What's new
By:

Lowe: The Basketball Tournament Rule Change That NBA is Watching

Saint Cy of JFC

Saint Cy of JFC

Well-Known Member
2022 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
IMO the simplest and least intrusive way of making the final minutes go quicker is to eliminate 2-minute timeouts at the end of games (i.e., say the final 2 minutes). So the rule change would be, once you go into the final 2 minutes of the game, all 2-minute timeouts automatically becomes 20-second timeouts.


So for example, if a team has x1 2-minute timeouts and x2 20-second timeouts, once the final 2 minutes of the game is reached, that team will effectively have x3 20-second timeouts.


Why? To me the 2-minute timeouts in the final minutes are killers. They take the momentum right out of the game because the broadcasters often have to cut to commercial break, and by the time you get back to action all the excitement is gone. With the 20-second timeouts instead the broadcasters would be forced to take a really quick commercial break or stay with the action, keeping viewers glue to the TV sets.
 
ONE LOVE said:
IMO the simplest and least intrusive way of making the final minutes go quicker is to eliminate 2-minute timeouts at the end of games (i.e., say the final 2 minutes). So the rule change would be, once you go into the final 2 minutes of the game, all 2-minute timeouts automatically becomes 20-second timeouts.


So for example, if a team has x1 2-minute timeouts and x2 20-second timeouts, once the final 2 minutes of the game is reached, that team will effectively have x3 20-second timeouts.


Why? To me the 2-minute timeouts in the final minutes are killers. They take the momentum right out of the game because the broadcasters often have to cut to commercial break, and by the time you get back to action all the excitement is gone. With the 20-second timeouts instead the broadcasters would be forced to take a really quick commercial break or stay with the action, keeping viewers glue to the TV sets.
Click to expand...

That doesnt change much bud. There is still a ton of fouling to prolong the game and make the game less exciting/less playing actual basketball.

The more I think about it the more I like it. Every game would have a game winning shot.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
That doesnt change much bud. There is still a ton of fouling to prolong the game and make the game less exciting/less playing actual basketball.
Click to expand...

Well my suggestion would cut waiting time by a considerable amount IMO. Step by step. There is no point in radically changing the way basketball has been played. What if people don't like it? You don't want to kill the golden goose.
 
Also, this rule would heavily benefit the Jazz.

For instance let's say we are playing the Spurs and we are down 7 (let's say 90-83) with 3 minutes to go. That is a pretty hard lead to overcome in 3 minutes of regulation. The Jazz call a timeout to trigger the rule and the total to win the game becomes 97. With a stout defense the Jazz could probably achieve that easier than they could outscoring the Spurs by 8 over the course of the final 3 minutes. I think that would make for some really exciting games.

Under the normal rules there is a chance for an exciting finish in close games, but usually they come down to intentional fouls. Under the new rule there would be a definable game winning shot every single game. If both teams are 1 point away from winning, it becomes a sudden death game. Just a lot of potential for exciting finishes, more so than there are currently.

I like that the NBA is at least looking at this. The NBA should be a forward thinking league that isnt afraid to break conventions. Nothing is more boring than people who are so set on an old way and refuse to even think about new things. Just look at how long the NBA took to implement the 3pt line after the ABA did it. Changes can be good.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Well my suggestion would cut waiting time by a considerable amount IMO. Step by step. There is no point in radically changing the way basketball has been played. What if people don't like it? You don't want to kill the golden goose.
Click to expand...

That's why they test these things out man. The Basketball Tournament is going to do it in play-in games. At least have the D-League do it for a season. There were a ton of people just like you who were completely against the 3pt line too, just remember that. If the NBA stuck to the "true" NBA game, the NBA game would be way ****tier.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
That's why they test these things out man. The Basketball Tournament is going to do it in play-in games. At least have the D-League do it for a season. There were a ton of people just like you who were completely against the 3pt line too, just remember that. If the NBA stuck to the "true" NBA game, the NBA game would be way ****tier.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I just think it's ****.
 
I would be fine with removing the game clock completely. First team to 100 wins 25 points triggers the end of the first quarter.
 
♪alt13 said:
I would be fine with removing the game clock completely. First team to 100 wins
Click to expand...

Hmmm, only problem with that is you risk extremely long games if both teams are having ****ty nights. How long would Jazz games potentially be? Too damn long. This achieves a similar process but gives a more uniform time length to each game.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Bro, I read it, and I don't like it. And I suspect most people won't like it neither.



I'll let others chime in, I've said my peace.
Click to expand...

Then why in the hell did you ask me why they would do it when they explained why they would do it in the article?

And I'm not sure if I would want it yet either, but to completely dismiss it just because "its not the way we have done it for the past x amount of years" is a line of thought I despise.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Then why in the hell did you ask me why they would do it when they explained why they would do it in the article?
Click to expand...

I know what the article says, and what it's trying to achieve. I just think we should tackle each problem step by step instead of going with a radical change.


I stand by my solution of eliminating 2 minute timeout, as a viewer to me that's the most frustrating thing in the final minutes of a game.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Hmmm, only problem with that is you risk extremely long games if both teams are having ****ty nights. How long would Jazz games potentially be? Too damn long. This achieves a similar process but gives a more uniform time length to each game.
Click to expand...

I kinda like that though. I watch both long and short movies. Both have their strengths.
 
♪alt13 said:
I kinda like that though. I watch both long and short movies. Both have their strengths.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that would be a scheduling nightmare. You might like it, but it just isnt logical from a time management perspective.
 
You could get real crazy. Each quarter is a25 point set. First team to win 3 quarters wins. Same games would be decided in just 3 quarters some in 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top