interesting column on ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...rvey-shows

coaches wanting to have a centralized officiating body rather than what it is today....

Also interesting to see that there are a number of coaches that do want to go to quarters, allow 6 fouls, and permit teams to advance ball to halfcourt end of game on timeouts. I suspect if the women's game move to quarters is fine, we're going to see a change on the men's side in 2 years.

1) 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is ok.

2) Hell no to the NBA rule that allows teams to advance the ball to half-court on a timeout. It's one of the silliest rules in any kind of basketball. The football equivalent would be allowing a team to move the line of scrimmage from its own 10 yard line to the 50 by calling a timeout.

3) 6 fouls instead of 5 isn't the worst thing but I don't favor it because it encourages more of the hacking approach to defense that has been so popular in recent years. Instead of just allowing 6 fouls, maybe they could borrow the old ABA no-foul-out rule, which allowed teams to keep a player in the game after "fouling out" but every foul the player committed after that was penalized the same as a technical foul, i.e., the "fouled team" gets two free throws plus possession after the free throws.

4) Nationwide centralized officiating would be a cure worse than the disease. Comparing this to NBA administration of its refs is a poor analogy. Division I basketball alone has 10 times as many teams as the NBA. Who wants more NCAA bureaucracy and dozens or hundreds of more NCAA employees in Indianapolis administrating officials for every single game whether it's Kentucky-Louisville or two tiny schools playing in a 400-seat gym. The additional overhead would make the per-game cost for officiating much higher than it is now, and no one needs NCAA employees filling up an entire office building in Indy to figure out that refs who live in California should work Cal-UCLA while refs in the northeast work BC-Syracuse, rather than the other way around.

(09-01-2015 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  1) 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is ok.

2) Hell no to the NBA rule that allows teams to advance the ball to half-court on a timeout. It's one of the silliest rules in any kind of basketball. The football equivalent would be allowing a team to move the line of scrimmage from its own 10 yard line to the 50 by calling a timeout.

3) 6 fouls instead of 5 isn't the worst thing but I don't favor it because it encourages more of the hacking approach to defense that has been so popular in recent years. Instead of just allowing 6 fouls, maybe they could borrow the old ABA no-foul-out rule, which allowed teams to keep a player in the game after "fouling out" but every foul the player committed after that was penalized the same as a technical foul, i.e., the "fouled team" gets two free throws plus possession after the free throws.

4) Nationwide centralized officiating would be a cure worse than the disease. Comparing this to NBA administration of its refs is a poor analogy. Division I basketball alone has 10 times as many teams as the NBA. Who wants more NCAA bureaucracy and dozens or hundreds of more NCAA employees in Indianapolis administrating officials for every single game whether it's Kentucky-Louisville or two tiny schools playing in a 400-seat gym. The additional overhead would make the per-game cost for officiating much higher than it is now, and no one needs NCAA employees filling up an entire office building in Indy to figure out that refs who live in California should work Cal-UCLA while refs in the northeast work BC-Syracuse, rather than the other way around.

1) NCAA men's is only one who doesn't do quarters now. Maybe we can do quarters and get rid of a TV timeout.

2) Don't have a strong opinion either way on this.

3) No way. Too much fouling (much uncalled) already. And NBA has 6 in 48 minutes. 5 in 40 seems appropriate.

4) I would like to see more consistency. Especially in the tourney.

it would get rid of tv timeout.

now- 16/12/8/4
quarters 5/quarter/5

so 1 per half fewer than we have now. 2 per game would lop off about 5 minutes.

(09-01-2015 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  1) 4 quarters instead of 2 halves is ok.

2) Hell no to the NBA rule that allows teams to advance the ball to half-court on a timeout. It's one of the silliest rules in any kind of basketball. The football equivalent would be allowing a team to move the line of scrimmage from its own 10 yard line to the 50 by calling a timeout.

3) 6 fouls instead of 5 isn't the worst thing but I don't favor it because it encourages more of the hacking approach to defense that has been so popular in recent years. Instead of just allowing 6 fouls, maybe they could borrow the old ABA no-foul-out rule, which allowed teams to keep a player in the game after "fouling out" but every foul the player committed after that was penalized the same as a technical foul, i.e., the "fouled team" gets two free throws plus possession after the free throws.

4) Nationwide centralized officiating would be a cure worse than the disease. Comparing this to NBA administration of its refs is a poor analogy. Division I basketball alone has 10 times as many teams as the NBA. Who wants more NCAA bureaucracy and dozens or hundreds of more NCAA employees in Indianapolis administrating officials for every single game whether it's Kentucky-Louisville or two tiny schools playing in a 400-seat gym. The additional overhead would make the per-game cost for officiating much higher than it is now, and no one needs NCAA employees filling up an entire office building in Indy to figure out that refs who live in California should work Cal-UCLA while refs in the northeast work BC-Syracuse, rather than the other way around.

1) NCAA men's is only one who doesn't do quarters now. Maybe we can do quarters and get rid of a TV timeout.

2) Don't have a strong opinion either way on this.

3) No way. Too much fouling (much uncalled) already. And NBA has 6 in 48 minutes. 5 in 40 seems appropriate.

4) I would like to see more consistency. Especially in the tourney.

x2

This is part of the reason why coaches are the last people we should be listening to for any changes. Coaches have little understanding of "cause and effect" and no concept of "unintended consequences."

They're great people-persons: great teachers and salesmen. But most coaches are horrible problem solvers (thinkers like Brad Stevens are few and far between).

The thing that will happen though- all of these changes are in the womens game(except for the 6 fouls I believe). If the women's game starts having 5-10 minutes quicker games, with exciting finishes due to the timeouts- those changes are going to be coming in 2017-18.

(09-01-2015 04:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  1) NCAA men's is only one who doesn't do quarters now. Maybe we can do quarters and get rid of a TV timeout.

2) Don't have a strong opinion either way on this.

3) No way. Too much fouling (much uncalled) already. And NBA has 6 in 48 minutes. 5 in 40 seems appropriate.

4) I would like to see more consistency. Especially in the tourney.

I'd be in favor of unlimited fouling, so that fouls are called consistently all game long. If you want, add a rule that if a player goes over the foul limit, then the other team can take technical foul shot(s) as a penalty but call the game consistently and also allow teams to keep their best players on the court all game if they so choose foul trouble/disqualification be damned.

Basketball is full of all kinds of archaic rules:

The 5 second rule: pointless with a shot clock.

Half court violation: ditto.

The 8/10 second rule: ditto.

(09-01-2015 05:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  it would get rid of tv timeout.

now- 16/12/8/4
quarters 5/quarter/5

so 1 per half fewer than we have now. 2 per game would lop off about 5 minutes.

I agree with this one. If you really want to speed up play, stop allowing TV to dictate when play is stopped.

Advertisers will go nowhere, since the audience they want to reach is glued, and many games will no longer be 4 hour ordeals for the fans.