New Rules (Potential) for Next Season

[Muskie]

link (http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/10/report-more-rules-changes-could-be-on-the-way-next-season/)
This year there will be a number of rules changes up for vote as well, according to Pat Forde of Yahoo Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rule-makers-planning-to-make-ncaa-men-s-basketball-even-more-fan-friendly-164746766.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter):


Reducing the number of timeouts. The biggest issue with college hoops is that the end of a close game takes forever, between the fouls, the timeouts given when a player fouls out and the fact that the teams get some many timeouts per game.
The reduction of the shot clock to 30, or even 24, seconds. I’d be in favor of 30 seconds, but 24 is too short. This isn’t the NBA, you need to allow the teams a chance to run a set otherwise college hoops will devolve into nothing but one-on-one isolations from players that aren’t as good as their NBA counterparts.
Eliminating live-ball timeouts, which is a rule that FIBA has in place. The way the current rules are set up, if the defense gets a trap, an offensive player — or his coach — can call timeout to save possession. In the international game, timeouts can only be called when the ball is dead.
Changing the 10-second rule so that a team has ten seconds total to cross half court. Calling a timeout in the back court currently refreshes the clock.

There are a few other rules on the table — widening the lane, using the NBA’s continuation rule, no scoring on charges — but those four are the big four that have been complained about the most.

_______

I like the FIBA timeout rule. I'm not a fan of the other suggestions.

[nuts4xu]

I like those changes being targeted. The shot clock is too long, and I agree with 30 seconds.

Teams have WAY too many timeouts right now. With all the TV timeouts, it is crazy to give both teams 5 TO's a piece per game on top of all the other stoppages in play. It may as well be baseball, as it is so rare teams run out of TO's. I don't like the dead ball only TO, that seems a bit harsh, but would be completely in favor of a reduction.

[Frambo]

When I coached, we had set rules for stopping opponent runs....so if they just scored their 7th-10th point in a row and we inbound and are dribbling up court, I wouldn't be able to call a TO till a deadball situation????? That would suck.

[Muskie]

When I coached, we had set rules for stopping opponent runs....so if they just scored their 7th-10th point in a row and we inbound and are dribbling up court, I wouldn't be able to call a TO till a deadball situation????? That would suck. You would be able to call a timeout after the completed basket before the inbound (as I think technically the ball is dead as it passes through the net).

[D-West & PO-Z]

I like those changes being targeted. The shot clock is too long, and I agree with 30 seconds.

Teams have WAY too many timeouts right now. With all the TV timeouts, it is crazy to give both teams 5 TO's a piece per game on top of all the other stoppages in play. It may as well be baseball, as it is so rare teams run out of TO's. I don't like the dead ball only TO, that seems a bit harsh, but would be completely in favor of a reduction.

Agreed. I like reducing the shot clock to 30. 35 is too long. I also don't mind reducing timeouts but I don't like dead ball only timeouts idea.

[xubrew]

Each team has five timeouts, and only one of those is a full timeout. I don't think that slows the game down too much.

Replay does. That needs to be regulated in a huge way. I say that "conclusive" evidence should be just that. If a call is made on the floor, and it takes more than ninety seconds to overturn it, then by definition it cannot be conclusive, so the original call should stand. Seriously, if the standard is that the video evidence must be indisputable, and it takes ten minutes to review, then there must be some sort of dispute, and the original call should stand. I honestly think this is the biggest thing that needs to change. Stopping the game for five minutes to get a call right is every bit as disruptive, if not moreso, than just sticking with the original call and playing on.

Fouls at the end of the game slow it down more than timeouts. If a team is behind and fouls on purpose without even attempting to play defense, then by definition shouldn't that be an intentional foul?? The foul parade at the end of games is so terrible to watch that it is eye gouging. It needs to stop. Make teams play defense, and call flagrant fouls if they foul on purpose.

I actually like the shot clock where it is. The way the game is officiated has a bigger impact on scoring than the shot clock does. Before the shot clock, there were actually a lot more points being scored on average. I like how a 35 second clock allows for a lot of different styles and strategies. Teams can slow the game down, but they cannot completely stall it. There are tons of different strategies and styles of play, and I like that. To force everyone to play up tempo takes away from that, and I think would damage the game as a whole.

I really don't have an opinion on widening the lane. I could be missing something, but I think it's fine the way it is now.

I've never been a fan of coaches calling live ball timeouts, but I do like the idea of players doing it. I'd be against getting rid of live ball timeouts altogether.

[BMoreX]

* Changing the 10-second rule so that a team has ten seconds total to cross half court. Calling a timeout in the back court currently refreshes the clock.


This should definitely be changed. I still have no idea why this is a rule. It will reward solid press defense.

[paulxu]

Give me 24...unless you want to shorten the college and high school base paths to 75 feet.

[XU-XHI]

I concur that the FIBA timeout rule would be a nice addition. Defensive minded coaches should love that rule. I can see reducing time outs by 1 maybe 2 for televised games, since there is the benefit of TV timeouts. If the game is not televised, I would keep the current #. It seems unfair to penalize the programs that do not have the TV contracts or popularity of other programs.

[Muskie]

How many division one programs aren't regularly on tv in some form? I'd be curious to know? Instead of TV timeouts I always assumed they continued to have media timeouts if they weren't on tv? Is that not true?

[Frambo]

You would be able to call a timeout after the completed basket before the inbound (as I think technically the ball is dead as it passes through the net).

right, but that allows the opponent to set up full court pressure which might have been behind the run. A quick inbounds and get it over half court allows a good inbounds situation. I just think this takes a tool out of the coach's pocket.

[XU-XHI]

right, but that allows the opponent to set up full court pressure which might have been behind the run. A quick inbounds and get it over half court allows a good inbounds situation. I just think this takes a tool out of the coach's pocket.

What if you added an option that could be used, let's say twice, of inbounding at half court, ala the NBA, but at any time of the game. I had the same thought about the full court pressure which drove one set of kids I had nuts.

[Smails]

I would be in favor of not allowing coaches to call timeouts during live-action.

[THRILLHOUSE]

How many division one programs aren't regularly on tv in some form? I'd be curious to know? Instead of TV timeouts I always assumed they continued to have media timeouts if they weren't on tv? Is that not true?

You are correct, there are "media timeouts" even if a game is not televised.

"...there are now nine mandatory TV timeouts — euphemistically called “media timeouts” — per game. This is true even if a game isn’t on TV."

Source - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/college-basketball-games-are-too-long-but-quick-fixes-could-be-made/2014/02/01/4309d9d8-8b68-11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html

[D-West & PO-Z]

Each team has five timeouts, and only one of those is a full timeout. I don't think that slows the game down too much.

Replay does. That needs to be regulated in a huge way. I say that "conclusive" evidence should be just that. If a call is made on the floor, and it takes more than ninety seconds to overturn it, then by definition it cannot be conclusive, so the original call should stand. Seriously, if the standard is that the video evidence must be indisputable, and it takes ten minutes to review, then there must be some sort of dispute, and the original call should stand. I honestly think this is the biggest thing that needs to change. Stopping the game for five minutes to get a call right is every bit as disruptive, if not moreso, than just sticking with the original call and playing on.

Fouls at the end of the game slow it down more than timeouts. If a team is behind and fouls on purpose without even attempting to play defense, then by definition shouldn't that be an intentional foul?? The foul parade at the end of games is so terrible to watch that it is eye gouging. It needs to stop. Make teams play defense, and call flagrant fouls if they foul on purpose.

I actually like the shot clock where it is. The way the game is officiated has a bigger impact on scoring than the shot clock does. Before the shot clock, there were actually a lot more points being scored on average. I like how a 35 second clock allows for a lot of different styles and strategies. Teams can slow the game down, but they cannot completely stall it. There are tons of different strategies and styles of play, and I like that. To force everyone to play up tempo takes away from that, and I think would damage the game as a whole.

I really don't have an opinion on widening the lane. I could be missing something, but I think it's fine the way it is now.

I've never been a fan of coaches calling live ball timeouts, but I do like the idea of players doing it. I'd be against getting rid of live ball timeouts altogether.

You want the fouls to stop at the end of games? Reducing the shot clock would do just that. You ever watch NBA games? There is almost never fouling at the end if games because the shot clock isn't an eternity. I'm not saying college should be 24 seconds but is take 28-30. I think it would benefit the college games in numerous ways.

[Xavier]

I like some of these rules. I think if the time outs is lowered you should still be able to call a timeout when being trapped. I think with less timeouts available coaches would still see that as a huge plus forcing a team to take one. The one NBA rule I wish NCAA would adopt is moving the ball to half court after a timeout under 2 minutes (or whatever it is). I think this would only add to the end game excitement, especially in the tournament. With 1.2 seconds left under your basket, it is rare you will score. Take it to halfcourt and its more interesting.

[LA Muskie]

I think the rules benefit offense enough. I'd like to see defense rewarded more. I think I like all of the proposed rule changes but I'm somewhat preoccupied today. I don't like the free advance to half court. At all.

[Always Learning]

Why mess with fixin' something that ain't broke? The college game ain't broke, but could use some tinkering.

I'm against lowing the clock to anything less than 30 seconds. Making that change give a little more weight to the defense.

I think any player or coach can call a timeout at any time. That's smart playing on their part.

I don't like any change that would allow a trailing team to get an edge by calling a TO and then getting to inbound the ball at midcourt. It's an NBA rule to enhance scoring at the end of a game, and that is giving too much weight to a trailing team.

I agree, there is far too many "media" TO's ... but TV pays the bills, so whatever "Lola wants, Lola gets." However, the nine are just to insure all of the commercials sold, get "in-game" time. The answer is reduce it to six media TO's, but just add one minute (two :30 second commercials) to each media TO.
Leave the coaches TO's alone.

What I would like to see done is move the three second clock back a foot. It originally was put in to add offense from outside for the "little guy." However, kids (not hindered by CYO coaches) --- joke --- learn to be three point shooters long before they get to college. Actually, every team starts a couple of what they term their three point shooters.

Also, I would like to see the floor extended one foot in length. The game has so many 6-7 and up people banging each other in the lane, more room would allow for a more creative game

I would like to see a change in the foul situations on two counts. First, three foulf gets you a time penalty, say five minutes. Five fould gets you a second penalty, say seven minutes. And a seventh foul gets you disqualified. These days, one pays a lot of money to see a game, and bingo, five minutes into the game, a could of the "stars" gets two fouls and they are out until the second half. That's BS. I really have never understood what coaches pull them after two.

And lastly, and this was first mentioned to me by a college coach while we were watching Bob Quick play an exhibition gamein Louisville baaaack in the day. He said (about the pro game, which today has become an issue in the college game) "there are too many players in the game." He went on the explain, every time down the floor, six to eight players end up int he lane banging each other. It gets too crowded, and everyone is getting fouled, but no calls are being made. I really would like to see some games (exhibition game in pre-season of college) played with four players on a side. Might make the game faster and do what all fans want (not coaches) more offense.

Oh, and I agree, if you foul a player just to put him on he line, that is "intentional." Soooo, make it he shoots one and then his team gets to keep possession out of bounds. That was at one time a Ohio HS rule ... waaay baaack in the day.

Then again, if it ain't broken, why fix it?

[powerofX]

* Changing the 10-second rule so that a team has ten seconds total to cross half court. Calling a timeout in the back court currently refreshes the clock.


This should definitely be changed. I still have no idea why this is a rule. It will reward solid press defense.
If you go to the time out only at dead ball this is already addressed.

[smileyy]

I like all of these ideas.


Soooo, make it he shoots one and then his team gets to keep possession out of bounds. That was at one time a Ohio HS rule ... waaay baaack in the day.

A while ago, Xavier played a tournament with these experimental rules. It was brutal.

I'd rather change the bonus structure to include something like the chance for a third free throw if you make the first two. With the advent of the 3 pointer, teams should have the ability to close out a game with free throws.

[Always Learning]

I like all of these ideas.

A while ago, Xavier played a tournament with these experimental rules. It was brutal.

I'd rather change the bonus structure to include something like the chance for a third free throw if you make the first two. With the advent of the 3 pointer, teams should have the ability to close out a game with free throws.

Where and when were these "experimental rules" played. What tournament?
Back 42 years ago the Freshman teams from Xavier and Miami played an experimental "possession game." It was a hard to believe beforehand high scoring fast moving game. Naturally, nothing became of it.

My "possession" was only after fouls that were being committed to stop the game and hope the player misses. That just stretchesout the game, and I always geta kick out of Coach A doe it and then watches their lead go from 5 to 7 or whatever.

But, I like your "three shots" on those fouls. And the number one way to get rid of that nonsense is to give three foul shots, and then let the fouled team select its shooter. That would stop it in a hurry.

[casualfan]

A 24 second shot clock would be a disaster IMHO.

You think teams can't score now, just wait until they enact that rule.

Any rule that creates more bad shots is a bad one IMHO. PPG may go up, but the overall quality of play would drop dramatically.

I'd much rather watch a 60-55 game where the teams run crisp clean offense and take the majority of a 35 second clock than a 80-75 game where teams are jacking bad shots at the end of the 24 second clock the whole game.

[D-West & PO-Z]

A 24 second shot clock would be a disaster IMHO.

You think teams can't score now, just wait until they enact that rule.

Any rule that creates more bad shots is a bad one IMHO. PPG may go up, but the overall quality of play would drop dramatically.

I'd much rather watch a 60-55 game where the teams run crisp clean offense and take the majority of a 35 second clock than a 80-75 game where teams are jacking bad shots at the end of the 24 second clock the whole game.

I think 24 is too drastic. I think 30 would be perfect. Teams can run the exact same offense. And let's not pretend teams, especially, Xavier is running a crisp clean offense. Just because they have 35 secs doesn't mean they are using them well. A lot of times it's way too much standing around, dribbling, and not attacking.

[danaandvictory]

A while ago, Xavier played a tournament with these experimental rules. It was brutal.

I don't think that's quite true - I think the rule they used is that if you were fouled while in the bonus you could elect to take the 1-and-1 or the 2 shots OR inbound the ball. X was playing someone (Louisville I think) and was up 3-4 points late, and just kept inbounding the ball, getting fouled, and electing the inbound. I think we ran like 10 straight successful inbound plays.

[THRILLHOUSE]

I don't think that's quite true - I think the rule they used is that if you were fouled while in the bonus you could elect to take the 1-and-1 or the 2 shots OR inbound the ball. X was playing someone (Louisville I think) and was up 3-4 points late, and just kept inbounding the ball, getting fouled, and electing the inbound. I think we ran like 10 straight successful inbound plays.

Nice memory! http://www.gocards.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/071900aaj.html

[muskiefan82]

That next game was brutal.

[paulxu]

A 24 second shot clock would be a disaster IMHO.

You think teams can't score now, just wait until they enact that rule.

Any rule that creates more bad shots is a bad one IMHO. PPG may go up, but the overall quality of play would drop dramatically.

I'd much rather watch a 60-55 game where the teams run crisp clean offense and take the majority of a 35 second clock than a 80-75 game where teams are jacking bad shots at the end of the 24 second clock the whole game.

Well I'm confused as a fan of the 24 second clock. Are you saying teams can't score now, and it would lower scoring?
Or are you saying it creates more bad shots and that will cause PG to go up.
I don't think you can have it both ways, and I don't think the second option makes any sense.
The teams that run clean crisp offenses aren't using more than 24 seconds now.

[smileyy]

I don't think that's quite true - I think the rule they used is that if you were fouled while in the bonus you could elect to take the 1-and-1 or the 2 shots OR inbound the ball. X was playing someone (Louisville I think) and was up 3-4 points late, and just kept inbounding the ball, getting fouled, and electing the inbound. I think we ran like 10 straight successful inbound plays.

I think you're right -- I misremembered that.