I think basketball would be better served by eliminating incentives to foul. The whole idea of blowing a whistle is to make the game more eloquent and to prevent it from turning into something ugly - why give incentives to foul? So here's what I propose: 1. When fouled on a continuation, the team has a choice to shoot the free throw or inbounds for another possesion. 2. For non-shooting fouls in the bonus....a team can elect to take the free throws or inbound. This elminated dreadful end of game free-throw shooting contests. Instead a team has to actually steal the ball, force a miss shot, or some other turnover - gee, imagine that? 3. Instead of fouling out - introduce the penalty box. If a player commits a foul, he has to sit in the box for a minute. His team has to play 4 on 5. If a player commits a foul during this period, then the team gets free-throws plus retains possession. In other words, make fouling a punishment instead of a potential reward. The game is suppose to be non-contact. I bet this would make the game flow a lot easier and take the ref's out of the game and put it back in the player's hands....
Or give three free throws for a foul. One reason people foul so often now is that the end result can be no worse than what is about to happen.
I like things the way they are. If someone can't shoot free throws well in clutch situations, they deserve to be fouled with the game on the line.
It's the one thing I dislike about basketball - as a player and a fan. Nothing is worse then games turning into free throw contests. It's no longer about outplaying your opponent, it's about free throws. I'd just like to see that part of the game gone....free throws are the weakest part of basketball in my opinion.
That could work - then intentional fouling would really be penalized and instead teams would have to try to get steals or trap more near the end of games in which they were behind.
Not to argue with myself, but can you imagine how bad already inexcusabely poor free throw shooting would become if they got three free throws. Shaq would declare himself 100% accurate if he could make 66% of his opportunities.
would be a good idea until rick adelman decides to dump all of his players except brad miller for center, resign vlade to pf, matt harpring for sf, reg miller as sg, and sign cassell (the soldier : : snicker : as a free agent. in other words you'll have teams that are the "cream of the flop". effers would be flopping all over the place like that fish on the "faith no more" video. the league is filled with too many pittle lussies that take full advantage of charging for this to be effective.
They need to reward floppers with a foul....make it a foul to intentionally try to fake a foul on your opponent.
The reason they have the FT is so the fans don't get bored at the end. The NBA has benefited a great deal by the FT. Most teams with the lead win. But occasionally, you get the miracle. The dumbest thing the NCAA did was remove the 1-1. That **** was drama.
If you gave 3 free throws, you'd have to really, really cut down on any ticky tack foul calls the ref makes. Players like Dwayne Wade would just drive to the basket and jump into people very possession (he would average 33 ppg every season with those rules). This would not cut down on free throws, it would increase them because teams would recognize that they could potentially get 3 points every possession if they just play aggressive towards the basket. And 4 on 5 basketball? The other suggestions sort of made sense but I don't like changing the rules that drastically...but playing 4 on 5 is WAY drastic.
Why the Hell would a team choose to take a side out of bounds instead of shoot FTs? If you allowed 3 FTs per foul guys would play ZERO defense and the game would just be a matter of who can make the most uncontested layups. If you consider that to be good basketball, you might as well leave the building after the teams are finished with their layup lines. The one change that MIGHT work would be a designated Foul Shooter, like a place kicker in football. Calvin Murphy and Rick Barry would still be playing if that ever happened.
I think the theory behind it is: you have possession of the ball and you're up by 1 point with 10 seconds remaining. Choosing to retain possession of the ball with a side out would be "better" than attempting two free throws and giving possession to the other team. I personally don't think it would work though. All teams would choose to shoot free throws, even if it means losing possession of the ball afterwards. If you have a chance to put more points on the board, you take it no matter what. If you choose a side-out and try to run the clock out, the opposing team can just keep fouling you until you turn the ball over. It's bound to happen eventually after the 15th side-out or so.
