Well there’s a 50/50 chance they get the ball just because we got it last time.
I just don’t really think it’s an issue the way it is. I think the more important thing to address is the fact that it’s pretty much physically impossible not to be the last person to touch the ball if a defender pokes it out of your hand, yet the frame by frame replay thing is giving it to the defense. I am fully on board with a “if the defender pokes the ball out, the ball has to touch a body part of the offensive player besides the fingers to be the defense’s ball” rule.
if not position arrow, i will vote
rock-paper-scissors over the jump ball. being tall already has too much advantage in basketball.
Anything is better than awarding the ball to the defense in the last two minutes of a game after the zebras watch frame-by-frame replay for 15 minutes and convince themselves that although the defense slapped the ball out of a player’s hands that somehow it rolled off the offensive player’s fingertip last.
Rock-paper-scissors all day over that garbage.
EDIT: Hell, I’d even let X shoot a three up top for possession over the replay scenario.
That’s better than a 100/0 chance they get it because their player is a foot taller
Agree. Most soul-destroying feature of any tense college basketball game.
Another rule change not related to actual gameplay that I’ve wanted to see since it started is to have 16 seeds avoid the “first four” games in the NCAA tourney. As much as they try and make them seem like real tourney games they’re simply not, and I don’t think any auto bid team should have their season end at that stage.
I’m curious as to what others think about that area.
Will never happen because they want more relevant teams in the actual field, not fewer. It is completely unfair but it is the way it is gonna be
Yeah was gonna say this. They’re not gonna reduce the field, so that’d just make the 4 last at large teams to avoid play in game have to go to Dayton, which they’re not gonna want to do
Fair enough. It’s too bad that’s how it has to be.
Why not let teams choose the player, like they do in the opening tip? I’m not sure why it’s necessary for those two particular players to have to contest it.
I remember someone arguing that it’s just hard for referees to toss the ball straight up. Of course, that doesn’t explain why it’s OK for them to do it to start the game…
Tourney selection change I’d like to see: Second Chance Saturday —3 games, 6 teams from non-Power Conferences (Power5 + Big East & American) who did not win their conference tourney and are not locks to earn at large bids. The 3 winners earn auto bids and are seeded under same criteria as conference winners.
Neutral site triple header (perfect made-for-TV event). Announce the matchups on Thursday morning from a pool of teams that finished 1st or 2nd in conference regular season or runner-up in conference tourney.
Firms up the bubble (knocks off weak power conference teams that tend to sneak in with less-than-deserving resumes). Adds value to the conference regular season for lower conferences — eliminates some of the whole season boils down to 3/4 conference tournament games. Pushes the smaller conferences to have their Conference Tourneys done by Wednesday night, leaving Thu-Fri spotlight to Power Conference bubble teams. But gives a high profile game for perennially strong mid-major teams. And, perhaps most important to the powers-that-be, makes the NCAA more $$$ in TV rights and sponsorship packages.
That was one rationale I remember–refs struggled to do it well, had to blow their whistles and replay, etc. But if they can do it for the opening tip I don’t know why they can’t polish that little skill for later in games. . . I do worry about delays, though.
The opening tip doesn’t really matter, if you have a high leverage jump ball late in a game then a mediocre toss could be a big point of contention.
That was how I first thought about the play in games, but I’ve changed my mind. Those games are practically the only chances those schools will ever have to win an NCAA tournament game. They aren’t meaningless to them and it gives them something to put in their record books.
If I had my wish, it would be for the Tournament to return to 64 teams. I always feel there are several undeserving at-large teams each year in the 68-team edition.
With 68, I would also like to see only the at-large teams, the last eight in, play in the First Four games. That way all the play-in games are actually relevant to the viewer, and the 16-seeds each get to play a legitimate high-major opponent, as they should.
For the 16-seeds in the First Four, the play-in game is essentially a second conference tournament championship game that must be won to earn the right to play a blue blood.
Of course this format will not happen, but there’s no harm in sharing an opinion about the way things ought to be.