FIBA rules is the clear choice here IMO.
1 Like
I like four quarters too.
Iâm actually out on advancing the ball on a timeout though.
3 Likes
I hate that rule so much. Fewer but more memorable buzzer beaters >> more frequent but more forgettable buzzer beaters. Duke called timeout before the Laettner shot. Villanova called timeout before the Jenkins shot.
4 Likes
I donât know what it would change to do 4 quartersâŚI just know that it is totally weird that menâs college basketball is the only level in the entire sport that doesnât do it.
I hate the advance the ball after a timeout. Thatâs a total coach answer since they donât want to deal with dribbling and want to draw up their out of bounds play. It also explains why you didnât see âfewer timeoutsâ on the list even though that should be up there - coaches love them even if we hate them.
Now do this question for the fans!
1 Like
I donât understand why 4 quarters would make any meaningful change on the game. (Unless they went to bonus by quarter instead of half)
Bingo. Thats the only reason for me. You know those games where the refs get stupid out of halftime and put a team in the bonus five mins in? Quarters helps prevent that affecting the whole game.
6 Likes
How dare you leave out Jordan Poole
2 Likes
Good summary.
1 Like
Found Juwanâs answer.
7 Likes
I like âmore physicalityâ and âless physicalityâ both being suggestions. If people are upset on both sides of the spectrum, maybe we hit our sweet spot!
The FIBA goaltend is just eliminating the âcylinderâ on rebounds, right?
Thereâs been lots of talk of charge reform (not just in college), I donât think you should (can?) ban itâŚperimeter defenders should still be rewarded for beating a dribbler to the spot, etc., but I think people mostly talk about defenders coming under airborne scorers, right? The most convincing thing I see is just to ban that specific sort of charge, or at least expand the circle.
2 Likes
Yeah Iâm as anti-charge as they come and the more Iâve thought about it the more I think the charge I find objectionable is always about the secondary defender sliding in. The primary defender getting to that spot first is impressive and obviously very good defense and should he rewarded.
3 Likes
The secondary defender thing is what people are talking about when they say ban the charge.
They also already put a new rule in this year:
Yeah, the secondary defender thing makes sense I think - only your primary defender can draw a charge. Maybe a bit fraught in zone
The problem is when they call a charge on someone thatâs committed to picking up their dribble and going into their shot/layup/dunk and THEN someone slides over. You want to penalize someone recklessly launching themselves at the basket no matter what is in front of them. But I think you also want to penalize someone recklessly jumping in front of someone thatâs in the middle of their move.
3 Likes
Reckless launching isnât useful bc it wonât result in made shots
Players do a lot of things that are not optimal basketball, rules can encourage or discourage those things but canât eliminate them. I think that expanding the circle under the basket in which you cannot draw a charge would help cut down on dangerous charge attempts without giving all claims to space to the offensive players at all times.
Elam ending is the right answer
Iâm not sure a 24-second clock would be good for the college game. These guys arenât as skilled as the pros.
As for the 20-minute halves, I like them just because itâs a unique thing. I think the more you make the college rules like the NBAâs, the more obvious it becomes that itâs a lesser-quality product. I would aim to keep it as different as possible.
2 Likes
jemblue - You make a great point that I had never thought of: The reason a 24-second shot clock (sort of) works for professional basketball is that they have superior skills to actually get a semi-decent shot off in 24 seconds. Can you imagine the chucking that would go on in college basketball with a 24 second clock?
1 Like