Elam Rule - Thumbs up or down?

[TheyWereCones]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

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.

[TheyWereCones]

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?

[Nukem2]

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

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

[forgetful]

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

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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

[brewcity77]

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.

[BallBoy]

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.

[WarriorFan]

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.

[Benny B]

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. 

[Not A Serious Person]

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?)

[Nukem2]

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,

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

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?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[Stronghold]

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?

[wadesworld]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Slim]

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!

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[Benny B]

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.

[Marquetteauburn]

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.

[Nukem2]

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.