KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

We were one of the first teams to play with the 30 second shot clock and we may be one of the first teams to play with this new rule...

Good rule change. Nothing worse than when a team is in the bonus with twelve minutes left. Still, why not just go to quarters like everyone else? Pro, Internationals, women's, high school? Why have it still be 20 minute halves? Plus, you would add two more chances every game at a cool, clock winding down situation.

Yea it seems like it would make sense to go to quarters with this rule change. Only thing I don't like is it appears they are getting rid of one and ones and going straight to two shots.

This would benefit URI I think, given the foul heavy style of defense.

This would benefit URI I think, given the propensity to miss the front end of 1 and 1's.

Heck we go one better, we miss them both when it's a 2 shot foul.

GBG, if they went to quarters like the women's game, we would have 2 more opportunities to fuck up at the end of them.

I'd rather see them go to six fouls per player.
Too many times a star is benched with 2 fouls early.
We could call this "The Iverson Rule".
Imagine the difference if he could have stayed in
those games he got two quick ones?
OK, maybe he'd need a 10 foul rule, but you get the point.

Didn't Archie keep his starters in with 4 fouls Friday night? He knew if they sat, especially Smith, they were toast?

Dan needs to roll the dice more often when guys who are playing well get 2 fouls....Dowtin played 23 minutes and ended up with only 3 fouls....if he had played more, maybe the offense wouldn't have stalled as much?

I guess he's starting to do that a little more.....but not enough this time.

rodfromcranston wrote:I'd rather see them go to six fouls per player.
Too many times a star is benched with 2 fouls early.
We could call this "The Iverson Rule".
Imagine the difference if he could have stayed in
those games he got two quick ones?
OK, maybe he'd need a 10 foul rule, but you get the point.

I respectfully disagree. He can stay in the game...it's the over-conservative coach who chooses to take the player out. John Chaney was the first coach (I remember) doing this. You got 2 fouls in the first half and you automatically sat. Now it seems routine that all coaches do it, although I don't know why. They don't trust their own players??

If you give guys 6 fouls to use, then there will be more aggressive defense, which leads to more fouling which leads to disruption of play...which leads to lousy games. You want a star player (Iverson is not a star however) to stay on the court? Then teach him to play without fouling...it's called playing good defense.

Agree with P3M don't like the idea of 6 fouls in 40m game

The 1 and 1 at 7 fouls is ridiculous and turns a beautiful sport into a slap fest.

I would like to see 1/1 at say 10 fouls and double bonus at 12(actually I don't like double bonus at all)

It took years but the NBA finally got rid of 3 shots to make 2. That was a flow killer.....

Good point re the "Chaney rule" too. Nice to see Hurley start to deviate from it at times.

Here's a thought, dont play mugging style of overaggressive defense on every single possession regardless of the game situation or opponent?

There is this style of defense call ZONE which is actually a good way to keep your better players on the floor with 2 early fouls..

This rule change for the NIT makes us the odds on favorite to win the NIT title !!!

88, you mean tell Dan to stop his rigid stubbornness about not playing zone, or overaggressive D?

I doubt we will ever see those changes.

I love it when Dan says his players can't play zone....they leave 3 pt. shooters open all the time.....they do because they aren't being taught the right way to play it? Excuses.

As I recall, Syracuse has done pretty well with it....Temple when Chaney was there too.

PlayMikeMotenMore wrote: I respectfully disagree. He can stay in the game...it's the over-conservative coach who chooses to take the player out. John Chaney was the first coach (I remember) doing this. You got 2 fouls in the first half and you automatically sat. Now it seems routine that all coaches do it, although I don't know why. They don't trust their own players??

So true. The auto-bench is just ridiculous. Coaches do anything and everything to avoid being second guessed.

If a player picks up 2 fouls in the first 5 minutes, sitting him makes sense of course.....although depending on the situation he could be brought back later in the 1st half......

I like that new NIT experimental rule....any rule that will limit the number of times we go to the FT line has to help us.

And will speed up the game.

6 personal fouls will be a hackfest. For the sake of discussion, let's reverse the rule for a second. (We can do that right? It's a message board!)

In the PMMM world, we're going to reduce the number of fouls allowed to 4 per game. In my opinion, there would be less hand checking, less wrestling on the low block, and more emphasis on body positioning on defense. Guys would be more careful not to get silly fouls (i.e. play smarter?) and I think there would be less whistles. This would lead to MORE freedom of movement and a more aesthetically pleasing game.

Interesting to see how this experiment works not sure if I like or dislike yet

rambone 78 wrote:Dan needs to roll the dice more often when guys who are playing well get 2 fouls....Dowtin played 23 minutes and ended up with only 3 fouls....if he had played more, maybe the offense wouldn't have stalled as much?

We scored 74 points against the number 24 kenpom defense in the country. That's not a bad offensive game.

Stop it with the numbers!!

PlayMikeMotenMore wrote:6 personal fouls will be a hackfest. For the sake of discussion, let's reverse the rule for a second. (We can do that right? It's a message board!)

In the PMMM world, we're going to reduce the number of fouls allowed to 4 per game. In my opinion, there would be less hand checking, less wrestling on the low block, and more emphasis on body positioning on defense. Guys would be more careful not to get silly fouls (i.e. play smarter?) and I think there would be less whistles. This would lead to MORE freedom of movement and a more aesthetically pleasing game.

I think leave it alone...4 would eventually have the same effect as 6. If they switch to 4 and start calling them off the bat, people will be unhappy because good players (that people paid money to see) will sit much more...and when that angst gets loud enough...they just won't call as tightly and it could end up being even more dicey/physical... Yes, eventually the 'players will adapt'...but it's a physical game and 5 seems fine. 4 or 6 seems to have possibility of same, more physical outcome...

ATPTourFan wrote:Stop it with the numbers!!

Sorry!