MUScoop

Personally, I like it.  All business way to end games.

Entertaining.

It's awesome in TBT. I'm not sure I'd like it in all forms of basketball. I like overtime, I like buzzer beaters. It's better than the foul fest, but it's not the perfect change. If a team is chasing, I'd rather see 2 shots and the ball for fouls designed to so the clock.

It would be very difficult to get past the monumental change it would have on the game... but man it's nice as a viewer.

I like it. My only change would be that it kicks in at the first natural stoppage - foul or out of bounds - after the 4:00 mark. I don't like that you can trigger it with a timeout.

Like it in some instances. Don't like the win on free throws. Don't like that there's no overtime or anything. I think there should be a win by two or something. Yesterday when it's 57-58 and it goes on I don't care for.

Hard pass. My biggest problem with the Elam Ending is you're changing basketball from a timed game to a points based game 3/4 of the way through the game.

Gotta keep it consistent. Keep it 100% timed, or you may as well say first one to 80 wins.

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 07, 2019, 12:07:39 PM
It's awesome in TBT. I'm not sure I'd like it in all forms of basketball. I like overtime, I like buzzer beaters. It's better than the foul fest, but it's not the perfect change. If a team is chasing, I'd rather see 2 shots and the ball for fouls designed to so the clock.

I agree with this.  TBT is a perfect place for it.  It might work in some other tournaments like the NIT or CBI, but I wouldn't want it in regular NCAA or HS games.

Not a fan at all.  Refs don't want to blow their whistle and let a team get 25% of the points they need to win the game without having to "earn" it, so teams just start hacking the heck out of each other and it turns into terrible basketball.  Or one team is up so big that both teams are just chucking three pointers for a while and it turns into a brick fest.

Not to mention it's supposed to make the end of games exciting unlike the "foul fests," yet the "excitement" of winning $2M was...making 2 free throws?  Talk about anticlimactic.

Not a fan.

There are things that basketball could do to shorten the end of games.  Eliminate the one-and-one.  Limit the situations where timeouts can be called at the end of games.  Have less timeouts overall.  But artificially changing the game from a timed one to a point one shouldn't be one of them.

Quote from: wadesworld on August 07, 2019, 12:37:11 PM
Not a fan at all.  Refs don't want to blow their whistle and let a team get 25% of the points they need to win the game without having to "earn" it, so teams just start hacking the heck out of each other and it turns into terrible basketball.  Or one team is up so big that both teams are just chucking three pointers for a while and it turns into a brick fest.

Not to mention it's supposed to make the end of games exciting unlike the "foul fests," yet the "excitement" of winning $2M was...making 2 free throws?  Talk about anticlimactic.

To your first paragraph, all that can be corrected in the referee education.  Every innovation has bugs... doesn't mean you don't work them out.

To the latter, as someone who obviously has never seen the movie Hoosiers, you no longer have any credibility on this board... the penultimate act concludes on a Sectional Final game won on two FT's.  Granny shots, no less.  I'll defer to the literary experts, but I believe that scene more than qualifies as "exciting."

Quote from: Benny B on August 07, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
To your first paragraph, all that can be corrected in the referee education.  Every innovation has bugs... doesn't mean you don't work them out.

To the latter, as someone who obviously has never seen the movie Hoosiers, you no longer have any credibility on this board... the penultimate act concludes on a Sectional Final game won on two FT's.  Granny shots, no less.  I'll defer to the literary experts, but I believe that scene more than qualifies as "exciting."

You realize that was fiction right?

Quote from: wadesworld on August 07, 2019, 12:37:11 PM
Not a fan at all.  Refs don't want to blow their whistle and let a team get 25% of the points they need to win the game without having to "earn" it, so teams just start hacking the heck out of each other and it turns into terrible basketball.  Or one team is up so big that both teams are just chucking three pointers for a while and it turns into a brick fest.

Not to mention it's supposed to make the end of games exciting unlike the "foul fests," yet the "excitement" of winning $2M was...making 2 free throws?  Talk about anticlimactic.

Cook made a really stupid foul that wouldn't have been awful in regular basketball but was very dumb in Elam. That was the player not the mode.

My view on the Elam.  It's perfect in tourneys like TBT, especially the way it was originally constructed with something like 9 or 10 games at a particular venue on opening day.  Nothing drags and they got all the games in during the allotted time slots.  But I'd never change the timed ending of basketball in major leagues like the NCAA or NBA.

Doubt we would ever see the Elam-type ending in college or pro BB.  Seems silly to set a target score at an arbitrary point.  If it ever came to that, why not just have a standard target score for every game and adjust timeouts, half/quarter breaks, fouls, FTs, etc. to reflect score levels within the game.  Hate Elam, it's just a summer gimmick.

Ironic...

Just got an email from one of our youth leagues saying they are going to start experimenting with Elam endings at some tournaments this year.

I had a couple games go to triple ot during tournaments and didn't get out until like 3. I enjoy this

Quote from: Nukem2 on August 07, 2019, 12:59:44 PM
Doubt we would ever see the Elam-type ending in college or pro BB.  Seems silly to set a target score at an arbitrary point.  If it ever came to that, why not just have a standard target score for every game and adjust timeouts, half/quarter breaks, fouls, FTs, etc. to reflect score levels within the game.  Hate Elam, it's just a summer gimmick.

Yup, that's exactly where I stand. I'd rather just see first to 80 wins

It's fun at the level that it's used at. I would like to see a variant, where the Elam rule triggers the clock for remaining time. Said another way, when a team reaches 68, that triggers a clock of, say, 5 minutes. I get the excitement of a bucket ending every game, but the miraculous recovery/response/comeback etc. is what makes basketball great.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on August 07, 2019, 01:04:12 PM
Yup, that's exactly where I stand. I'd rather just see first to 80 wins

Part of the attraction of Elam is you know about how long the game will last. The regular clock for 32 minutes insures that. First to 80 completely undermines that objective. Two fast paced teams might get there in 90 minutes. Two slow paced teams might take 150 minutes.

Set time plus a set target score is consistent and the rules are the same for every team every time. For this setting, it's great.

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 07, 2019, 01:52:39 PM
Part of the attraction of Elam is you know about how long the game will last. The regular clock for 32 minutes insures that. First to 80 completely undermines that objective. Two fast paced teams might get there in 90 minutes. Two slow paced teams might take 150 minutes.

Set time plus a set target score is consistent and the rules are the same for every team every time. For this setting, it's great.

Agreed relative to the TBT setting.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on August 07, 2019, 01:04:12 PM
Yup, that's exactly where I stand. I'd rather just see first to 80 wins

But UW may never finish a game that way.

The Scoop Super Majority has ordained the Elam Ending.  And, so it is written.

I love it and I can't find one good reason posted here that doesn't have an easy counter-argument.  Every game ending on a made basket is amazing (even if just a free throw).  You can no longer just run the clock out.  You have to go win the game.  Plus you can still win no matter how far down you are if you can play defense and rebound.  Some people say that they don't like that the end of the game is different than the rest of the game.  Hello?????  Do you watch regular basketball now?  Where they try to foul the worst free throw shooter on the other team, drag the game out as much as possible, call a million timeouts, and do everything completely differently from the first 90% of the game?

Give me one actual good reason that it's not better and I will give you a reason you're wrong.  Plus...scoreboard.  Seems most people here are a fan.

I might like to see it tweaked slightly, but compared to how games are ended now I fully support it.

For example, I'd just assume see them play 4 equal-length quarters.  Then when the 4th quarter ends, the Elam ending begins.  That way teams don't waste a timeout or foul to kick it into gear.  So instead of 3 9-minute quarters where the last quarter is really only 5 minutes before it begins (so 32 minutes of play before Elam Ending), just play 4 8-minute quarters in their entirety, and then it starts.  You could then also reset team fouls to 0 and make it so free throws don't start until 3 team fouls (or 5 again, or whatever seems to make sense) during the Elam Ending.  That way people aren't going to the line so quickly on regular fouls too.

That's the main thing I'd like to see adjusted, but otherwise it's terrific.

I could also see tweaking to a made field goal. Any free throws from fouls that result in both a lead and equaling or exceeding the target score returns the ball to the scoring team but to end the game it has to be a shot from the field.

I like the 8-minute quarters too.

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 07, 2019, 04:19:40 PM
I could also see tweaking to a made field goal. Any free throws from fouls that result in both a lead and equaling or exceeding the target score returns the ball to the scoring team but to end the game it has to be a shot from the field.

I like the 8-minute quarters too.

This doesn't work because you end up in the same scenario that you have now, where teams would start to purposefully foul when the opponent is within 1 to 3 points of winning.  This then means the target score isn't really the target score and it opens the door for the games to really drag on, and essentially mimics what is already happening in games today and seems like it defeats the whole purpose.  Starting the ending after the 4th quarter and resetting team fouls to 0 like they do after every other quarter at least makes it so non-shooting fouls don't result in immediate free throws.

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 07, 2019, 04:19:40 PM
I could also see tweaking to a made field goal. Any free throws from fouls that result in both a lead and equaling or exceeding the target score returns the ball to the scoring team but to end the game it has to be a shot from the field.

I like the 8-minute quarters too.

Honestly, the game would turn into a hackfest like playing to 21 in the park does.

Its fine as a gimmick, bad as a regular idea.

People comment on stalling being eliminated at the end of the game. All that would be accomplished would be shifting that phase of the game earlier. Where the team that would be up, would stall until the beginning of the Elam ending.

Eventually, you would see the team that is down, then fouling to keep the game moving and to battle back before the beginning of the Elam ending.

Nothing overtly would change in regards to stall tactics, overtime, it would just shift to earlier in the game.

Quote from: forgetful on August 07, 2019, 05:13:56 PM
Its fine as a gimmick, bad as a regular idea.

People comment on stalling being eliminated at the end of the game. All that would be accomplished would be shifting that phase of the game earlier. Where the team that would be up, would stall until the beginning of the Elam ending.

Eventually, you would see the team that is down, then fouling to keep the game moving and to battle back before the beginning of the Elam ending.

Nothing overtly would change in regards to stall tactics, overtime, it would just shift to earlier in the game.

Stalling only hurts a team in Elam. You want to have a greater lead, because either way you have to score 8 at the end. Stalling would just keep a score closer.

Quote from: forgetful on August 07, 2019, 05:13:56 PM
Its fine as a gimmick, bad as a regular idea.

People comment on stalling being eliminated at the end of the game. All that would be accomplished would be shifting that phase of the game earlier. Where the team that would be up, would stall until the beginning of the Elam ending.

Eventually, you would see the team that is down, then fouling to keep the game moving and to battle back before the beginning of the Elam ending.

Nothing overtly would change in regards to stall tactics, overtime, it would just shift to earlier in the game.

Can you name even one game in the TBT where this actually happened?

Quote from: TheyWereCones on August 07, 2019, 06:02:52 PM
Can you name even one game in the TBT where this actually happened?

Well, it is a very small sample size so far......

Quote from: TheyWereCones on August 07, 2019, 06:02:52 PM
Can you name even one game in the TBT where this actually happened?

Quote from: Nukem2 on August 07, 2019, 06:42:29 PM
Well, it is a very small sample size so far......

This.

And, right now you don't have a ton of data analytics, and extensive planning on how to best prepare for the Elam ending.

The two general things are pretty evident from a superficial analysis.

Keep you best players fresh for the Elam ending, avoid injury. That can/will lead to stalling if you are ahead. Also, do not allow the other team to close the gap. That means, stalling is a the low risk option.

If you are down. Extend the game up to the Elam ending. You need to close the gap as much as possible before Elam-time. That means all the "extend the game" tactics currently used will shift to the before Elam-time period.

Once everyone adapts to it, the end of game strategies that people dislike, will shift forward to before Elam-time. Why? Because it is still a timed game up to then, where the goal is to minimize the point spread (if down), or get to the Elam-time (if up significantly). The strategies used at the end of game now, are equally the best strategies leading for any "end of time" scenario, including pre-Elam-Time.

with all due respect, if you are going to do a survey, one shouldn't follow an option with an obvious bias. 

  great rule-period

  no, allow games to play out-period

let's say, as i did vote that i didn't like it.  here's my version of the survey-

  great rule, BUT plays to the referees favor cuz they can still get a table for 3 at gibsons before closing time

  no, let the games end by having game clock expire, because it provides for a more accurate portrayal of the better team using all facets of the game whether it be free throws, full court press, depth of bench, mental and physical toughness and bench coaching

Quote from: #UnleashCain on August 07, 2019, 04:28:35 PM
Honestly, the game would turn into a hackfest like playing to 21 in the park does.

If every foul is two shots and the ball, hackfest doesn't work. You will never get the ball back unless you defend straight up. Fouling will just make it harder and harder to win as the opponents increase your target score & foul your players out.

Basically, every foul would be a 2-shot technical. That doesn't encourage hacking.

It is good for the TBT but not for the real games. You would miss too many great comebacks like MU/Davidson. It takes away fouling as a strategy to keep the game in reach. Also with it only being 8pts two bad TOS put the game out of reach like this finals.

It's great for this TBT format and its nice to have a different format.
don't want to see it in NCAA or NBA.

Quote from: BallBoy on August 07, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
It is good for the TBT but not for the real games. You would miss too many great comebacks like MU/Davidson. It takes away fouling as a strategy to keep the game in reach. Also with it only being 8pts two bad TOS put the game out of reach like this finals.

smh

Think hard about what you just said. 

Quote from: BallBoy on August 07, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
It is good for the TBT but not for the real games. You would miss too many great comebacks like MU/Davidson. It takes away fouling as a strategy to keep the game in reach. Also with it only being 8pts two bad TOS put the game out of reach like this finals.

I like it because the end of a college basketball game is too many fouls, strategic timeouts to stop the clock and (in the last few years) the maddening 5 minutes of looking a ref's backsides while they stare at the monitor.

College basketball has a problem ending their games.  Takes too long and the flow of the game is gone.  This has to be fixed, Elam ending or not.

(PS why is it called Elam?)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on August 08, 2019, 12:17:56 AM
I like it because the end of a college basketball game is too many fouls, strategic timeouts to stop the clock and (in the last few years) the maddening 5 minutes of looking a ref's backsides while they stare at the monitor.

College basketball has a problem ending their games.  Takes too long and the flow of the game is gone.  This has to be fixed, Elam ending or not.

(PS why is it called Elam?)

Named after Nick Elam, a Ball St. prof who created the ending,

Like it when we win, dont like it when we lose.

I haveto guess this question is asking for the tbt only, all of basketball? Who knows the questions intent?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on August 08, 2019, 12:17:56 AM
I like it because the end of a college basketball game is too many fouls, strategic timeouts to stop the clock and (in the last few years) the maddening 5 minutes of looking a ref's backsides while they stare at the monitor.

College basketball has a problem ending their games.  Takes too long and the flow of the game is gone.  This has to be fixed, Elam ending or not.

(PS why is it called Elam?)

I think there are other ways of dealing with these issues.  Make fouls more punitive by eliminating the one-and-one.  Have fewer clock stoppages by only allowing timeouts on dead balls inside the last TV timeout.  I'm sure there are other ideas as well.

What I would like to see is the removal of some timeouts from the game in general.  As it stands, each team gets 4 timeouts and there are 8 TV timeouts.  That's 16 timeouts in a 40 minute game.  Tack onto this all of the replay reviews and it's even more frequent.

Removing TV timeouts would mean they miss out on millions of $ in advertising so I doubt we ever see it.  Do they reduce the number of team timeouts to 3 instead of 4?

The only two changes I think might/would improve the game is going right to the 2 shot fouls when a team gets into the bonus (maybe you move the bonus up to 8 team fouls) and making it so that replay is all shown at live speed from normal camera angles and if you can't clearly see the wrong call was made you move along (and I think this should go with all sports).  In my opinion replay should be used to correct clear, obvious missed calls.  Stopping the game for minutes to zoom in, slow mo, and decide there was still a micro touch by some player that you'd never just see with the naked eye makes replay kind of lame to me, and certainly slows down the game.

I'll be happy if they just keep the length of the timeout to the actual length of the timeout.

In high school ball, a 30-second timeout lasts only a few seconds longer than 30 seconds. Almost as soon as the kids get to the sideline, a horn is sounding and a ref is yelling: "OK, coach, gotta go!" And a 1-minute timeout also is enforced.

In the NCAA, a 1-minute timeout lasts 3 minutes and a 30 lasts at least a minute and usually more. They let the coaches get away with keeping the kids with them for far longer than the allotted time.

Enforce timeout lengths and you shave at least 10 minutes from the length of a game, most of it at the end.

Quote from: MU82 on August 08, 2019, 10:49:36 AM
I'll be happy if they just keep the length of the timeout to the actual length of the timeout.

In high school ball, a 30-second timeout lasts only a few seconds longer than 30 seconds. Almost as soon as the kids get to the sideline, a horn is sounding and a ref is yelling: "OK, coach, gotta go!" And a 1-minute timeout also is enforced.

In the NCAA, a 1-minute timeout lasts 3 minutes and a 30 lasts at least a minute and usually more. They let the coaches get away with keeping the kids with them for far longer than the allotted time.

Enforce timeout lengths and you shave at least 10 minutes from the length of a game, most of it at the end.

Not to derail the thread, but, did you know in 1948 the Basketball rules changed that allowed coaches to speak to their players during timeouts? Previous to that, it was a violation. That would help the game go quicker!

Quote from: Slim on August 08, 2019, 11:00:08 AM
Not to derail the thread, but, did you know in 1948 the Basketball rules changed that allowed coaches to speak to their players during timeouts? Previous to that, it was a violation. That would help the game go quicker!

Sign language and emojis only.  I am up for that.

Quote from: Slim on August 08, 2019, 11:00:08 AM
Not to derail the thread, but, did you know in 1948 the Basketball rules changed that allowed coaches to speak to their players during timeouts? Previous to that, it was a violation. That would help the game go quicker!

I didn't know that, Slim. Thanks for the knowledge. I like Dr. B's emojis idea!

Like the Elam Ending or not, it's a feasible end-of-game alternative.  Again, it doesn't modify the rules of the game, it simply modifies how the game ends.  The alternatives others are positing as superior to the EE to curtail length-of-game or speed up the pace, the problem is that they're simply too complicated and require changes to multiple elements of the game. 

Heck... remember the experimental rule changes?  Just going to 4 quarters seemed like too much for the sweatervests to comprehend; imagine trying to get them to wrap their arms around why the team that just made two FT's is in-bounding the ball.

Personally, I don't like games dragging on for 2-1/2 hours without the lead changing in the last five minutes... but I also don't like games that aren't competitive to the end.  It's nice to see the walk-ons during cupcake time, but honestly, I would prefer they stay on the bench during BE play. 

Also, I like comebacks, but I don't like the futility of extending the game when a team is down 3+ possessions with 20 seconds to play... if a team is legitimately coming back (making buckets and holding on D), they don't have to worry about the clock running out on them, and they can play their game straight-up without having to resort to putting the other team at the line.  Conversely, if the teams are merely trading points on each end (i.e. the gap isn't shrinking), why postpone the inevitable?  And I'm sure even the players and coaches would be happy if OT simply went away.

------

All this said, while I would not mind implementation of the EE, I don't think the NCAA sees the current end-of-game situation as problematic, and therefore, the odds of it happening are nil.  But if the NCAA ever changes its mind on end-of-game, EE would be the most logical, and therefore likely, alternative.

I like Brew's amendment. I voted yes without looking at comments and assumed I'd be in the minority. Then again, as horrible as the Big East loss to Seton Hall was in some ways last year, and as bad as an injured Markus Howard was shooting, watching him draw fouls and even induce techicals about every 5 seconds MU had the ball to almost pull that thing off was something to behold. I know, he didn't pass on the last possession, but really no one else could have gotten us to within a basket like he did.

If anything, the Elam Ending might be useful for overtime to prevent multiple OTs.  First one to 10 wins.  Kind of fits the Football and soccer stuff in OT.

College basketball has used postseason tournaments like the NIT to experiment with new rules -- focusing on court dimensions (3-point distance, lane width), the shot clock (resetting to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound instead of 30 seconds) and fouls (resetting team fouls at the 10-minute mark of each half).

I'd expect all of those rules to become official long before the NCAA introduces the Elam Ending. They're all pretty minor adjustments, whereas the Elam Ending would significantly change game play. Don't see it happening anytime soon.

It will never happen.  The amount of add money that could possibly be lost from an overtime period wouldn't allow it.  It's fun to watch, but unless they played to 21 along with stoppage, I couldn't see it ever happening.

Also why reward players that don't practice fts?

Quote from: seakm4 on August 08, 2019, 08:54:48 PM
It will never happen.  The amount of add money that could possibly be lost from an overtime period wouldn't allow it.  It's fun to watch, but unless they played to 21 along with stoppage, I couldn't see it ever happening.

Also why reward players that don't practice fts?

I wonder about this...does the NCAA get significant revenue, or any revenue, from overtime periods? Or does the station run commercials that were slated for a different show? Is there a revenue sharing model for those?

Obviously they generally stick with the game for continuity and ratings as it will generally be the most exciting part of the game, but does anyone know if there is a revenue bump for the NCAA? I'm sure the leagues and teams don't get any added financial benefit as they are on multi-year contracts that already pay out on the basis of that contract so an extra 5 minutes won't be factored in, but is it different for the governing body?

Quote from: brewcity77 on August 08, 2019, 09:18:31 PM
I wonder about this...does the NCAA get significant revenue, or any revenue, from overtime periods? Or does the station run commercials that were slated for a different show? Is there a revenue sharing model for those?

Obviously they generally stick with the game for continuity and ratings as it will generally be the most exciting part of the game, but does anyone know if there is a revenue bump for the NCAA? I'm sure the leagues and teams don't get any added financial benefit as they are on multi-year contracts that already pay out on the basis of that contract so an extra 5 minutes won't be factored in, but is it different for the governing body?

After giving this some though, for exactly the reason you stated (preemption), I cannot see how OT is a revenue generator for the networks unless it's the Super Bowl.  Therefore, there's no benefit to the content producer (the schools). 

And ESPN, FS1, etc.... their bread is buttered by subscriber fees, not ad revenue.  So the longer the games, the fewer you can air.  And the fewer games you air, the less value the subscriber gets (and is therefore willing to pay).  So the greater money may actually be in keeping games from being extended.

On a related note, with all the attention that's being given to the mental and physical struggles of student-athletes inherent in college sports, if the NCAA is going to look at improving student-athlete quality of life, one of the first things they're going to consider is likely to be length-of-game. 

I may have to revise my earlier statement.  On the presumption that the NCAA will fight the effort to compensate players at all costs, we are going to see changes to affect length/end-of game - both football and basketball, in particular - within the next 10 years.  It may not be the Elam Ending, but something will happen.  And the content distributors (ESPN, etc.) will be 100% on board.

Quote from: Nukem2 on August 08, 2019, 08:07:10 PM
If anything, the Elam Ending might be useful for overtime to prevent multiple OTs.  First one to 10 wins.  Kind of fits the Football and soccer stuff in OT.

I was just going to post this.  Maybe the ELAM ending is the overtime period.  First to score 8 points in OT.

Quote from: Benny B on August 08, 2019, 11:19:58 PM
After giving this some though, for exactly the reason you stated (preemption), I cannot see how OT is a revenue generator for the networks unless it's the Super Bowl.  Therefore, there's no benefit to the content producer (the schools). 

And ESPN, FS1, etc.... their bread is buttered by subscriber fees, not ad revenue.  So the longer the games, the fewer you can air.  And the fewer games you air, the less value the subscriber gets (and is therefore willing to pay).  So the greater money may actually be in keeping games from being extended.

On a related note, with all the attention that's being given to the mental and physical struggles of student-athletes inherent in college sports, if the NCAA is going to look at improving student-athlete quality of life, one of the first things they're going to consider is likely to be length-of-game. 

I may have to revise my earlier statement.  On the presumption that the NCAA will fight the effort to compensate players at all costs, we are going to see changes to affect length/end-of game - both football and basketball, in particular - within the next 10 years.  It may not be the Elam Ending, but something will happen.  And the content distributors (ESPN, etc.) will be 100% on board.

Do you mean that the "clock time" of games will be shorter?  Because I doubt that will change.  I do think finding a way to make the "actual time" shorter, while still maintaining ad revenue, is something that the NCAA and professional sports want, but that's going to be hard. 

How short do we want games?  Games last right around 2 hours?  To me that's perfect.  Heck with basketball I'd be totally cool with it being even longer.  There's much more action in basketball than in baseball or football, both of which last an extra hour.

I don't think it's the length of games that's the problem.  It's the length of the last two minutes that allows it to drag on at the end.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on August 09, 2019, 09:40:11 AM
I don't think it's the length of games that's the problem.  It's the length of the last two minutes that allows it to drag on at the end.

So #lengthnomatta?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 09, 2019, 09:44:47 AM
So #lengthnomatta?

It's not the length of the game, it's how exciting the end is. 

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on August 09, 2019, 11:14:32 AM
It's not the length of the game, it's how exciting the end is.

As long as it's exciting for both of you