saw this:
In major-conference play this season, scoring per 40 min was up 8% vs 2015. Pace up 7%, FT rate unchanged.

So did the new rules work this year in your opinion?

So far I say yes.

it's going to be interesting in the tourney. will the refs call the game like they have been?

Definitely. It seemed like they accomplished what they wanted, and I think it was better for the game. Those extra seconds on the shot clock didn't amount to much more than players in a holding pattern around the perimeter to begin with.

It also makes more sense that we'll be seeing more fouls as a result of more possessions, but it just seems like I'm seeing way more fouls being called than I expected.

I really haven't noticed a change at all, so to me, the new rules worked.

(03-07-2016 12:02 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  Definitely. It seemed like they accomplished what they wanted, and I think it was better for the game. Those extra seconds on the shot clock didn't amount to much more than players in a holding pattern around the perimeter to begin with.

It also makes more sense that we'll be seeing more fouls as a result of more possessions, but it just seems like I'm seeing way more fouls being called than I expected.

what's amazing though is the FT rates haven't gone up. So maybe more common fouls, but not getting into the bonus and impacting the free throws....

People who pay attention to women's basketball consistently: How has going to quarters impacted the game? I have a feeling that they'll try it in the men's game sooner rather than later, perhaps the 2017 NIT/CBI/CIT/Vegas 16 with an eye toward full implementation in 2018.

Sorry, I thought this was going to be a baseball thread. Nevermind.

(03-07-2016 12:55 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  People who pay attention to women's basketball consistently: How has going to quarters impacted the game? I have a feeling that they'll try it in the men's game sooner rather than later, perhaps the 2017 NIT/CBI/CIT/Vegas 16 with an eye toward full implementation in 2018.

i saw earlier this year that the number of fouls were up but the number of free throws were actually down.

(03-07-2016 01:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 12:55 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  People who pay attention to women's basketball consistently: How has going to quarters impacted the game? I have a feeling that they'll try it in the men's game sooner rather than later, perhaps the 2017 NIT/CBI/CIT/Vegas 16 with an eye toward full implementation in 2018.

i saw earlier this year that the number of fouls were up but the number of free throws were actually down.

Does that mean teams are missing the front end of one-and-ones more often? That wouldn't have anything to do with rules changes.

(03-07-2016 02:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 01:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 12:55 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  People who pay attention to women's basketball consistently: How has going to quarters impacted the game? I have a feeling that they'll try it in the men's game sooner rather than later, perhaps the 2017 NIT/CBI/CIT/Vegas 16 with an eye toward full implementation in 2018.

i saw earlier this year that the number of fouls were up but the number of free throws were actually down.

Does that mean teams are missing the front end of one-and-ones more often? That wouldn't have anything to do with rules changes.

with the quarters, they are like the NBA- at the 5th foul of the quarter 2 shot foul.... But lets say a team gets 6 fouls in 1st quarter and 5 in the 2nd. Instead of 3 1 and 1's and 2 double bonus, would only be 2 double bonus 1st quarter, 1 in 2nd quarter.

I would like to see a couple of other changes, both of them regarding use of replay. IMO, current practice interferes too much with the flow of the game, especially in the last two minutes.

My first change would be eliminate the presumption one way or the other whether a foul was flagrant or not. Instead of requiring clear and conclusive video evidence to overturn a ruling, use the replay to determine the ruling. That is, give the officials one minute in real time to determine if a foul was flagrant. If they can't do that in a minute, then it is not flagrant.

Second, I would use the same one minute rule for all other calls. If you can't determine that a call should be overturned in that amount of time, then the call on the court stands. After that amount of time, it is clear that whatever evidence there may be is by definition unconvincing.

wow look at this graphic:
https://twitter.com/JohnGasaway/status/7...29/photo/1