BB rules changes I want to see

S

superrific

Master of the ZZLverse
Messages
12,273
1. Offensive fouls replaced with mere violations. The penalty for an offensive foul -- i.e. a personal foul plus a turnover -- is too steep, especially since the fouls are iffy as fouls. A moving screen is much more like a traveling violation than hacking a shooter. I'd bet that if the penalty was reduced, it would be called a lot more. Nobody wants to see a star player fouling out on a moving screen or a shoulder to the chest.

2. 2 FTs for every shot attempt, even three pointers. By far the best non-dunk play in basketball is being fouled on a three point shot. A guy who shoots 40% from 3 likely shoots at least 75% on FTs, meaning that the expected value of the three pointer is basically doubled by a foul. This increases flopping incentive so much. I would say that the lion's share of the most egregious flops have been 3 pointers, and certainly the rate of flopping on 3s is high.

3. A team can only be credited with X number of three pointers per game (X would be subject to determination; here I will choose 14 for college and 18 for the pros). They can shoot as many as they want from behind the arc, but the (X+1)th made shot from that distance will count only as 2 points, as would all subsequent attempts.

Thoughts?
 
I don't care for any of them. The last, in particular, reminds me when colleges outlawed dunking for a while. It made things a travesty. I feel like the first would increase the amount of contact and in the second , I'd rather see a technical called on the flop.
 
superrific said:
1. Offensive fouls replaced with mere violations. The penalty for an offensive foul -- i.e. a personal foul plus a turnover -- is too steep, especially since the fouls are iffy as fouls. A moving screen is much more like a traveling violation than hacking a shooter. I'd bet that if the penalty was reduced, it would be called a lot more. Nobody wants to see a star player fouling out on a moving screen or a shoulder to the chest.

2. 2 FTs for every shot attempt, even three pointers. By far the best non-dunk play in basketball is being fouled on a three point shot. A guy who shoots 40% from 3 likely shoots at least 75% on FTs, meaning that the expected value of the three pointer is basically doubled by a foul. This increases flopping incentive so much. I would say that the lion's share of the most egregious flops have been 3 pointers, and certainly the rate of flopping on 3s is high.

3. A team can only be credited with X number of three pointers per game (X would be subject to determination; here I will choose 14 for college and 18 for the pros). They can shoot as many as they want from behind the arc, but the (X+1)th made shot from that distance will count only as 2 points, as would all subsequent attempts.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I like number 1
 
I could maybe see an offensive foul not being charged as a personal foul, but I think that would just lead to more offensive fouls missed by the refs if a player knows it wouldn't be a personal foul. There's already a lot of pushing off by the offense that doesn't get called already.

The other two don't make any sense to me.
 
StoneColdHeel said:
. There's already a lot of pushing off by the offense that doesn't get called already.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing as red cards in soccer, which are handed out inconsistently at best. The punishment is too severe (permanent loss of player) that officials are loathe to go there, especially early. That pulls the yellow card standards up a bit, and the game gets really physical, absurdly physical at times.

There's so much pushing off because the refs and players know it can't be a violation. It's a foul or nothing. Since they want to call fewer fouls, they will let more pushing go unpunished. If they became violations, refs would be more likely to flag it.
 
I like both 1 and 2. Don't like No. 3. If you don't want the other team shooting so many threes, do a better job guarding it.
 
superrific said:
It's the same thing as red cards in soccer, which are handed out inconsistently at best. The punishment is too severe (permanent loss of player) that officials are loathe to go there, especially early. That pulls the yellow card standards up a bit, and the game gets really physical, absurdly physical at times.

There's so much pushing off because the refs and players know it can't be a violation. It's a foul or nothing. Since they want to call fewer fouls, they will let more pushing go unpunished. If they became violations, refs would be more likely to flag it.
Click to expand...
But it's already a violation and the ball goes over to the other team on offensive fouls. To me that is more of a punishment than someone getting a personal foul. It's a possible 6 point turnaround.
 
Move the 3pt line back out to where the NBA had it before they moved in to the international line.

That will reduce the total # of 3s bc it will be a tougher shot. And it will provide greater spacing for athletes that are objectively taller and faster than 30 years ago.

I have heard folks want to move rim to 10'4" (or even 10'2"), but that is unworkable bc they just say to do that for men and not women. Can't have 2 separate courts for each. But the move back to the old 3pt line is an easy an obvious fix
 
I don't want to devalue 3pt shots in any way, so 2 & 3 are no's.

Changes to moving screens sound good.
 
Honestly inthe NBA the court is too damn small, the rim too short
But yea
ain't gonna change
 
#2 for those old enough, bring back 3 to make 2.
#1 is marginal
#3 is just bad, move the line back if you want
 
Reflexively don’t like one, but it could lead to more offensive foul calls. Think I could get on board.

2 seemingly would create end of game problems. You guys just one a game against Duke with a 3 as time expires. Damn sure bet the dookies don’t let the guard ever get that shot off.

No on three, but I get it.

4.). Choice of possession or shots on 1 and 1 fouls.
 
Purple Nurple said:
Reflexively don’t like one, but it could lead to more offensive foul calls. Think I could get on board.

2 seemingly would create end of game problems. You guys just one a game against Duke with a 3 as time expires. Damn sure bet the dookies don’t let the guard ever get that shot off.

No on three, but I get it.

4.). Choice of possession or shots on 1 and 1 fouls.
Click to expand...
I like 4 but not sure the longer games will fit TV schedules. I also don't think the networks would want to do much to the excitement and comeback potential of the three pointer. And bottom line, their money makes their opinion matter more than we like.
 
Calheel said:
I like both 1 and 2. Don't like No. 3. If you don't want the other team shooting so many threes, do a better job guarding it.
Click to expand...
Don’t like 2 at all. One of the big problems with it is that it gives too much incentive to foul on 3-pointers at the end of games, particularly when 3s are needed to tie the game. That would suck being down 3 while having the ball in the last few seconds and knowing that the 3 point shot is virtually worthless there.
 
No more 1-and-1 free throws in men’s college basketball. 2 shots once you get to the bonus.

I can’t stand it when my team gets into the bonus and it actually feels like a bad thing when we draw a foul, because the missed front end of a 1-1 is essentially the same thing as a turnover.
 
Centerpiece said:
Do away with the 3 pt shot and get rid of the DH. Pitchers should have to bat. Asshole throws at my head I wanna chance to throw at his.
Click to expand...
Keep the 3-pointer…..at the old school NBA distance.

Shoot any player who does the d00kie leg kick-out when shooting. That shit’s worse than a soccer flop.

Oh, yeah. The Grayson Allen head-launch when the player isn’t touched. Shoot him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top