Time to get rid of the 1 and 1

[podsox]

kids just suck at free throws and teams are being rewarded for fouling. I use to say make your free throws and don't bitch but no can make them. UConn literally won the national title last yr because of great defense and they could make free throws

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I like the 1 and 1 for that reason. Teach these kids to make something so simple.

 

[TDs3nOut]

kids just suck at free throws and teams are being rewarded for fouling. I use to say make your free throws and don't bitch but no can make them. UConn literally won the national title last yr because of great defense and they could make free throws

Great defense and the ability to make important FTs are underrated!

 

[Davis_Mike]

I wish the NBA would adopt the 1 & 1. I am tired of seeing loose ball fouls & non-shooting fouls 25 feet from the basket automatically result in 2 free throws mid way through each quarter.

 

[HammerDown]

Vanderbilt makes 'em.

 

[MI Nightmare]

Michigan may be in a different position right now if they could hit the front end of those... I'm still in favor of keeping it the way it is.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Just handle it like they do in football. Let you decline the foul and keep the ball with a fresh shot clock. Take away the incentive to foul in the first place.

Forget about punishing teams that can't make free throws. You shouldn't reward teams for breaking the rules. In every other aspect of life, intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is called cheating. At the end of a close basketball game it's called "good strategy" Fuck that. It's cheating.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

My team sucks at FT's and I disagree.

THEY'RE FREE.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

Just handle it like they do in football. Let you decline the foul and keep the ball with a fresh shot clock. Take away the incentive to foul in the first place.

Forget about punishing teams that can't make free throws. You shouldn't reward teams for breaking the rules. In every other aspect of life, intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is called cheating. At the end of a close basketball game it's called "good strategy" Fuck that. It's cheating.

What the hell?

So once the game hits 35 seconds left you want it to just be over?

This is a wretched idea

 

[Texas Jefe]

kind of like it. Of course I hate when my team cant make the friggin ONE to get another

 

[douggie]

Just handle it like they do in football. Let you decline the foul and keep the ball with a fresh shot clock. Take away the incentive to foul in the first place.

Forget about punishing teams that can't make free throws. You shouldn't reward teams for breaking the rules. In every other aspect of life, intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is called cheating. At the end of a close basketball game it's called "good strategy" Fuck that. It's cheating.

Actually, between 1939 and 1952 THAT WAS the rule. Except there wasn't a shot clock back then. Here's what Naismith says in his book:

"I have often overheard some spectators express the opinion that a game was won by free throws. I have always taken the attitude that the game was lost by fouls." Naismith wrote. "Personally, I believe that any tendency toward lessening the penalty of a foul would be a serious mistake."

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

What the hell?

So once the game hits 35 seconds left you want it to just be over?

This is a wretched idea

Or you could play good defense. That's a possibility too. I mean I know cheating is a lot easier, but if that's what you think is best, you're entitled to your opinion.

But yes, I'd much rather see a team with a small lead dribble out the clock for the last 35 seconds of a close game, just like every game with a sizable lead ends. I think it's infinitely better than the last two minutes of a game taking 15 minutes to finish, while the trailing team hacks away at the winning team because they simply weren't good enough to take the lead in the first 39:00 of play.

Hell some games are worse than that now. They'll start fouling with 3 or 4 minutes left. So instead of 3 or 4 minutes of basketball at the end you get 20 minutes of hacking and whistle-blowing and standing around.
I'd much rather watch a game that has 39:25 of actual basketball and 35 seconds of dribbling at the end, than the monstrosity that I watch now. It's not much different than seeing a football team run the "victory formation" in football. (except in basketball you still have a sporting chance of getting the ball and scoring)

But I'm mostly for it because it is unconscionably unsportsmanlike. It is in every way shape and form cheating, but people call it "good strategy" so they don't have to think about it. But it's cheating. It's deliberately breaking the rules in order to obtain a competitive advantage. That's the very definition of cheating.

If you can tell me why you think it's not cheating, or why you think cheating at the end of the game is okay I'm open to reconsidering.

Do you think they should change the rules in football? If a the defense commits a penalty on a 30yd play, should the offense be forced to accept the penalty and only gain 10 yards instead of the 30?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Actually, between 1939 and 1952 THAT WAS the rule. Except there wasn't a shot clock back then. Here's what Naismith says in his book:

"I have often overheard some spectators express the opinion that a game was won by free throws. I have always taken the attitude that the game was lost by fouls." Naismith wrote. "Personally, I believe that any tendency toward lessening the penalty of a foul would be a serious mistake."

Good info douggie. Thanks.

I'd still be in favor of declining free throws even without a shot clock, but since we have one of those now, I'm even more for it.

The Naismith quote is interesting because I'm not really sure what his take on that is. Does he consider letting the "victim" of the foul decide the punishment to be less of a penalty?

I would argue the circumstances dictate which penalty is worse so allowing the team that was fouled the decision would always result in the most severe penalty.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

It isn't cheating because it isn't give you the competitive advantage. You are giving the other team FREE throws. It is their job as college and NBA players to do their jobs and make the free throws.


Wait, and you think a team should be punished for not leading the first 39 minutes? Who is to say they didn't spend the vast majority of the game leading. So now, in a close game they should just lose? Why isn't the game just 39 minutes then? Because your arguments flawless would exist no matter what.


It is mindboggling you think see a team up 1 with 30 seconds left is good for basketball to watch them dribble the ball out. Free throws are part of the game. Fouls are part of the game. It isn't cheating if you are being called on it lol..Seriously? Me playing you in a trivia game and looking up the answers online...that is cheating. That is not allowed. Fouling is ALLOWED with a penalty assest for it doing. That is not cheating.


And that football example isn't even close to the same thing. A flag doesn't blow the play dead so once the play is completed you have the option. They are choosing between the result in the play or the penalty.


Guess what? The only result in college basketball off being fouled is the ball going in the hoop for an And 1!! There is no result to choose currently.


This is just completely illogical and thankfully will never be implemented to the game of basketball and would ruin some of the greatest moments the sport provides.

 

[douggie]

Good info douggie. Thanks.

I'd still be in favor of declining free throws even without a shot clock, but since we have one of those now, I'm even more for it.

The Naismith quote is interesting because I'm not really sure what his take on that is. Does he consider letting the "victim" of the foul decide the punishment to be less of a penalty?

I would argue the circumstances dictate which penalty is worse so allowing the team that was fouled the decision would always result in the most severe penalty.

Naismith died in 1938 so he wouldn't have seen the rule implemented. When Naismith set up the game there was a penalty for a team fouling consecutively and the team was awarded a point. Back then each hoop was worth just one point. Each player was given 3 total fouls. He was more interested in penalizing a foul than rewarding a free throw. The game evolved while Naismith tweaked it. The first free throws were 20-foot shots. In 1895 the free throw line was moved to 15 feet and in 1896 the field goal was 2 points and a free throw a single point.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

It absolutely gives you a competitive advantage. THAT'S WHY EVERY SINGLE TEAM DOES IT. Every one. Zero exceptions. If it wasn't advantageous, they wouldn't do it. It completely removes a teams ability to run its offense and run the clock out. You don't think that's advantageous for a team that's trailing?

And the amount of time is irrelevant. It's dictated by the rules of the game. It's the length of the game minus the length of the shot clock. Again, it's no different than going into the victory formation of in football, except the trailing team has a sporting chance of getting a turnover and scoring. But in football the ball is dead at the end of every play regardless if there was a foul or not. The sports are played differently, no question. You've explained why they're different but failed to provide any case for why those differences support your assertion. A foul in basketball whistles the play dead. So? Why does that change anything? Plays get whistled dead for a variety of reasons in basketball. Why does that mean you should be forced to shoot free throws?

Yes free throws are a part of the game, but they aren't necessarily a good part. Do you really look forward to the last couple of minutes of a close game and say to yourself "Finally! We can dispense with this offense and defense bullshit, and get to the free throws!" Because I don't. I hate it. I dread it.

Weren't you one of the guys complaining last year about the officiating changes and how too many fouls were called? How it disrupted the flow of the game and how awful all of that was? If not my apologies, but I seem to recall you being pretty vocal about that.

And my suggestion won't necessarily change much. Coaches could still chose to foul at the end of the game and the opposing coach might still choose to shoot free throws. I just don't understand how having a choice in the matter ruins the game.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

1 yes, I was against ticky tack fouls being called through out the game. Completely different situation. Teams are not trying to foul and ARE NOT fouling. They are just being called for it.


The team going to the free throw line is benefitting as well. They get to have a chance at free points. It is part of basketball to make free throws. You don't deserve to win a game if you can't make free throws. Sorry but the team that hoists up some tough 3s and keeps fouling deserves the win more than the team who can't hit their free throws and ends up losing. It is a part of basketball.


The football comparison again doesn't work. In football you can get the ball back by calling time outs..there are 3 downs remember? They can only go into victory formation when they run out of timeouts. Intentional fouls are basketballs way of still having a chance, just like football calling a time out.


If a game is 40 minutes long it is to see who is the best team for 40 minutes. You don't cut that down by having the last 35 seconds go all anti climatic. And what does a foul whistling the play dead have to do with anything else? It doesn't you are bringing up irrelevant comparisons. Once fouled in basketball you are unable to keep making a play, in football you can. That is the only point that matters. And completed explains why football has the overturn option because it has the ability for a more positive out come. In basketball getting fouled in the bonus...going to the line is the only outcome.


What nobody likes at the end of a basketball game is a coach calling 3 time outs down 10 with 20 seconds left. Or a team intentional fouling down 10 with 20 seconds left. Fouling to get the ball back with a chance to comeback is what makes the game great. You are basically arguing in favor of making it easier to win a game and requiring less skill.


Having guys that can make free throws down the stretch is what seperates the bad from the good to the great many times.


Nova absolfuckinglutely deserved their comeback today. With your proposed scenario they don't win that game.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

1 yes, I was against ticky tack fouls being called through out the game. Completely different situation. Teams are not trying to foul and ARE NOT fouling. They are just being called for it.

By rule they absolutely were committing fouls. They were just fouls that you didn't agree with, and didn't like. Sound familiar? The difference is I'm arguing to change the rule. You were just arguing to go back to ignoring the rules.

The team going to the free throw line is benefitting as well. They get to have a chance at free points. It is part of basketball to make free throws. You don't deserve to win a game if you can't make free throws. Sorry but the team that hoists up some tough 3s and keeps fouling deserves the win more than the team who can't hit their free throws and ends up losing. It is a part of basketball.

That's your opinion. It's as valid as any, but its just an opinion.

The football comparison again doesn't work. In football you can get the ball back by calling time outs..there are 3 downs remember? They can only go into victory formation when they run out of timeouts. Intentional fouls are basketballs way of still having a chance, just like football calling a time out.

Well (unless you're ECU) you don't go into victory formation until you're assured the last possession of the game. What I'm suggesting is no different. EXCEPT THE OTHER TEAM STILL HAS A SPORTING CHANCE OF FORCING A TURNOVER. Or the could foul anyway, and see of the other team exercises their option to shoot free throws. So it's absolutely a better situation than what exists at the end of a football game.

If a game is 40 minutes long it is to see who is the best team for 40 minutes. You don't cut that down by having the last 35 seconds go all anti climatic.

That's what football does. Except it's the last few minutes instead of the last 35 seconds.

And what does a foul whistling the play dead have to do with anything else? It doesn't you are bringing up irrelevant comparisons.

Fuck if I know. You fucking brought it up. Are you drunk too?

Once fouled in basketball you are unable to keep making a play, in football you can. That is the only point that matters.

And the only reason you can is because they don't whistle the play dead, you dumb...

FUCK! It's like I'm talking to a fucking wall. That's the exact fucking point YOU just called irrelevant.

And completed explains why football has the overturn option because it has the ability for a more positive out come. In basketball getting fouled in the bonus...going to the line is the only outcome.

No shit it's the only outcome. That's why I'm suggesting they change it.

What nobody likes at the end of a basketball game is a coach calling 3 time outs down 10 with 20 seconds left. Or a team intentional fouling down 10 with 20 seconds left. Fouling to get the ball back with a chance to comeback is what makes the game great. You are basically arguing in favor of making it easier to win a game and requiring less skill.

Great so we all agree that doing dumbass plays that won't win the game are bad. Thanks for bring up more irrelevant shit that has absolutely no bearing on the conversation. You're getting pretty good at that.

What I'm suggesting is watching basketball games that have 40 minutes of basketball, instead of basketball games that have 38 minutes of basketball and 15 minutes of standing around.

I don't need artificial drama to make the game interesting. It's a plenty good game without shooting free throws at the end.

Having guys that can make free throws down the stretch is what seperates the bad from the good to the great many times.

You could say the same thing about not having to shoot free throws.

Nova absolfuckinglutely deserved their comeback today. With your proposed scenario they don't win that game.

You have no idea if they win that game or not. They may have just played good defense, (The HORROR!) forced a few turnovers and won anyway.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Just handle it like they do in football. Let you decline the foul and keep the ball with a fresh shot clock. Take away the incentive to foul in the first place.

Forget about punishing teams that can't make free throws. You shouldn't reward teams for breaking the rules. In every other aspect of life, intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage is called cheating. At the end of a close basketball game it's called "good strategy" Fuck that. It's cheating.

trolly this is the worst idea you've ever had. and I won't get into a long argument about it, but calling it "cheating" is just such an extreme viewpoint.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

HAHAHAHA you are fucking ridiculous. YOU BROUGHT up the fucking moronic football/basketball analogy not me. Jesus this is embarrassing.


I hope you are actually just trolling. I will have lost faith in humanity if you are actually this goddamn dumb.


There I can insult to. At least I have a logical stance. Fucking idiot.