What about this rule change

[jordoo]

If you add fouls in OT that may extend the evenly matched competition indefinitely. OT is only meant to extend the game long enough to get a winner, IMO. If someone fouls out that should help determine a winner. It makes multiple OT games even more meaningful.

As far as players being able to commit as many fouls as they want I think that may be the worst idea I have heard in a long time. Giving college kids 6 in a 40 min contest was a disaster. Imagine all the fights that would happen by embolden guys to play a more physical style of defense and coaches telling players to always make them earn it at the line. Pace of play would also suffer. I don't think any of us want to see FT shooting contests with some WWF wrestling mixed in.

 

[Sbucketball]

As far as players being able to commit as many fouls as they want I think that may be the worst idea I have heard in a long time.

Lol yes. Agreed. Would be unwatchable.

 

[Brooky03]

If you add fouls in OT that may extend the evenly matched competition indefinitely. OT is only meant to extend the game long enough to get a winner, IMO. If someone fouls out that should help determine a winner. It makes multiple OT games even more meaningful.

As far as players being able to commit as many fouls as they want I think that may be the worst idea I have heard in a long time. Giving college kids 6 in a 40 min contest was a disaster. Imagine all the fights that would happen by embolden guys to play a more physical style of defense and coaches telling players to always make them earn it at the line. Pace of play would also suffer. I don't think any of us want to see a FT shooting contests with some WWF wrestling mixed in.

The point is that you incentivize against excessive fouling without removing players from the game. I feel like people are missing that piece.

 

[jordoo]

The point is that you incentivize against excessive fouling without removing players from the game. I feel like people are missing that piece.

I'm not missing that! Its still a horrible idea IMO. Lets say the system allows for 12ish fouls a half before penalization is really detrimental. Do we want to let one physical big guy in the middle of the defense commit 10 fouls in a half and keep playing. I can think of many ways for it to go bad without any effort. Not to mention statistically it leads to chaos. The leaders in blocks, rebounds and steals would also lead the team in fouls. Which guess what incentivizes more fouling. The point is to incentivize less fouling and they have already found the best way to do that. If you get 5 you can't play anymore.

 

[twinight]

Then why do they give you an extra TO when the game goes overtime ? It’s logical to treat both the same. To give you an extra time out because the game went over the regulation allotment of time, but to then hold you to the same foul limit is inconsistent

They're not "consistent" because they're completely unrelated concepts. You get more TOs because the TOs are directly correlated to the time of the game. Fouls aren't. Once you've fouled OUT of a game, you're OUT of the game. It's not a new game.

If—for some dull reason—we had to have consistency between these things, wouldn't we have to have a certain number of fouls you get each half with some carrying over to the second half? Does that sound rational?

 

[Brooky03]

I'm not missing that! Its still a horrible idea IMO. Lets say the system allows for 12ish fouls a half before penalization is really detrimental. Do we want to let one physical big guy in the middle of the defense commit 10 fouls in a half and keep playing. I can think of many ways for it to go bad without any effort. Not to mention statistically it leads to chaos. The leaders in blocks, rebounds and steals would also lead the team in fouls. Which guess what incentivizes more fouling. The point is to incentivize less fouling and they have already found the best way to do that. If you get 5 you can't play anymore.

The upshot is that disqualification is an overly steep penalty when better options exist that would equally disincentivize excessive fouling.

Set a player foul limit that puts an extra penalty in play. Maybe that penalty applies as soon as that player is over X fouls and any team foul after that for the half has the extra penalty applied. Easy to track, easy to follow and apply. Maybe the penalty is an extra FT, depending on bonus, shooting v. non-shooting foul. Maybe the penalty is possession and shots, like a technical foul that doesn’t count toward disqualification.

There are ways to do this where no coach would want a player hacking all game, unless he’s dead set on losing that game. Practical, feasible ways. This introduces the strategy of whether or not you want your star in the game, knowing that him being in the game will cost you something when he fouls too much, but he gets to stay in the game. Currently, you decide whether you want your star in the game with 4 fouls, knowing that if you’re playing against Duke and he sneezes, he’s gone and you lose.

My solution results in a slightly more physical game (I reject that it would be overly physical. It wouldn’t be like the BE experiment) and more of the players fans came to watch staying in the game.

 

[kuethstheman]

That’s why you’d scale the penalties for fouls above a certain threshold. That’s better than taking players off the floor.

Agree with this. You could add penalties (e.g. 3 shots, 2 shots and the ball) for excessive team fouls and maybe don't even track individual fouls.

One other off-topic thought, my favorite memory of the 6 OT game: Justin Thomas doing jumping jacks from his spot in the zone while the other 9 players were having difficulty even standing up.

 

[Niastri]

Not sure how old you are but the extra foul the big east tried a hundred years ago sucked

Yes, it became difficult to buy a ticket... Not because games were sold out, but did you really want to pay top dollar for a free throw shooting contest mixed with a wrestling match?

 

[CuseIsGodsTeam]

I’d prefer 6 fouls like the NBA.

 

[kuethstheman]

I’d prefer 6 fouls like the NBA.

Are you expecting different results than for the Big East experiment described here?

 

[djcon57]

Foul limit is fine the way it is.Id rather they get rid of the 3 point shot and go back to working for the best shot you can get as a team. Bring the big guy back in the game.
Now get off my lawn !!!

No way, go the other way and the 4 pt shot like Rock n Jock.

But seriously get rid of the 1 and 1, its ridiculous.

 

[Seng85]

Agree with this. You could add penalties (e.g. 3 shots, 2 shots and the ball) for excessive team fouls and maybe don't even track individual fouls.

One other off-topic thought, my favorite memory of the 6 OT game: Justin Thomas doing jumping jacks from his spot in the zone while the other 9 players were having difficulty even standing up.

I’d like to see any foul on a player beyond #5 is considered a technical foul. 1 shot and the ball. Significant penalty, but allows a player to stay on the court.

 

[baggerbob]

I’d like to see any foul on a player beyond #5 is considered a technical foul. 1 shot and the ball. Significant penalty, but allows a player to stay on the court.

This is a bad idea would bring more Michael Graham types into the game.
A hard pass.

 

[jordoo]

I’d prefer 6 fouls like the NBA.

40/5 = 8
48/6 = 8

This is basic math

 

[FireballPhil]

Not sure how old you are but the extra foul the big east tried a hundred years ago sucked

It wasn't so much the 6th foul that was bad, trying to match the NBA, was a good idea. The Big East was just too rough and that extra foul could have physically hurt someone. Pittsburgh in particular was brutal, but every game was a boxing match. Fun time, fun league. I miss it dearly but man it was rough.

 

[sufandu]

I think you can tweak the FT rules to incentivize against ‘let’s foul all day’ being a good strategy.

Attacking a player to force him into foul trouble is as annoying as Joe Flacco under throwing a go route by 15 yards and being rewarded with a PI call.

I think they have done that by making guys foul out after 5 fouls and having the bonus/double bonus in place. The guys that foul out most frequently are interior players. The guys that are the worst foul shooters tend to be interior players. Taking away the foul out rule is guaranteeing that big guys will hack anyone that gets close to a layup, especially bigs. You'd rather make a guy earn his points at the free throw line than get layups, especially if it's a crappy free throw shooter. Increasing the number of free throws a guy shoots after he gets more than 5 fouls is less of a deterent than a guy fouling out and that would have fans watching more of what is the least desireable part of the game while lengthening game times.

No matter the rules, strategy will always be a part of the game, and part of that strategy will be to target certain players for a variety of reasons.

 

[atlanticuse]

There is some logic to this. Won't happen (nor should it), but if it did, I'd only give an extra foul to those that were still in the game at the end of regulation.

• One of the things I loved about the 6OT game (behind winning it) was we won with a walk-on playing competitive minutes. Justin Thomas (not of the PGA) had one rebound and one block in seven minutes.
• I have the 6OT win as the second-best SU moment of the Boeheim era. Many won't and that's understandable.

Braeden Bayer... (not foul, but injury+foul).

 

[Zelda Zonk]

If you foul out in the regulation 40, that should be it. No bonus time if it goes to overtime. You’re disqualified. If you could get back in, would that also extend to technical foul disqualifications? You get two techs in regulation but could play in overtime? I have no issue with adding a foul for overtime. That probably should be the rule. The rationale being that the limit is based on a ratio of minutes to play. To get only five fouls in another six overtime game is not really conducive to great basketball, as you’d likely see the decision based on attrition with walkons playing significant minutes.

Yes, there absolutely should be a foul limit. Why would the sport be better if it encouraged LESS defensive effort or skill? Hacking to prevent any skillfully-derived basket attempts?

5 fouls is sufficient, as evidenced by the number of players who actually foul out. 6 makes the game more cumbersome and slow, and more of the game scoring would come at the FT line, and I’ve never heard of anyone asking for that. Free throw highlights are kinda rare.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

They're not "consistent" because they're completely unrelated concepts. You get more TOs because the TOs are directly correlated to the time of the game. Fouls aren't. Once you've fouled OUT of a game, you're OUT of the game. It's not a new game.

If—for some dull reason—we had to have consistency between these things, wouldn't we have to have a certain number of fouls you get each half with some carrying over to the second half? Does that sound rational?

logic fail

"TOs are directly correlated to the time of the game. Fouls aren't."

6 fouls in the nba and 5 fouls in college? (48 minute vs 40 minute games). Its' almost as if the number of fouls allowed takes into account the time of the game. longer game. more fouls allotted. it would seem.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

40/5 = 8
48/6 = 8

This is basic math

but supposedly the number of fouls allowed has nothing to do with the length of games.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Then why do they give you an extra TO when the game goes overtime ? It’s logical to treat both the same. To give you an extra time out because the game went over the regulation allotment of time, but to then hold you to the same foul limit is inconsistent

Why doesn’t the shot clock reset when there is a tie-up possession arrow situation resulting in the offense getting the ball back? It’s a new possession isn’t it? If possession changes, the opposing team doesn’t inherit a short shot clock. The world is mad I tell you!!1

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

STEVEHOLT sorry for hijacking your thread. Adding an extra foul to each player’s limit (and bringing back fouled out players) for OT is a good step in the right direction.

Didn’t the BE try that first part? It failed miserably.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Lol yes. Agreed. Would be unwatchable.

Well, you could increase free throws. If a player with 7-10 fouls commits a foul, it’s 3 shots. If they have more than 10 fouls, three shots and the ball.

 

[Sbucketball]

Well, you could increase free throws. If a player with 7-10 fouls commits a foul, it’s 3 shots. If they have more than 10 fouls, three shots and the ball.

That would help but the game is at its most fun when it’s moving fast in live action. This would definitely increase the number of fouls and that would make it a tough watch. Shots and the ball seems excessive, but without that you would see hack-a-shaq tactics when the other team has a poor ft shooting center. Idk, I just think it makes it a worse viewing experience.

 

[Brooky03]

Didn’t the BE try that first part? It failed miserably.

No. The BE experimented with 6 fouls for the game. My post you replied to, and OP’s point, was about adding a foul specifically in OT. So DQ’d players come back.