Better flow means taking away time? Ha! How about ... Reducing "timeouts on the floor" Getting rid of "superstar calls" Rethink that dumb decision to enforce the hyper sensitive delay-of-game rule Evaluating referee perfoances. You can weed out the ones who think whistle is power
Soccer doesn't have timeouts (other than injury stoppage) and they make $$$ alright. I agree (and have pointed out elsewhere) that the most effective way to improve game flow is stopping calling fouls for floppers.
I think they should just make it 100 games and No Playoffs/NBA Finals. Have a league table like European Soccer. Then make it where teams can get regulated/Promoted to and from the D-league.
Make it a 40-minute game. Cut ticket prices and salaries by 17%. Players careers might be prolonged by an average of 1.5 years. Everybody is happy.
Make fouls run 10 seconds off the clock to prevent teams from fouling to prolong the game. Fewer timeouts for each team. No stops of the clock except during timeouts and in the last two minutes of the game. Increase the roster spots by 1 (active and total), and if the superstars get tired, it is what it is. Basketball already has enough concentration of power at the top, why cater to them by making the flow such that the best players can play 100% of the minutes if they wanted? You don't see the NFL altering the pacing of their game to keep their best running backs from ever having to come off the field.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Erik Spoelstra downplayed the significance of the 44-minute game on Sunday. "There are just too many games."</p>— Tom Haberstroh (@tomhaberstroh) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh/status/522142192723566592">October 14, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Spoelstra strongly suggested that the league look at how to eliminate each team's 20 or so back-to-backs.</p>— Tom Haberstroh (@tomhaberstroh) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh/status/522142500572901376">October 14, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I will be shocked when/if I ever see a major league reduce the amount of games. That's a tangible loss in revenue that I don't think they'd ever be willing to take. Honestly, I'm surprised they're even considering this. I'd like it though...too many damn TV timeouts.
You clearly didn't read the article, because part of the time they're taking away includes mandatory timeouts in the second and fourth quarters. Kneeeeee jerk.
This! And here's how you do it. Treat any "Hack-A-XXXX" foul similar to a foul before the ball is in bounded. Instead of 2 ft's & ball possession, make it 2POINTS & ball possession. Also make time outs the actual length. No more 20 second time outs lasting over 2 minutes.
Not sure if that's a good idea. Pop + Spurs? They'd be okay with that, as everyone should be used to the system. New coach, coaching a young / inexperienced team? If they can't get things going after using their only timeout of the quarter, it might be a blowout.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/sto...ts-play-experimental-44-minute-preseason-game Basically, nobody really cared. Some interesting points though: So I guess that on an individual game basis the games feel no different, but extrapolated over an 82 game season, there could maybe be some significance?
My concern is how this proposed change would affect the historical significance of comparing present players to past players. We will need to put an asterisk indicating the difference between statistics from the pre-12 minute quarter era to the post-11 quarter era. But then again, so many changes were put into place (3 point line, defensive rule changes, etc.) that go unmentioned when comparing current players to the greats of the past.
