I don't disagree with you, it's just that I know how desperate people respond. A large part of what makes college basketball great is the unthinkable happening. There is always a chance. That's why I mentioned teams down four end up losing by ten. They take crazy risks that have little chances of working.
Elam Ending.
- Thread starter Dr. H Lecter
- Start date
I don't disagree with you, it's just that I know how desperate people respond. A large part of what makes college basketball great is the unthinkable happening. There is always a chance. That's why I mentioned teams down four end up losing by ten. They take crazy risks that have little chances of working.
Good points jb. When do you guys hire a new mod? Who do I submit my resume to? I’d gladly help patrol rafters with an iron fist, and be your go to mod. TIA
I suppose, but it's about making the numbers not favor the unwanted aspects.
Teams will shoot from 90 feet as the buzzer sounds, but removing the clock removes that as a strategy that is the most beneficial, however desperate it was to begin with.
Elam ending does that with fouling. It's no longer the best strategy for catching up.
I'm not necessarily in favor of it. I don't hate the current end of game scenarios. But it would eliminate the fouling, and doing it before the Elam ending cutoff isn't viable because then you're without your best players at the end.
Nope. Not remotely. Not after a lifetime of watching game winners slip in at the buzzer.
Nope. That stuff happens by and large only in the last minute when it happens, and I even padded it another whole minute when I said two minutes of good basketball instead of three.
Only two kinds of games I and most people ever watch. One is own team, in which case I am happy watching every second because I love my team and at very best I can expect to spend about 80 hours a /year/ getting to watch them play basketball. The other is watching rivals play tough opponents—-where if the rival’s blowing someone out I’ve turned it off by halftime and if they’re getting blown out I want to savor every second of it.
I agree with some others that the most likely result of instituting this Elam thing is just move the fouling from the 19-minute mark to the fifteen-minute mark and leave us all short a few minutes of basketball, with never again the excitement of a buzzer-beater and never again the excitement of going to overtime.
You know what else would eliminate the hard fouling and the occasional tedium of the last minute of a basketball clock? Skipping the whole second half and just flipping for it instead.
Maybe we should try that.
It would obviously be too big of a culture shock to ever get adopted by the NCAA or NBA, but the folks in this thread speaking out against the Elam ending have obviously never seen a game using it. It accomplishes every thing it claims to.
There is no incentive to foul intentionally because there is no clock to stop. If you are behind, all of the emphasis at the end is put towards making defensive stops while you slowly chip away at the lead on the offensive end. No lead is too big as long as you can keep the other team from scoring in the last "4 minutes." Plus every game ends on a made bucket.
There is no incentive to foul intentionally because there is no clock to stop. If you are behind, all of the emphasis at the end is put towards making defensive stops while you slowly chip away at the lead on the offensive end. No lead is too big as long as you can keep the other team from scoring in the last "4 minutes." Plus every game ends on a made bucket.
Last edited:
It's not cutting two minutes of "good basketball", instead it's making the games' final two minutes "better" basketball.
The final two minutes are still the most intense and exciting under this ending, the only difference is those minutes are played hard and straight up ....they don't turn into tedious slogs where play is constantly stopped leaving us bored as we endlessly watch players just walk back and forth between the free throw lines.
I suggest some of you guys might try watching next week's games with a more open mind. I watched a couple this week, and was surprised how well it worked. Exciting close endings, with late comebacks, thrilling game winning shots, but NO part where it devolved into a free throw shooting contest. So far, the rule has been working exactly the way they hoped it would.
Last edited:
Yep, this is another cool thing about the rule: it makes even blowouts more interesting.
Teams with a huge lead can't just half *** it and run out the clock in the final minutes, instead they have to keep playing hard pushing for that final basket. Which also keeps the fans more engaged, if every game must end on a game winning basket, then more fans will want to stay to see the game winner go through.
I haven't watched any of these but why would a team ever let the team behind to shoot a 3 after the clock is turned off? Or even shoot a 2, just foul as soon as possible and put the team behind at the line. The team in the lead would just need 7 possessions max on avg. to win ( with most teams avg at least a point per possession) so unless the score is just within a 5 points or fewer, even if they shoot 100% from the line the team behind could not make up the difference. It's early so maybe my thinking is wrong if so please be gentle lol
Last edited:
This makes no sense. Teams wouldn't do that for an obvious reason: it's a lot friggin easier to hit free throws than a contested jumper with a defender in your face. If the goal is to prevent the other team from getting 7 more points in the final minutes, then intentionally fouling and giving up three free throws on every possession would be a suicidal strategy.
Some of you guys are trying to make up problems with this rule that don't actually exist. In no way whatsoever does it encourage more fouling, instead it clearly does the OPPOSITE, it removes the incentive to intentional foul and instead increases the incentive to pursue defensive stops in the final minutes by playing straight up hard-nosed defense.
Last edited:
I like the post earlier, at some point make fouls 2 shots and the ball to stop the intentional fouls and we keep buzzer beaters.
Best of both worlds.
I call it the...
wait for it...
Agee Ending
Best of both worlds.
I call it the...
wait for it...
Agee Ending
I didn't say the team behind foul, reread the post. If the team in the lead fouls the other team would not be able to score enough if the team in the lead scores their 7 pts in 7 possessions or less. Explain why this isn't true?
Because it's not true. Honestly, you sound really confused about what the rule is. Nothing you're saying makes sense. First off, you do realize more than one free throw is awarded per intentional foul, right? If you're being gifted (at least) two or three freebies on every possession you can obviously make up 7 points in less than 7 possessions. Second, I don't know why you're even talking about "7 possessions or less", as possession count has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule.
So, no, your premise is still very wrong. If the leading team intentionally fouls each possession, then it's giving up at least two or three free throws on every possession (and possibly more plus the ball if the intentional fouls are ruled flagrants). A losing team obviously does not need as many defensive stops to make up a deficit when it's being gifted freebies on every possession.
Last edited:
OK you're probably right like I said it is early lol. I must be totally not understanding. I was going by this description in the thread "So, if my team is up by 10 when the Elam Ending activates, I need to score seven points before my opponent scores 17." in this secnerio the team ahead would, if they scored the avg points per possession most team do (1.1) it would only take them 7 possessions or less to hit the target score. If they fouled the other team on their alternate 7 possessions the team would have to score 17 points on 7 trips to the line. But I was going by someone's post and probably have it all screwed up. I love end of game shots, buzzer beaters, overtimes so I like the game the way it is. Sorry for my ignorance though
The incentive is placed on SCORING rather than killing clock. Currently the D is motivated to stop the clock and to do so you must foul and cross your fingers that you fouled the right guy. With EE the motivation for both O and D is to do what you do the rest of the game. SCORE or stop the guy from scoring. That is the motivation for all but the final minutes when the game gets bogged down in "stall" to kill clock and of course stop the clock by fouling. As noted above....the EE works exactly as described. It's worth further examination for unintended consequences.
Does anyone know what the EE does in a case where you are tied just below the end score and there is a Double Tech where both teams shoot fouls to tie or exceed the EE cap? Sudden death score after jump ball????
Does anyone know what the EE does in a case where you are tied just below the end score and there is a Double Tech where both teams shoot fouls to tie or exceed the EE cap? Sudden death score after jump ball????
I would have to see how it affects the end of the close games. The games where two heavy weights are going bucket for bucket at the end with very little fouling, certainly none intentional , to put the other team on the line
It seems as though resetting to this format would kind of kill that momentum (I understand each possession would remain just as important). For me, there is also some what of a strategy, at the end of close games, in managing that clock to insure you get the last shot or even a two for one...
I know most games aren’t within a bucket at the end, but those are the games I enjoy, so wouldn’t want those altered.
Admittedly, I have not seen the format used, so like most things I’m ignorant to, i would have to watch it a few times before making final judgement.
I’ve have seen some good arguments for it in this thread, by some folks, in my opinion, that know basketball.
It seems as though resetting to this format would kind of kill that momentum (I understand each possession would remain just as important). For me, there is also some what of a strategy, at the end of close games, in managing that clock to insure you get the last shot or even a two for one...
I know most games aren’t within a bucket at the end, but those are the games I enjoy, so wouldn’t want those altered.
Admittedly, I have not seen the format used, so like most things I’m ignorant to, i would have to watch it a few times before making final judgement.
I’ve have seen some good arguments for it in this thread, by some folks, in my opinion, that know basketball.
Totally agree. If the NCAA would grow a pair and start penalizing teams for intentional fouls, the end game idiocy would stop, IMO. No need to go to extremes, and that's what this is to me.
I'm an old man (51) and absolutely capable of trotting out every objection to something new. I did as soon as I saw this ending, in action, last year in Atlanta. I was at the TBT games and had no idea what was happening. The more I saw, however, the more I realized I preferred it.
The TBT games are still happening, I believe. I'd encourage anyone who doesn't quite understand it to watch a game this weekend and then weigh in. I'm not suggesting it's best for everyone but I think it's worth a look.
The TBT games are still happening, I believe. I'd encourage anyone who doesn't quite understand it to watch a game this weekend and then weigh in. I'm not suggesting it's best for everyone but I think it's worth a look.
This is how it went with me as well. The first time I saw it, I thought "What the hell? This is stupid."
But I kept watching and realized "hey, this is exciting and makes sense." It removes intentional fouls. The losing team is never out of time as long as it keeps getting defensive stops. The winning team still has to play hard even if way ahead because it still needs to get to that final bucket. And, instead of just one last second shot scenario, it can give the equivalent of several in a row where teams are fighting to see who can get that game winning bucket.
Last edited:
But that wouldn’t make you sound super cool and it’s not weird enough. Must sound super weird to make you seem enlightened above all. Get with the times. Confusing is better because it shows how well you think, never mind if these people had their way the entire sport would resemble something else entirely and screw everything up.
Not to mention less stoppages intended to stop the clock.
And no one is constantly stopping the game!
A
anon_013cn8yrfncx2
Guest
Not for UK. Just means Cal will start running clock with about 12 minutes left instead of 8 if he has a lead.
This is the simple answer to the problem. Instead of trying to reinvent the game just make the foul strategy costly enough so that it's no longer a good idea.
This whole Elam rule sounds stupid. For starters there are worse things in the game of basketball than fouling at the end. It's a problem but not a big enough problem that we need to completely redo how the game is played to fix it. Besides it probably wouldn't fix it as you would just start fouling before the 4 minute mark to try to desperately narrow the gap before the rule is triggered.
In addition you basically end the exciting last second shots from mid court. No one would take that shot since the clock is basically dead. It would likely make the game more deliberate at the end instead of action packed since the new strategy would be to take no shot except a close in one.
This rule could cause other bad outcomes such as extending a game beyond 40 minutes which makes it more likely that the best players can foul out. You now have the game being decided by bench players instead of the stars of the game.
Like stated above just increase the foul shot attempts and call it a day.