TBT - four minute rule | Page 6 | Syracusefan.com

TBT - four minute rule

A well thought out and robust rebuttal Day2, my mistake.
Sorry, I didn't realize there were rules.

BTW, you're now derailing your own debate.
 
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?

It's an interesting proposal. While every game has a game winning shot, one thing I miss is do or die shots where if you make it, you win but miss and go home.
 
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?

I like this idea. One reason the TBT might not want to implement it, though, relates to MSOrange's point that currently every game ends with a game winning shot. Under this proposal, whenever a team hits the target score with a 3 point or less margin, the game will either end in a missed shot (or turnover) or be sent to overtime - which again will end with a missed shot if it's a 3 points or less margin. The team that is losing would never be able to win the game with the final shot. The team that is winning can win with the final shot, but only if it puts them up by four points.
 
I still think it's a good compromise giving us the best of both worlds.
 
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.
 
I'm currently on the fence. I think I'd like to see more data in actual practice rather than imagination before I determine it's worth. That would seem to be logical, regardless of what side you end up being on.

Make sense?
 
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.
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.
 
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 that you actually like?

Pickup hoop rules are for scrubs that play only pickup hoop. Why would we want that applied to real hoop?
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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?
Close games are awesome.

Hackathons are crap.
 
Close games are awesome.

Hackathons are crap.
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.
 
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.
I believe our friend HOFCeluck would say that nothing is real, we are all water.

So take comfort in that.
 
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.
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.
 
Definitely beat the Golden Eagles if the last 4 minutes were played out. It took two miracle 3's for them to win. Disappointed for our guys.
 
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.


Also, due to the shorter shot clock/better FT shooting/ability to advance the ball on a TO, teams in the NBA generally start fouling much later. They got rid of one of the TO for each team in the last 2 minutes, maybe they could also make the 20 second TO purely an advance the ball TO; no time to huddle, you just move the inbound to half court right away
 
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.

This and the second quarter were ultimately where the game was lost despite the score being what it was. The adjustments should have been made much sooner than they were. Even though Army stormed back in the second half to make it a game, Blackwell's feel for the game at times worried me. They were shooting themselves out of the game instead doing what worked for them all tournament; driving to the rim.
 
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.
 
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.

Yeah, agreed with this.

Ultimately I’m just bewildered that people that like basketball don’t like close basketball games? I remember as a kid playing pickup and wishing we had a clock and scoreboard, lol. Playing to a number is what you do because you don’t have the ability to do otherwise.

I really think this throws off the whole flow of the game, if it’s close.

I wouldn’t hate the rule if it only took affect when one team is solidly in control.

When we already know who is very likely to win but it’s not a complete blowout, the last few minutes can be boring. But in a close game?
 
Another element that I really dislike is that in a close game, their is an incentive (or potential strategy) for the team that is in the lead to foul a poor foul shooter on the other team as Armored Nation tried to do to AO.

I could see this strategy being a pure statistical play kind of like playing the shift against left handed hitters in baseball. I don't like that at all. It would probably happen more if this were a league with more current statistics available on each player.
 
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.

"Maybe if we had another 4 minutes we outscore them." Maybe. I'm sure Kansas thought the same thing in '03 when they outplayed us in the 2nd half. They probably thought 1 or 2 of Gerry's 6 3's in the first half were lucky too.

We used the Elam rule to our advantage previously, and when we didn't foul before the 3 it worked against us this game. I see that as poor execution on our part more than anything.
 
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.
5 scoring possessions in one minute? Not a chance.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,127
Messages
4,681,569
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
38
Guests online
1,583
Total visitors
1,621


Top Bottom