Jump to content

New Proposed NCAA Rules


Recommended Posts

I like the 6 foul rule. I don't like disqualification on his 4th in a half or 6 in a game though....I'd rather see it as a technical foul once the player exceeds 6 fouls...so a personal foul plus a technical on that player and two shots and ball out. This creates strategy on the part of the coach. Do I leave a key player in the game and risk a foul that perhaps could result in as much as a 6-7 point swing? So, to disqualify the player though they would have to get two technical fouls as it is now. Thus a kid could theoretically get 8 fouls...but the coach would run a huge risk in doing so because of all the free throw attempts and possession issue. Huge risk maybe big reward to keep a key player playing. I support this idea because I HATE HATE HATE seeing star players go to the bench for say 10-15 minutes of a game because they get a couple quick fouls.

 I do think we should go to 4 quarters like women's and option of advancing ball on timeout. Both scenarios create exciting end of period/game scenarios/coaching strategy. I also like the 5 fouls and its immediately two shots in a quarter. This gets rid of 1-1 and is another counter balance to fouling too much. I want to emphasize fouls hurting the team but not the individual. I don't care as much about the goal tending rules...I think they are mostly fine as is. Don't want to change travel or five second rules. Would be ok with just about anything that fixes the block/charge call though. Finally, I'm very tired of going to the monitor every 5 seconds. If you want to review a play give the coach 1 challenge (non-foul...so out of bounds/goal tending/foot on the line etc) per half. They get it correct they get another challenge. Speed things up guys!

Edited by dgambill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the 6 foul rule(s). You can basically play a player in the 1st half UNTIL they have 3 fouls, so foul trouble would be reduced significantly.

The no foul shots at the end of the game would be a huge change. Not sure what to think of it, would probably have to see it in action before passing judgement, but it certainly would speed up the end of games on one hand. I could see how it might cause the leading team to foul at the end of the game in certain cases to give FTs over 3pts putting the pressure on the opposing coach to decide to whether to take the FTs or reset and run more clock off trying to get a 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

I like the 6 foul rule. I don't like disqualification on his 4th in a half or 6 in a game though....I'd rather see it as a technical foul once the player exceeds 6 fouls...so a personal foul plus a technical on that player and two shots and ball out. This creates strategy on the part of the coach. Do I leave a key player in the game and risk a foul that perhaps could result in as much as a 6-7 point swing? So, to disqualify the player though they would have to get two technical fouls as it is now. Thus a kid could theoretically get 8 fouls...but the coach would run a huge risk in doing so because of all the free throw attempts and possession issue. Huge risk maybe big reward to keep a key player playing. I support this idea because I HATE HATE HATE seeing star players go to the bench for say 10-15 minutes of a game because they get a couple quick fouls.

 I do think we should go to 4 quarters like women's and option of advancing ball on timeout. Both scenarios create exciting end of period/game scenarios/coaching strategy. I also like the 5 fouls and its immediately two shots in a quarter. This gets rid of 1-1 and is another counter balance to fouling too much. I want to emphasize fouls hurting the team but not the individual. I don't care as much about the goal tending rules...I think they are mostly fine as is. Don't want to change travel or five second rules. Would be ok with just about anything that fixes the block/charge call though. Finally, I'm very tired of going to the monitor every 5 seconds. If you want to review a play give the coach 1 challenge (non-foul...so out of bounds/goal tending/foot on the line etc) per half. They get it correct they get another challenge. Speed things up guys!

I never want the men to go to moving the ball up to the front court after a timeout.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, cybergates said:

I like the 6 foul rule(s). You can basically play a player in the 1st half UNTIL they have 3 fouls, so foul trouble would be reduced significantly.

The no foul shots at the end of the game would be a huge change. Not sure what to think of it, would probably have to see it in action before passing judgement, but it certainly would speed up the end of games on one hand. I could see how it might cause the leading team to foul at the end of the game in certain cases to give FTs over 3pts putting the pressure on the opposing coach to decide to whether to take the FTs or reset and run more clock off trying to get a 3.

I never understand taking a guy out for the rest of the half with two fouls.  I don't know when it started but I know RMK left them in until they got a 3rd foul in the first half.

Edited by IU Scott
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I never understand taking a guy out for the rest of the half with two fouls.  I don't know when it started but I know RMK left them in until they got sa 3rd fpoul in the first half.

Me either. In college, players have 1 foul per 8 mins. So if it was me I would let players play unless they exceeded their allotment.

Along the lines of:

Take a player out if they get 2 fouls in the 1st 8 mins, allow them to go back in at/after 14min mark.

Take a player out if they get 3 fouls in the 1st 16 mins, allow them to go back in 2nd half (technically 16min mark 2nd half but I wouldn't follow it exactly)

Take a player out if they get 4 fouls in the 1st 24 mins, allow them to go back with 8 mins left.

Edited by cybergates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I never understand taking a guy out for the rest of the half with two fouls.  I don't know when it started but I know RMK left them in until they got sa 3rd fpoul in the first half.

Totally a judgement call based on many circumstances. Many times I don’t agree with taking the player out; especially if that player is needed. However, if the team is maintaining a lead without him, then I don’t see any harm for keeping him on the bench in that situation. Hopefully all is moot and the rule will be changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players get 6 fouls in the NBA, but they play a 48 minute game.  I do not agree with the six foul rule in college since they play only 40 minutes.  I know nothingabout the "no foul shots at the end of the game" thing.  What does that mean?  How long before the game ends does that mean?  It seems that a team leading the game could just foul to their heart's content to stop the trailing team from shooting withoput penalty.  Make no senses to me.  If you want to go to four quarters, then extend the game to 48 minutes and just mirror the MBA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I never want the men to go to moving the ball up to the front court after a timeout.

I remember we disagreed about it before. I like adding an element of strategy...also creating more drama. The nba does it, women do it, not sure why college men couldn't. I understand you would likely never have another Christian Laettner type play ever again....but think of how many more Reggie Miller pushing Michael Jordan and nailing the 3 moments we would have. The OG hitting the 3 in the corner last year moments. Think it would increase the chances of a having a last second shot to win the game/sports center moments. That said I know you are more the traditionalist so I know I wouldn't convince you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IUguy said:

Players get 6 fouls in the NBA, but they play a 48 minute game.  I do not agree with the six foul rule in college since they play only 40 minutes.  I know nothingabout the "no foul shots at the end of the game" thing.  What does that mean?  How long before the game ends does that mean?  It seems that a team leading the game could just foul to their heart's content to stop the trailing team from shooting withoput penalty.  Make no senses to me.  If you want to go to four quarters, then extend the game to 48 minutes and just mirror the MBA.

No...the opposing team if trailing could elect to shoot free throws. Or if down 3 pts instead of shooting free throws could elect to take it out and possibly still attempt a 3. Also the fouls add up and players could foul out. The issue would be the trailing team could no longer foul to try to catch up. No more worries about say a fouling and giving up 1 or 2 points so you get more possessions and shoot 2's or 3's to catch up. Basically if you are up say 10 pts with 2 mins left it would become impossible for the opponent to catch up. No longer could they extend the game and hope you miss your free throws. You could theoretically just hold the ball for 30 seconds each possession and run the clock out because they would never get enough attempts to over take you even if you didn't make a fg. Would infinitely speed up the game but you wouldn't see the choking down the stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

Yes and here was the result. Ugly basketball and a parade to the free throw line. They dropped it after two seasons

thegraph

And that's a good con for the rule. The BIG EAST at that time was probably as physical and foul prone as the B1G is now. Perhaps go to 5 fouls and each additional foul is a technical foul on top of it. So you can keep a kid in but he would severely penalize you if he committed a 6th foul. Then again could use the rule two technicals would foul him out. I don't want to incentivize fouling like the rule previously seemed to do...but rather decentivize removing players from the game (star players particularly) just because they got in foul trouble or a game is being called way way too ticky tack.

Edited by dgambill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m tentative on this.  Overall I think I like six fouls with the three fouls on the first half idea.  It dampens the effect of some idiot ref calling an insanely ticky tack foul and suddenly a star has to sit for 12 minutes of the first half because the coach is terrified of the star getting his third in the first half.  

On the other hand, I don’t want games turning into slugfests like hand to hand combat.  The B1G office may have to address that.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I’m tentative on this.  Overall I think I like six fouls with the three fouls on the first half idea.  It dampens the effect of some idiot ref calling an insanely ticky tack foul and suddenly a star has to sit for 12 minutes of the first half because the coach is terrified of the star getting his third in the first half.  

On the other hand, I don’t want games turning into slugfests like hand to hand combat.  The B1G office may have to address that.  

The B1G front office should address the officiating and the physicality allowed regardless of if this rule change is implemented. They won't, but they should.

I was initially unsure if it would make a good change but after some thought and seeing what others have said, in particular that graph of the Big East, I'm very much hoping it doesn't pass. I think it would be bad for NCAA basketball. It seems like they're trying to be more like the NBA but allowing 6 fouls in a 40 minute game would have the opposite effect, I think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I remember we disagreed about it before. I like adding an element of strategy...also creating more drama. The nba does it, women do it, not sure why college men couldn't. I understand you would likely never have another Christian Laettner type play ever again....but think of how many more Reggie Miller pushing Michael Jordan and nailing the 3 moments we would have. The OG hitting the 3 in the corner last year moments. Think it would increase the chances of a having a last second shot to win the game/sports center moments. That said I know you are more the traditionalist so I know I wouldn't convince you. 

The thing is it is just not to the half court but all the way to the right in front of the bench.  I don't see why you should get rewarded by just calling a timeout.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I remember we disagreed about it before. I like adding an element of strategy...also creating more drama. The nba does it, women do it, not sure why college men couldn't. I understand you would likely never have another Christian Laettner type play ever again....but think of how many more Reggie Miller pushing Michael Jordan and nailing the 3 moments we would have. The OG hitting the 3 in the corner last year moments. Think it would increase the chances of a having a last second shot to win the game/sports center moments. That said I know you are more the traditionalist so I know I wouldn't convince you. 

It would also remove plays like Sugg's run down the court and hitting a long 3 with time expiring in the Final Four. Instead of letting the players play, they would've called a TO to advance the ball and set up a play. It would still be exciting but it would take away those rare amazing plays.

I'm indifferent to this potential change. If they make it I'm okay with with that but I'm also okay with it as it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

The thing is it is just not to the half court but all the way to the right in front of the bench.  I don't see why you should get rewarded by just calling a timeout.

Would it help you that it would be an incentive for coaches to save them and not use them after every made basket that we see now?? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, go_iu_bb said:

It would also remove plays like Sugg's run down the court and hitting a long 3 with time expiring in the Final Four. Instead of letting the players play, they would've called a TO to advance the ball and set up a play. It would still be exciting but it would take away those rare amazing plays.

I'm indifferent to this potential change. If they make it I'm okay with with that but I'm also okay with it as it is.

Well yes and no. I think Gonzaga had a timeout they still could have used. In that instance playing fast worked to their advantage because there was time to drive up the floor. I just think overall we would see more exciting finishes and more strategy at the end of games. Teams couldn’t just foul to make guys shoot 2 free throws when down 3 because the team would already be past half court and in a possible catch and shoot position. Times when the game clock is like under 2 seconds it makes it much more likely a chance to hit a shot instead of having to make a half court heave. In the end....say for example the percentage of last second game winning shots from half/full court is 1-100 is it any more exciting then say hitting a last second 3 from in bounds play...game winning shots are just awesome no matter where they come from imo. So if the chances rise to 1-10 that’s 10 more shots to celebrate. Anyways just my humble fan opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...