NIT to experiment with new rules this season
-
Thoughts?
• A deeper 3-point line. It will be moved back approximately 20 inches to the distance used by FIBA in international competition (22 feet, 1.75 inches).
• A wider free throw lane. It will be extended from 12 to 16 feet, which is used in the NBA.
• Quarters, not halves. The game will still have 40 minutes of game clock, but it will be broken into four 10-minute quarters, which was adopted for the women’s college game in 2015. For each quarter, two free throws are awarded once a team reaches five fouls.
• After an offensive rebound, the shot clock will reset to 20 seconds, as opposed to the full 30.
Permanent rule changes to the sport cannot be made until the current two-year cycle ends in May 2019.
-
@BeddieKU23 I don’t like it. Seems like change just to change things. I like things the way they are.
-
Hawk8086 said:
@BeddieKU23 I don’t like it. Seems like change just to change things. I like things the way they are.
On all of them? I can see a few of these being positive changes.
-
I like the quarters and going straight to two free throws thing.
-
Why are they widening the free throw lane? Isn’t this going to make the game even more dominated by the 3 ball?
-
Just experimenting closer to international game. Should go to the trapezoid lane and shorter clock.
-
The college game is great. They just need to leave it the HE** alone!
-
@BeddieKU23 MAYBE the 3 pointer moving back…that would be it for me.
-
Quarters are fine by me, but leave the fouls by the half and take away 1 or 2 timeouts to balance it out.
Move the three point line back to open thing up inside a bit would be ok.
I’m not sure what widening the lane does? Accommodate the bigger players of today?
The offensive rebound shot clock to 20 seconds is supposed to speed things up I guess, but it penalizes good effort down the stretch when you’re trying to run the clock out.
-
The longer 3 point gives players an opportunity to shoot closer to the NBA range which is not necessarily a bad thing; many players routinely shot from there anyway. Longer rebound might favor the offense.
Four quarters help coaches to do in game adjustments having a longer time to do it in between quarters. Actually, it would have given Devonté a much needed additional rest.
Resetting the clock to only 20 seconds after an offensive rebound helps speed up the game some.
Since the foul count resets every quarter, the rule will help teams that do not foul. Huggy will not like that one.
I am not sure if the wider FT lanes favors offense or defense. Getting close to NBA rules might not be a bad thing, although it helps mostly the tiny number of college players who go to the NBA.
I don’t see anything that will change the game that much.
-
Hawk8086 said:
@BeddieKU23 MAYBE the 3 pointer moving back…that would be it for me.
I would be okay with that one as well. We have seen the NIT be the guinea pig for potential changes before. I highly doubt all four would happen at the same time. We could see all four trickled in over time.
-
How about:
—No betting;
—Objective refereeing;
—No petroshoeco-agency complex sponsorship of teams; and
—no exploits of the NCAA when speculative stories about FBI investigations are being dribbled out.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Now you’re just being ridiculous!
-
Can’t hurt to dream about a second rate tournament that was marginalized, and eclipsed by the NCAA tourney, because of how corrupt the NIT once was.
-
@jaybate-1.0 But at least when the NCAA was sued for putting the NIT out of business the NCAA did the honorable thing–they bought 'em.
-
The NIT was reputedly formed by NY sports writers with the reputed backing of Big Apple gambling racketeers in 1938.
The NAIA small college tourney was started 1938 by James Naismith and hotel industry promoters in Boss Tom Pendergast’s then machine town of Kansas City, MO.
The NCAA tourney was started in 1939 with strong advocacy from Coach Harold Olsen of Ohio State and Forest Allen of KU. Allen of KU had long been critical of east coast gambling’s adverse influence on college basketball.
Which tourney do you think was the most corrupt in the early days 1938-1940: NIT, NAIA, or NCAA?
-
@jaybate-1.0 None. The annual TiddlyWinks competition was the most corrupt.
I hear players were flipping all over the place.
-
-
I do not like changing lanes or 3-point lines. It alters records and makes it harder to compare players from eras. I love the quarters instead of halves and I hate 1 and 1s. I am ok with the shot clock reset as long as it doesn’t cause any clock issues and goes smoothly.
-
@Kcmatt7 I don’t think stats in the “Not Intheother Tournament” should count toward career, season, or game statistics, anyway. Call it an exhibition.
-
@mayjay Agreed lol. But just in general, they always test out the rules in the NIT before the implement them for real. I hope that the NCAA does not implement the floor change. Who knows if DG could have broken Boschees 3pt record if the line hadn’t been moved back? Is it likely? No. But, it is possible. And now we will never know for certain.
-
@mayjay You’re right who cares about the Not Invited Tournament? Stats shouldn’t count for such an obviously Not Important Tournamnet.
-
So with quarter breaks what happens to the every four TV timeouts? Will that be adjusted? If not it’s another TO. Not sure that’s a good thing. But in general, rules need to stay current with the times, and interestingly, international ball is influencing this very American sport.
The one thing that won’t change is NIT will stand for Not In Tourney.
-
Where do you get your information that the NIT or any of the other tournaments are or were corrupt? I remember watching the NIT in the 70s when it was a prestigious event and never heard back then or since that it was corrupt or any of the other tournaments for that matter.
Do you have any factual information or is this another Jaybate theory?
-
@JayHawkFanToo All fiction no malice.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
Where do you get your information that the NIT or any of the other tournaments are or were corrupt? I remember watching the NIT in the 70s when it was a prestigious event and never heard back then or since that it was corrupt or any of the other tournaments for that matter.
Do you have any factual information or is this another Jaybate theory?
Why do you ask?
You recall I don’t do leg work for you, right?
And you know I try not to waste time with apparent mischaracterizations of my posts, right?
And you know I don’t even see a lot of the mischaracterizations of my posts, right?
And you remember I don’t do “theories”, and I tend to believe “conspiracy theories” are mostly memed for suckers, or the term is mostly used for smears, at least since the stuff about Intel and MSM reputedly using “conspiracy theory” for smearing came out, right?
And you remember I do “hypotheses,” or just opine and speculate as a layman fan, right?
Cat got your attack graphic?
Be of good cheer. De-wad your boxers. And enjoy the 14th.
Next.
-
Buffer 1
-
Buffer 2
-
Buffer 3
-
Buffer 4
-
Buffer 5
-
Start graphics below.
-
Howling!
-
@jaybate-1.0 In practice debates in HS, whenever we got caught making an assertion without authority, we used to say, Why that’s just common knowledge! In the case of the NIT in the late 40’s I think that works. Dunno about the others, though.
-
Ya think?
-
What do you think about the 1938-1940 period, specifically?
-
@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Don’t know anything about that. I was hoping you would treat JHF2’s question seriously, like the rest of us do all our lives when someone says something startling (Huh? Where’d you hear that?), so I could do further reading. Your responses to him are really really odd.
-
Cool that Trae Young will be able to try out the longer-distance 3 line.
-
@Apologist Absolutely savage. PHOF
-
@mayjay Yeah, not sure why asking for a source would be treated with hostility. I get the “another Jaybate theory” isn’t particularly kind, but it’s far from insulting in my opinion.
-
BShark said:
@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.
Why?
But thanks for sharing.
-
mayjay said:
@jaybate-1.0 Don’t know anything about that. I was hoping you would treat JHF2’s question seriously, like the rest of us do all our lives when someone says something startling (Huh? Where’d you hear that?), so I could do further reading. Your responses to him are really really odd.
Thanks for sharing.
I find both of your posts really odd at times, too.
But it’s okay.
-
benshawks08 said:
@mayjay Yeah, not sure why asking for a source would be treated with hostility. I get the “another Jaybate theory” isn’t particularly kind, but it’s far from insulting in my opinion.
Thanks for sharing.
-
We really are keeping @Red.Rooster busy with these posts about what you and I find really odd!
Rock Chalk!
-
NBA sucks. International ball? Who cares.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I think you’re talking about the 1949/1950 scandal, where NY mobsters bought players to shave points.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I am always happy when I get back on and find 10 to 15 upvotes because it is the assurance I need that @Red.Rooster is back on checking things out!
An interesting comparison, my warm feelings about Rooster vs my antipathy toward the other member of Gallus gallus domesticus, the evil el pollo!
-
I see, no answers. Nothing new there.
-
jaybate 1.0 said:
BShark said:
@jaybate-1.0 Burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.
Why?
But thanks for sharing.
Why should someone be able to make an outrageous claim and the defense is simply like @mayjay said “it’s common knowledge”. That doesn’t work. Not if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Other people shouldn’t have to fact check for someone that’s making a claim, especially when it’s very likely hogwash.
