Ragman2000
Pee-Trough Advocate
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,204
- Like
- 7,993
A well thought out and robust rebuttal Day2, my mistake.
Sorry, I didn't realize there were rules.A well thought out and robust rebuttal Day2, my mistake.
The only thing I really do not like about the Elam ending is the loss of all potential for any kind of overtime in a basketball game. As Syracuse fans, we can attest to the fact that overtime often lends to the joys and thrills of the game experience.
One potential mod that I've thought of, is to essentially allow the opposing team one possession if they are within one score of the team that reaches the target score. if the team that was behind ties or goes ahead, an additional seven points is tacked on as a new Target score (i.e. the first overtime). If the team that was behind doesn't score or take the lead and a possession change occurs, the game is over.
I think this still achieves the original Target of the Elam Ending by eliminating the foul Fest, while also allowing for one last chance or one last shot scenarios and over times.
For example, if the target score is 60 like in our game last weekend, and we hit 60, if team fancy had 57 58 or 59 points, they would be allowed one last in bounds in possession to have a chance to tie or take the lead. if they miss the shot and we get the rebound or there is a turnover, the game is over. If they hit a basket to tie or take the lead, an additional seven points is tacked on as a new Target score.
Thoughts?
The only thing I really do not like about the Elam ending is the loss of all potential for any kind of overtime in a basketball game. As Syracuse fans, we can attest to the fact that overtime often lends to the joys and thrills of the game experience.
One potential mod that I've thought of, is to essentially allow the opposing team one possession if they are within one score of the team that reaches the target score. if the team that was behind ties or goes ahead, an additional seven points is tacked on as a new Target score (i.e. the first overtime). If the team that was behind doesn't score or take the lead and a possession change occurs, the game is over.
I think this still achieves the original Target of the Elam Ending by eliminating the foul Fest, while also allowing for one last chance or one last shot scenarios and over times.
For example, if the target score is 60 like in our game last weekend, and we hit 60, if team fancy had 57 58 or 59 points, they would be allowed one last in bounds in possession to have a chance to tie or take the lead. if they miss the shot and we get the rebound or there is a turnover, the game is over. If they hit a basket to tie or take the lead, an additional seven points is tacked on as a new Target score.
Thoughts?
Well...screwed wouldn't be the right word but the elam ending didn't work in our favor this game. Given how that game was flowing...they hit that lucky three just before the clock stopped and took a lead we couldn't manage to come back from. I think if we play out with a clock we had a better chance of stealing that game. Obviously the throw away pass at the end killed us.I can't see anyway that it screws anyone. If you're in the lead, score 7 more points. If you're behind you better make some stops and hit some shots.
I think the rule is awesome. Every game ends in walk-off fashion. Only downside is it eliminates the buzzer beater. I think it would be better suited for NBA. Seems like the last 5 mins of every NBA game is a foul/snooze fest with countless whistles and timeouts.
Close games are awesome.It’s so pointless in a close game. People who are all worried about how “long” the end of a close game lasts...find another sport with your short attention span having ass. Close games are awesome.
Pickup hoop rules are for scrubs that play only pickup hoop. Why would we want that applied to real hoop?
Agreed. Today’s game wouldn’t have been a hackathon though. I felt thrown off and robbed by not gettting to watch the “real” end of the game.Close games are awesome.
Hackathons are crap.
I believe our friend HOFCeluck would say that nothing is real, we are all water.Agreed. Today’s game wouldn’t have been a hackathon though. I felt thrown off and robbed by not gettting to watch the “real” end of the game.
Essentially you're saying if the game lasted a little longer we had a better chance to win. Every losing team in a close game thinks that. If we had 10 seconds instead of 1 back in '87, we have a better chance to win that game. I'm sure Kansas wishes they had more time in '03. It's not that there is anything wrong with the rule. It's that we came out on the wrong end and wanted more time.Well...screwed wouldn't be the right word but the elam ending didn't work in our favor this game. Given how that game was flowing...they hit that lucky three just before the clock stopped and took a lead we couldn't manage to come back from. I think if we play out with a clock we had a better chance of stealing that game. Obviously the throw away pass at the end killed us.
I don’t understand that complaint. The NBA guys are so good that they can hit a game winner with a second left or less, after a timeout, from halfcourt. All kinds of activity happens within the flurry of end of game timeouts in the NBA. It’s always entertaining IMO.
Essentially you're saying if the game lasted a little longer we had a better chance to win. Every losing team in a close game thinks that. If we had 10 seconds instead of 1 back in '87, we have a better chance to win that game. I'm sure Kansas wishes they had more time in '03. It's not that there is anything wrong with the rule. It's that we came out on the wrong end and wanted more time.
Rather than complain about a rule, complain about a defense that gives up 20 3's on 54% shooting or our own crappy shooting. Complain about how we didn't foul like Blackwell wanted us to while we were tied.
Everyone said this tournament is about shooting, and that's how it played out.
Essentially you're saying if the game lasted a little longer we had a better chance to win. Every losing team in a close game thinks that. If we had 10 seconds instead of 1 back in '87, we have a better chance to win that game. I'm sure Kansas wishes they had more time in '03. It's not that there is anything wrong with the rule. It's that we came out on the wrong end and wanted more time.
Rather than complain about a rule, complain about a defense that gives up 20 3's on 54% shooting or our own crappy shooting. Complain about how we didn't foul like Blackwell wanted us to while we were tied.
Everyone said this tournament is about shooting, and that's how it played out.
I was never really complaining. Don't see how you can complain about something that when i originally posted hadn't happened yet. For me this is a fun tournament when there is no other sport to watch during the summer. I don't really want to get invested enough to be mad/complain.
The momentum of that game swung in our favor in the 2nd half. Two of their starters fouled out late, Warrick was dominating the inside on every possession. Even the announcers, as bad as they were, stated multiple times that Syracuse was shredding their defense late in that game. Who knows if we win or not with a clock. Seems weird that there really isn't a forth quarter though. Just a stopping point midway through the 4th...then 7 points is a couple of cheap foul calls and a three away from winning (see Louisiana United with the fouls). Maybe if we have another 4 minutes we out score them. We had already closed such a large gap. Either way it was the tournament rules and not much you can do.
Well, the post I responded to referenced how the game finished, so maybe you're a prophet.I was never really complaining. Don't see how you can complain about something that when i originally posted hadn't happened yet. For me this is a fun tournament when there is no other sport to watch during the summer. I don't really want to get invested enough to be mad/complain.
The momentum of that game swung in our favor in the 2nd half. Two of their starters fouled out late, Warrick was dominating the inside on every possession. Even the announcers, as bad as they were, stated multiple times that Syracuse was shredding their defense late in that game. Who knows if we win or not with a clock. Seems weird that there really isn't a forth quarter though. Just a stopping point midway through the 4th...then 7 points is a couple of cheap foul calls and a three away from winning (see Louisiana United with the fouls). Maybe if we have another 4 minutes we out score them. We had already closed such a large gap. Either way it was the tournament rules and not much you can do.
5 scoring possessions in one minute? Not a chance.I like it in theory but the “play to” score is hard to determine the optimal amount.
With it at 7, a team could be down 1 at the under four with possession. In the next minute if they hit two 3s and a 2 while the the other team hits two 3s, the game is over. The team that was trailing wins by 1, while with a normal game we would have 3 mins of play left.
If they went to the rule only when a team leads by more than three scores (10 or more), then it would never rob us of ending s close game too early. All the while preventing the boring endings of games that are not close.