2015 8:22:55 GMT -5
The 30 second shot clock is long overdue and the timeouts right next to the media timeout becoming the media timeout is a change I was hoping for but never knew they were seriously considering. Like that coaches cannot call timeouts anymore from the sidelines and they get one fewer in the 2nd half. I like the 10 total seconds to get a ball across halfcourt. No more resets if you call a timeout. And finally, from what I read, they will be reducing the time to replace guys who foul out, finally some common sense.
All in all, very happy to see the NCAA making the game more about the players and less about the coaches. This is long overdue, the rampant over-coaching in college basketball held the players back and made the game much less watchable. Very excited to see these rule changes come into play.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 18, 2015 8:24:36 GMT -5
I kind of think both five-second rules are a bit unnecessary in the age of a lowered shot clock -- be it 35, 30, or 24. If you can closely guard someone (either who is dribbling or has given up his dribble) for five full seconds, you've completely disrupted the other team's offense and it's going to be very difficult for them to get a timely shot. The good defense is its own reward. With a 45 shot clock (or no shot clock), I can see giving the defense a reward for particularly strong play that otherwise the offense can erase later in a possession.
As for the shot clock change itself, sure it will have an impact on us, but it's going to have an impact on everyone. We will have to ignore the temptation to say "the new rule is killing us" if we are forced to throw up a few bad shots at the end of possessions. That happens to everyone now at least a couple times a game (including us); it probably will happen to everyone (just a bit more) next year. I don't think it will have an overly negative impact on us relative to everyone else. I suspect you're going to see a lot more zone out of us and other teams, though. It always takes longer to stretch a zone to get a decent shot, and it's much harder to force the action at the end of shot clocks. I think that will be an unintended consequence of the new rule. As for whether they should have done it? Oh, I probably saw no real reason to change it, since what it's likely to do is lead to more bad shots overall. I'll be interested to see if scoring goes up.
How anyone could be against the "if you call a timeout right near the media timeout it becomes the media timeout" rule is beyond me. The media timeout isn't a real part of the game! It's fabricated. And an unnecessary halt to the action.
As for other rules I'd like to see, I agree completely with making an intentional foul an actual intentional foul. That's the biggest change I'd make to the American game. If you've watched any international basketball, you'll see that it's not as drastic as many think. You can still foul more-or-less intentionally, so long as you get to the ball handler and make a legitimate reach for the ball. In other words, you have to make a "I'm trying to steal the ball and if I foul him instead, that's OK" sort of play -- that's exactly what you should be doing there, or what the rules should be encouraging you to do. What it prevents are the end of game situations where a team in the lead is successfully playing keep-a-way but a foul gets called when the guy is already past them or already threw the ball. Those are goofy. I agree the foul shots are more exciting, but we shouldn't let "more exciting" completely subvert the other 38 minutes of the game.
Also, if it were me, I'd have a 3-for-2 instead of a 1-1. To me, giving someone two cracks at getting a third shot is a fairer way to apportion opportunities to score, limits the effectiveness of intentional fouling, but still maintains the ability for the team behind to catch back up through missed foul shots or just hitting three pointers to counteract the foul shots. I've never liked that a game that has so much flow 95% of the time can be affected in such an incredible way by late-game fouls and guys missing front-ends. I think the effect of the 1-1 rule is understated since a lot of the front-ends are missed early in halves (later in halves, you're usually in a two-shot situation anyway).
I'm also not a fan of the foul out rule, since I think it gives way too much power to officials to affect outcome in so many different ways. Cheap fouls called early in games can cause a guy to have to sit for huge periods of time. And officials can stop calling fouls on key players that they know are in foul trouble to try to keep them in the game. Both seem silly. And why are fouls punished with disqualification, but other rules violations aren't? Instead, I'd have someone sit out for a minute (or two) after a certain number of fouls. More like a hockey rule (but with replacement). That may be a functional disqualification at the very end of a game, but I'm OK with that. I'm also OK with disqualification if the fouling is particularly egregious (I don't know....seven total fouls or something), but I see no reason that in every single game, four or five guys are at significant risk of being disqualified.
Finally, I've always hated the fact that the shot clock gets completely reset after a violation. I'd never reset the clock to anything above 20 seconds if the violation happened in the front court. Why do you need the extra 10 seconds that you are given to get the ball into the frontcourt if the ball already is there?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 18, 2015 9:13:21 GMT -5
The 30 second shot clock is long overdue and the timeouts right next to the media timeout becoming the media timeout is a change I was hoping for but never knew they were seriously considering. Like that coaches cannot call timeouts anymore from the sidelines and they get one fewer in the 2nd half. I like the 10 total seconds to get a ball across halfcourt. No more resets if you call a timeout. And finally, from what I read, they will be reducing the time to replace guys who foul out, finally some common sense. All in all, very happy to see the NCAA making the game more about the players and less about the coaches. This is long overdue, the rampant over-coaching in college basketball held the players back and made the game much less watchable. Very excited to see these rule changes come into play. It seems like we have been watching different sports; I have not perceived any of those problems. Respectfully agree to disagree.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,655
|
Post by seaweed on May 18, 2015 9:16:06 GMT -5
How anyone could be against the "if you call a timeout right near the media timeout it becomes the media timeout" rule is beyond me. The media timeout isn't a real part of the game! It's fabricated. And an unnecessary halt to the action. By that logic, TV coverage is an unnecessary part of the game and should be gotten rid of. Media timeouts have been a part of the game for years - changing the way they are applied so that in essence a team looses a time-out if they call it at a certain time is unfair to teams that try to gain that extra bit of rest by strategically timing their own called TOs. I get that the same rules will apply to everyone so it is not genuinely unfair in the context of any single game, but we have worked out a strategy that helps us rest players by "doubling up" TOs and now they are eliminating the rule that makes that possible.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 18, 2015 9:24:11 GMT -5
How anyone could be against the "if you call a timeout right near the media timeout it becomes the media timeout" rule is beyond me. The media timeout isn't a real part of the game! It's fabricated. And an unnecessary halt to the action. By that logic, TV coverage is an unnecessary part of the game and should be gotten rid of. Media timeouts have been a part of the game for years - changing the way they are applied so that in essence a team looses a time-out if they call it at a certain time is unfair to teams that try to gain that extra bit of rest by strategically timing their own called TOs. I get that the same rules will apply to everyone so it is not genuinely unfair in the context of any single game, but we have worked out a strategy that helps us rest players by "doubling up" TOs and now they are eliminating the rule that makes that possible. It's definitely more fair to people that would prefer the same amount of basketball takes 2 hours instead of 2.5 hours. Games are stupid long as it is--they don't need more opportunities for commercials or inane commentary from Len Elmore or whoever. Also, Josh Smith isn't on the team anymore, so I don't think we're going to benefit more than any other team from that extra rest anymore.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on May 18, 2015 9:24:22 GMT -5
How anyone could be against the "if you call a timeout right near the media timeout it becomes the media timeout" rule is beyond me. The media timeout isn't a real part of the game! It's fabricated. And an unnecessary halt to the action. By that logic, TV coverage is an unnecessary part of the game and should be gotten rid of. Media timeouts have been a part of the game for years - changing the way they are applied so that in essence a team looses a time-out if they call it at a certain time is unfair to teams that try to gain that extra bit of rest by strategically timing their own called TOs. I get that the same rules will apply to everyone so it is not genuinely unfair in the context of any single game, but we have worked out a strategy that helps us rest players by "doubling up" TOs and now they are eliminating the rule that makes that possible. Oh, I know they've been around for a long time and that TV is part of the game. (Indeed, I'm somewhat surprised that the committee would recommend something that presumably at least marginally reduces the opportunity for revenues through commercials.) So, I understand they need to exist. I just think the double stoppage in play (particularly when both are full time-outs, which is often (though not always) the case) is such a sap on the flow and excitement of the game that I'm all in favor of the move here. If it has some negative strategic impact on us, I still think it's the right move for the overall game.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,326
Member is Online
|
Post by vv83 on May 18, 2015 9:43:40 GMT -5
If I understand the proposed timeout rule correctly - A coach could still call a timeout at the first dead ball AFTER a media timeout to gain the rest advantage of "back to back" timeouts, without impacting the next media timeout. There are probably consequences of this move that are somewhat different than calling the timeout immediately before the media timeout, but in general a coach who wants to get this rest advantage of double timeouts could, I think, still do so.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,924
|
Post by NCHoya on May 18, 2015 13:58:41 GMT -5
The 30 second shot clock is long overdue and the timeouts right next to the media timeout becoming the media timeout is a change I was hoping for but never knew they were seriously considering. Like that coaches cannot call timeouts anymore from the sidelines and they get one fewer in the 2nd half. I like the 10 total seconds to get a ball across halfcourt. No more resets if you call a timeout. And finally, from what I read, they will be reducing the time to replace guys who foul out, finally some common sense. All in all, very happy to see the NCAA making the game more about the players and less about the coaches. This is long overdue, the rampant over-coaching in college basketball held the players back and made the game much less watchable. Very excited to see these rule changes come into play. It seems like we have been watching different sports; I have not perceived any of those problems. Respectfully agree to disagree. For me, I feel like there is over-coaching in college that typically results in the game losing any sense of flow (especially toward the end), for someone else that is happy with the current product that would not be the case. So yes, this whole discussion is subjective, we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on May 18, 2015 14:58:57 GMT -5
The biggest thing I want to see in terms of a rule change is just to let them play and stop calling so many cursed fouls. Otherwise, I am more than fine with the game continuing as is at present. I have never understood what I perceive as a desire to rush the game, whether it be in MLB or NCAA basketball or any other sport. If spectators want to leave or stop coming to/ watching games, so be it. I will be watching.
|
|
hoyarad
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 521
|
Post by hoyarad on May 18, 2015 16:31:33 GMT -5
III likes to use his timeouts around media time outs to get expanded rest periods. He will not appreciate that the NCAA now wants to change the rules so that any team time out taken 30 seconds before or anytime after the media timeout is due will automatically become the media time out (while still of course being charged as a team TO). The rest looks pretty mundane. I think the time out right before the media time out is ridiculous. Glad to hear they are getting rid of it. Completely slows the pace of play.
|
|
|
Post by stafford72 on May 18, 2015 16:44:35 GMT -5
I like the changes thus far, however, the biggest gripe I have with both college and Pro ball is the ridiculous amount of time it takes to play the last 2 or 3 minutes of the games. I would be in favor of not allowing a time out once the ball is given to a player about to inbounds it. None of the new rules are of such consequence as to cause major adjustments or be used as any excuse for inferior play. We all should be anticipating a more balanced league this upcoming season and Gtown has a good chance to be near or at the top.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on May 19, 2015 13:14:01 GMT -5
Coaches not being able to call live-ball timeouts seems like, in some ways, one of the biggest changes among all of these (aside from the shorter shot clock). Most coaches have typically called virtually all timeouts themselves, except when players try to call them during tie-ups or to bail themselves out when inbounding. Seems like that will be a big adjustment for both coaches and players alike. I wonder if coaches will develop a signal to their players to use when they want a timeout called...
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 19, 2015 18:07:30 GMT -5
Coaches not being able to call live-ball timeouts seems like, in some ways, one of the biggest changes among all of these (aside from the shorter shot clock). Most coaches have typically called virtually all timeouts themselves, except when players try to call them during tie-ups or to bail themselves out when inbounding. Seems like that will be a big adjustment for both coaches and players alike. I wonder if coaches will develop a signal to their players to use when they want a timeout called...Maybe something like making a T with their hands?
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on May 19, 2015 19:08:19 GMT -5
Coaches not being able to call live-ball timeouts seems like, in some ways, one of the biggest changes among all of these (aside from the shorter shot clock). Most coaches have typically called virtually all timeouts themselves, except when players try to call them during tie-ups or to bail themselves out when inbounding. Seems like that will be a big adjustment for both coaches and players alike. I wonder if coaches will develop a signal to their players to use when they want a timeout called...Maybe something like making a T with their hands? exactly. just seems ridiculous...
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on May 20, 2015 6:09:43 GMT -5
we will seeeeeee
|
|