Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So, The Basketball Tournament is going on, which I was vaguely aware of because Ohio State has a team of former OSU players, and BJ Mullens caused some drama by pulling out over pay issues.  It's not something I care about.

However, The Ringer put up an article about a rule change called the Elam rule, where at the end of the game, with 4 or fewer minutes less, the clock disappears after a stoppage.  Gone.  Instead of playing against the clock, a target score is made by adding 7 points to the winning team's score.  Then, whoever reaches this score first wins.  

I thought this was kind of fascinating.  Late game basketball can be borderline unwatchable with all the fouls and timeouts, and this rule is aimed right at that.  It's such a wild change and seems arbitrary, but also seems like it would make late game basketball flow like the rest of the game instead of stopping play every other half second.  

I would have to think more about unintended consequences but, in theory, I really like the idea.  No clock just play to a score and, the team with an advantage would keep it.  Ie, if you entered the no-clock portion of the game up 10 you would only have to score 7 before your opponent scored 17.  Intriguing to be sure.  

We discussed this problem in depth during the tournament, but I don't remember this solution coming up. Am all for a change - intensely wanting one - and this version may be best.

How was 7 points settled upon? Because it sounds right? (It does, btw)

It's a nice idea; no doubt, it's less arbitrary. Then, it also discourages being high scoring. Under your recommendation, a 6 point lead at 100 (earn 10 before your opponent earns 16, an obstacle 62.5% as challenging as your opponent's) is more tenuous than a 6 point lead at 50 (earn 5 before your opponent earns 11, an obstacle 45.5% as challenging as your opponent's). 
I guess that's your aim. But for now I feel every 4-minute 6-point lead should be rewarded as equal.

It's a nice idea; no doubt, it's less arbitrary. Then, it also discourages being high scoring. Under your recommendation, a 6 point lead at 100 (earn 10 before your opponent earns 16, an obstacle 62.5% as challenging as your opponent's) is more tenuous than a 6 point lead at 50 (earn 5 before your opponent earns 11, an obstacle 45.5% as challenging as your opponent's).
I guess that's your aim. But for now I feel every 4-minute 6-point lead should be rewarded as equal.

That artificially extends or shortens games based on pace though.  I think the goal of the rule is to eliminate the fouling and have the game end in a similar manner to how the previous 36 minutes were played.  To do that you need to have the scoring pace of the final 4 minutes match the scoring pace from the previous 36.
And no not all 6 point leads are equal.  A 6 point lead in a defensive struggle does feel like a much bigger advantage than a 6 point lead in a shootout.

Why not?

Have you ever looked at the scores from MS girls BB games? They are all like 17-8. 

Have you ever looked at the scores from MS girls BB games? They are all like 17-8.

FWIW:  ELA's idea would solve this problem.  If it was 15-6 with four minutes to go the winning score would be 17.