h a l f b a k e r yThe mutter of invention.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Basketball can be very exciting or very
dull. Besides the thrill of seeing brilliant
plays, the excitement comes in from
seeing if the team who is ahead can
maintain the lead to the end and from very
close finishes where baskets scored in the
last minute can decide the game.
In this idea
that excitement is multiplied
by 5. Divide the game into five periods (or
sets) and after each set, reset everything.
Score, fouls (Number of allowed fouls
would obviously have to be reduced or the
game may deteriorate to a slug fest.).
Then if a team pulls away by a few points,
you have the excitement of seeing if it will
last that much sooner. If the gap becomes
impossible, no worries, a new period will
give the down-team a chance to rebound.
[link]
|
| |
I like it, with the proviso that if the clock expires when the score is tied, each period should simply go into immediately sudden-death with no interruption of the action. |
|
| |
Beyond that, the only difficulty I can see would be that fans would be annoyed if the game was officially decided in the first three periods. |
|
| |
Perhaps one could add a rule that each game lasts a minimum of four periods. If the team that wins the last period wins at least two others, that team wins. Otherwise the game goes into a fifth period. At the end of the fifth period, the team that won three out of five wins UNLESS the other team won both of the last two periods AND scored more baskets during those periods than the other team did in the first three. |
|
| |
What's with all the recent entries designed to give a losing team that has underperformed a second chance? Don't squander the first chance and don't add unecessary rules that already dilute the games. |
|
| |
The idea, I think, is to ensure that the game remains interesting for television viewers throughout its entire duration (so as to ensure that they stick around to watch the ads). |
|
| |
The fact that the first team did well during the first part of the game shouldn't be negated, but limitting its significance may help ensure that the balance of the game remains interesting,. |
|
| |
I am surprised this is being panned.
The
idea is simply to allow the excitement
that comes at the end of a game to
come much earlier and many more
times. Why have to endure 55 minutes
of back-and-forth (yawn!) before
getting to those last 5 minutes that are
truly exciting? Why not allow that
excitement to happen 5 times instead
of just once? I think that the only
reason Tennis is popular is because
there are edge-of-the-seat moments
throughout the match. Every game can
potentially be exciting because of the
way Tennis is scored. I think that can
be applied in some other sports where
the scoring is high, e.g., basketball. |
|
| |
I agree with [supercat] that the fans may
feel cheated after a three period win.
However, haven't you ever turned off
the TV or seen people leave a stadium
early when the score is lopsided? |
|
| |
[noexit] what's with the sentiment of
turning up your nose at new ideas?
Isn't that the whole point of the
halfbakery? This is hardly a
complicated rule compared to many of
the other esoteric rules of basketball,
e.g. shot clock, technical fouls... |
|
| |
Goesta: Besides, one could provide that a team which won three periods still had to play at least decently throughout a fourth to avoid a fifth; if they played exceptionally poorly throughout both the fourth and fifth, then they deserve to lose. |
|
| |
You could have a system in the league where you get a set number of points depending on how many sets you won. If you won all five, you could get a bonus point. This would encourage both teams to play their best in the 4th and 5th, even if the immediate outcome is decided. |
|
| |
so it's like having 5 minie games in one? this is some what how volleyball is played right volleyball players? |
|
| |