CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: MaximumSam on July 27, 2018, 04:57:47 PM
-
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 (https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/7/27/17621680/nba-elam-ending-classic-games)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've seen that tossed around, and I kind of like it. I think the only downside would be the end of the crazy odd defying buzzer beaters. Jordan Poole would hit a half court shot, Laettner wouldn't catch a full length pass. The flip side is that technically every game would end on the final shot.
-
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.
-
Maybe the unintended consequence would be one of those Wisconsin-Northwestern games from a few years back where it would be like 36-32 with four minutes to go. You might be there all night waiting for one of the teams to score seven points.
-
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)
-
Maybe the unintended consequence would be one of those Wisconsin-Northwestern games from a few years back where it would be like 36-32 with four minutes to go. You might be there all night waiting for one of the teams to score seven points.
4 minutes is 1/10 of the game. So maybe take the winning teams score, round up to 10 and make it 1/10 of that. So if you've scored 36 points in 36 minutes, round up, and divide by 10, winning score is 40. If you've scored 82 in the first 36, winning score is 91. By doing that you basically allow for the game to continue at the scoring pace it was.
-
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.
-
We are just talking College and maybe pros, right? Not BB across the board?
-
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.
-
We are just talking College and maybe pros, right? Not BB across the board?
Why not?
-
Why not?
Have you ever looked at the scores from MS girls BB games? They are all like 17-8.
-
4 minutes is 1/10 of the game. So maybe take the winning teams score, round up to 10 and make it 1/10 of that. So if you've scored 36 points in 36 minutes, round up, and divide by 10, winning score is 40. If you've scored 82 in the first 36, winning score is 91. By doing that you basically allow for the game to continue at the scoring pace it was.
I like this idea in theory but in practice I think it might be too complicated.
-
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.
-
I like this idea in theory but in practice I think it might be too complicated.
I don't think so. I think I simplified it down enough that it's easy. It's not like this will be calculated on the fly. I'm assuming for this rule in general we are discussing that it starts as of the under 4:00 TV timeout? So it starts when you come back from a dead ball break.
-
FWIW: ELA's idea would solve this problem. If it was 15-6 with four minutes to go the winning score would be 17.
True, but I think the seven point rule is more realistic.
Point percentages are fun to message board about, but I don't think it's likely that they would implement it. I don't have faith in the general public's ability to do math. It needs to be a system that a gym full of Neanderthals can easily process.
-
I think this is really interesting but the prospect of no more buzzer beaters is a big detriment to me.
-
I don't think so. I think I simplified it down enough that it's easy. It's not like this will be calculated on the fly. I'm assuming for this rule in general we are discussing that it starts as of the under 4:00 TV timeout? So it starts when you come back from a dead ball break.
I get what you are saying and I don't totally disagree, but see @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) 's comment in the very next post:
"I don't have faith in the general public's ability to do math. It needs to be a system that a gym full of Neanderthals can easily process."
I get that your idea is pretty freaking simple and I also understand it the same way, that this would happen at the under 4:00 Timeout which would allow plenty of time for the officials to announce it. The math is also incredibly simple:
- Leading team has 25-34 points, add three points to their score to get your "score needed to win."
- Leading team has 35-44 points, add four points to their score to get your "score needed to win."
- . . .
- Leading team has 85-94 points, add nine points to their score to get your "score needed to win."
- Leading team has 95-104 points, add 10 to their score to get your "score needed to win."
Some thoughts if we were to go with this proposal:
- I think the minimum should be four points because I don't like the idea that one three pointer could end the game.
- You could do that with ranges which might make it simpler for the fans to understand it. Ie, if the leading team has <65, add five to their score to get the score needed to win. If the leading team has 65-84, add seven to the leading team's score to get the score needed to win. If the leading team has >84, add nine to the leading teams's score to get the score needed to win.
- I think you would need to then announce the "score needed to win" and leave it up on the scoreboard from then on.
-
I think it would need to be simpler than that.
rounded off to the nearest multiple of ten might suffice.
But since there's not a huge difference between five and seven or nine and seven, a flat rate of seven would still make the most sense.
But again. Here's an example of what MS GBB scores look like.
| Thursday, January 8 | | | Monday, February 9 | |
| Harper's Ferry | 4 | @ | Spring Mills | 22 | | | Spring Mills | 31 | @ | Harper's Ferry | 22 |
| Musselman | 20 | @ | South | 72 | | | South | 55 | @ | Musselman | 22 |
| Hedgesville | 34 | @ | Charles Town | 8 | | | Charles Town | 9 | @ | Hedgesville | 39 |
| Wildwood | 18 | @ | North | 22 | | | North | 8 | @ | Wildwood | 28 |
| Shepherdstown | 28 | @ | Moutain Ridge | 20 | | | Mountain Ridge | 30 | @ | Shepherdstown | 31 |
.
It would take forever for some of those winning teams to score seven points. The winning team had 22 in the first box score. So seven points is almost a third of the game. Pretty big chunk when you are playing quarters.
-
- I think you would need to then announce the "score needed to win" and leave it up on the scoreboard from then on.
I think this is a given no matter what.
I also assume we are never asking the population to do math, no matter what rule you go with. I assume to "score to win" is just put up where the clock otherwise is, and people just know that's what you have to beat.
I also was eliminating calculating rounding and just saying you always round up, since you've actually played 9/10 of the game, you should divide by 9 to get an equal pace of scoring, but that seems way too complicated, so instead I just said round up, and then divide by 10. So really the only way for it to be under 4 points is for the winning team to have <31 points with 4 minutes left. At that point, just cancel the game.
-
I just said round up
You did, and I missed that. It is a relatively minor difference but it does matter. My example was set up based on rounding such that:
- 35-44 was four points
- 45-54 was five points
- etc
In your version where we always round up:
- 31-40 is four points
- 41-50 is five points
- etc