dgambill Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 5 minutes ago, IU Scott said: No, because I hate this rule and won't change that opinion All good. You’ve always stuck to your opinion fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuthruandthru Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 I personally love the option for a team to decline free throws and take a throw in instead. At the end of the game down by three I want the game decided by good defense or a great offensive bucket, not allowing the other team to foul their way into a win. This rule is the one that I would be for the most. I also agree just move the game to quarters. I might also be ok with the euro step and other moves like that but not completely sure yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 For people who want 4 quarters what difference would it make to the game over two halfs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go_iu_bb Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 17 minutes ago, dgambill said: 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. I get that and I don't think it's a bad think. I'm just saying that it'll make some of the more memorable plays that could've happened not happen at all and the others might not be as memorable. 30 years later people still remember the Hill to Laettner pass then Laettner's shot. The pass is what really made it memorable. While not as incredible of a play, I think Sugg's shot will be remembered for a long time, too, because it wasn't just a catch and shoot situation. I really believe if this rule was in effect that Few would've called a timeout in that situation (they did have a timeout) instead of letting them play as he did. It would be the smart coaching move because ~3.5 seconds to run a play from 1/2 court would yield a higher percentage play than running down the court and jacking up a shot in that time frame. I agree that it would make close games a bit more exciting the last few seconds and we'd get more of those. My point was just that we lose the potential for some of the really memorable plays. I'm not saying either way is better, just pointing it out. I don't mind either way how they vote on this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier51 Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 Awarding the ball to the defense when they create a held ball situation is one that I hope they do pass. The defense should get the benefit in this situation. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 "Making the Euro-Step legal"? Uh, I musta seen 2 or 3 of those every college game I watched, so it's not like it's called now...As a matter of fact, I never saw it called travelling one time... And if they want to change the game just because, get rid of the jump ball to start the game...It adds nothing and half of the referees can't get the toss up right anyway... Let the visiting team have the ball out of bounds in the first half to start the game, and the home team to start the second... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jv1972iu Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 11 minutes ago, IUFLA said: "Making the Euro-Step legal"? Uh, I musta seen 2 or 3 of those every college game I watched, so it's not like it's called now...As a matter of fact, I never saw it called travelling one time... And if they want to change the game just because, get rid of the jump ball to start the game...It adds nothing and half of the referees can't get the toss up right anyway... Let the visiting team have the ball out of bounds in the first half to start the game, and the home team to start the second... And to think that up until 1938 the rule was that a center court jump ball happened after each made basket. No wonder teams literally sat on the ball once they got a lead. 😁 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 My opinions on some of the proposed changes Held ball going to defense, I'm not opposed to it, but there better be clear definition of who is on defense. Example, IU shoots, misses, and Purdue player gets two hands on ball while in air for rebound. As soon as both feet touch down on the floor, IU player reaches in and creates a held ball. Who is on defense? Did Purdue really have the ball long enough to be considered on offense? I see some issues there unless it is explicitly addressed by the rule. I would hate to lose 1 and 1 free throws. The pressure of a 1 and 1 free throw in the last minute of a tight game is among the most intense experiences you get in basketball. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuthruandthru Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 2 hours ago, IU Scott said: For people who want 4 quarters what difference would it make to the game over two halfs More pee breaks 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 Based on the current path, I can see these proposed rules changes at some point in the next 50 years. The game shall be played with each team having 13 players on the court at the same time. This way, no athlete is given preferential treatment over another. Dribbling shall be eliminated. The object of the game is to score. The ball cannot be scored when it is not firmly in the possession of the player before he shoots. Plus it eliminates the boring play of dribbling out the clock for one shot at the end of the half. No coaches are allowed on the bench during the game. Each player will receive guidance from his agent during time outs and at halftime. If a player fouls out during the game, the impacted team is allowed to pull a fan from the stands to maintain the 13 player rule on the court. This will encourage teams to keep their alumni players close to the program. Instead of Gatorade and water on the bench, the players have access to a fully stocked bar. Tell me the game would not be more entertaining. The last two minutes of the game would be epic, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 16 minutes ago, iuthruandthru said: More pee breaks 😂 4 quarters you would have less pee breaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted April 14, 2021 Report Share Posted April 14, 2021 Why do the six fouls rule then make it so confusing? I don't like the international offensive goal tend rule. I do like widening the lane. I do like limiting timeouts. I DO NOT like allowing teams to turn down free throws. I don't like eliminating ten second calls or five second closely guarded calls. If anything, I want ten seconds changed to eight. I think the held-ball rule is a step in the right directiom, but it would be better to do a jump ball. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 49 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: Why do the six fouls rule then make it so confusing? I don't like the international offensive goal tend rule. I do like widening the lane. I do like limiting timeouts. I DO NOT like allowing teams to turn down free throws. I don't like eliminating ten second calls or five second closely guarded calls. If anything, I want ten seconds changed to eight. I think the held-ball rule is a step in the right directiom, but it would be better to do a jump ball. I was going to quote you to reply to each of you points but I agree with everything you said. 👍 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steubenhoosier Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 I don’t like the change that would require @5foulsto have to change his name. Sure he’s changed his name enough already to avoid alimony payments. Shouldn’t have to change his name here just because of some rule change 😂😂 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 Just now, Steubenhoosier said: I don’t like the change that would require @5foulsto have to change his name. Sure he’s changed his name enough already to avoid alimony payments. Shouldn’t have to change his name here just because of some rule change 😂😂 I had not thought of that angle. But, you are correct. NCAA would seriously overstep their bounds if they push that through. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go_iu_bb Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 1 hour ago, 5fouls said: Based on the current path, I can see these proposed rules changes at some point in the next 50 years. The game shall be played with each team having 13 players on the court at the same time. This way, no athlete is given preferential treatment over another. Dribbling shall be eliminated. The object of the game is to score. The ball cannot be scored when it is not firmly in the possession of the player before he shoots. Plus it eliminates the boring play of dribbling out the clock for one shot at the end of the half. No coaches are allowed on the bench during the game. Each player will receive guidance from his agent during time outs and at halftime. If a player fouls out during the game, the impacted team is allowed to pull a fan from the stands to maintain the 13 player rule on the court. This will encourage teams to keep their alumni players close to the program. Instead of Gatorade and water on the bench, the players have access to a fully stocked bar. Tell me the game would not be more entertaining. The last two minutes of the game would be epic, Did you know that when it was first invented, dribbling was not allowed in basketball? Then the rule was changed to allow for one bounce but the player then had to pass the ball. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steubenhoosier Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 16 minutes ago, 5fouls said: I had not thought of that angle. But, you are correct. NCAA would seriously overstep their bounds if they push that through. Just tryna look out for you, my friend 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgambill Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 3 hours ago, jv1972iu said: And to think that up until 1938 the rule was that a center court jump ball happened after each made basket. No wonder teams literally sat on the ball once they got a lead. 😁 And Scott Sr probably complained when they contemplated changing it lol!! 😝 just kidding Scott! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indykev Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 10 hours ago, tdhoosier said: The six foul rule is LONG overdue. not if a guy can be tossed for 4. Then its the 4 foul rule. Give them 6 and let them play. If they get 3 a half there will be a lot of fouls taken at the end of halfs. The ncaa cant do anything simple, they have to put some supid spin on it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluegrassIU Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 Just now, Indykev said: not if a guy can be tossed for 4. Then its the 4 foul rule. Give them 6 and let them play. If they get 3 a half there will be a lot of fouls taken at the end of halfs. The ncaa cant do anything simple, they have to put some supid spin on it. Quit changing your avatar, its messing with my head! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indykev Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 1 minute ago, bluegrassIU said: Quit changing your avatar, its messing with my head! Now it must be my mission!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indykev Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 2 hours ago, 5fouls said: Based on the current path, I can see these proposed rules changes at some point in the next 50 years. The game shall be played with each team having 13 players on the court at the same time. This way, no athlete is given preferential treatment over another. Dribbling shall be eliminated. The object of the game is to score. The ball cannot be scored when it is not firmly in the possession of the player before he shoots. Plus it eliminates the boring play of dribbling out the clock for one shot at the end of the half. No coaches are allowed on the bench during the game. Each player will receive guidance from his agent during time outs and at halftime. If a player fouls out during the game, the impacted team is allowed to pull a fan from the stands to maintain the 13 player rule on the court. This will encourage teams to keep their alumni players close to the program. Instead of Gatorade and water on the bench, the players have access to a fully stocked bar. Tell me the game would not be more entertaining. The last two minutes of the game would be epic, I hate to break it to you. if these changes come in year 50 you wont see them... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iuthruandthru Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 5 hours ago, IU Scott said: 4 quarters you would have less pee breaks. Way to ruin my joke Scott, gheez 😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Indykev said: I hate to break it to you. if these changes come in year 50 you wont see them... Not sure about that. They say getting divorced can add 10 years to your life. If so, I can go for about 90 years longer than the average person. Edited April 15, 2021 by 5fouls 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted April 15, 2021 Report Share Posted April 15, 2021 12 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Not sure about that. They say getting divorced can add 10 years to your life. If so, I can go for about 90 years longer than the average person. I think you got that reversed. It takes 10 years off your life. You sir, are in trouble. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.