Dick Vitale is yapping about changing the rules of college basketball again, undeterred by the fact that the last time they listened to him it was an unmitigated disaster (the season or two when they replaced the alternating possession on a held ball with a "ties go to the defense" rule that proved totally unworkable). This time out, he's upset that Georgetown lost in the second round, in part because Roy Hibbert got in foul trouble, and he wants to get rid of the rule that disqualifies players after five fouls. He thinks coaches should be able to keep their star players on the floor, and just make fouls six through N two shots and the ball for the other team.
This is, needless to say, a terrible idea. Vitale and the other idiots promoting this rule point out that basketball is the only major sport in which players are disqualified in the normal course of play. This is true. It's also the only major sport in which points are scored by passing a round ball through a metal hoop ten feet above the floor-- why not change that, while we're at it? Disqualification for fouling is only one of Naismith's original 13 rules, after all.
Basketball is a team game, and it's about the success or failure of the team, not any individual star player. Yeah, it sucks when a star player gets a couple of stupid fouls, and ends up sitting, but that's part of the game. A good team should be able to win even when a star has an off night, and if they can't find a way to win with their star in foul trouble, then, well, maybe they're just not as good as you think.
The last thing college basketball needs is to start changing the rules around to make life easier for star players and their coaches. If you want to watch a star-driven game where the rules are all skewed to favor individual stars, just flip the channel-- there's an NBA game on somewhere. Leave college hoops to those of us who enjoy basketball.
Comments
# 1 | Coturnix | March 25, 2008 10:16 PM
Amen.
Also, red cartons in soccer? Yup, you gotta play with 10 people against 11. Sometimes with 9. And sometimes even such a bad luck does not stop you from winning the game if you are good. At least in basketball when you lose one player for 5 fouls you get someone from the bench as a replacement.
And there is, I bet, a way to get disqualified in pretty much every sport. Your horse refuses to jump three times - you are out.
# 2 | Upstate NY | March 25, 2008 10:34 PM
One of the reasons I don't like basketball is because fouling is encouraged for a team down by a few points near game's end. Need a few seconds to get another shot in, but the winning team has possession? Foul the other team and you can get it. If you don't foul, you probably won't get the chance. It just seems unsportsmanlike.
I don't think any other sport works like that. Everywhere else, a penalty is unambiguously bad for the penalized.
# 3 | chezjake | March 25, 2008 10:47 PM
The only thing that needs fixing in college hoops is the SOS/RPI system. In fact, Chad, I'd welcome any thoughts you have on that subject.
# 4 | CCPhysicist | March 26, 2008 12:26 AM
The #1 comment stole my thunder. Basketball might be the only major sport Vitale has heard of, but ignorance is a pretty poor excuse. Football (soccer) is as major a sport as basketball around the world and you will be DQ'd for two yellow cards, not just one red.
But, to reinforce the point I think you are making, this change would make the star more important than the game or the team. There is already too much of a cult of personality in college ball. What would he do next, allow a team to designate a player who gets to wear the "I can't be called for a foul" jersey? Give them 5 steps and a shove if it would increase scoring, so it looks like a slam dunk contest? Sheesh.
Also remember, everyone gets those extra fouls. You could send some hack out there to foul away at will early in the game, perhaps with the goal of starting a fight with a star player. Turn basketball into what college hockey used to be before they put in progressive suspensions for fighting?
Dickie V is an idiot. Every time he opens his yap as a Great Coach, I'd like someone to ask him "tell me again how that top 15 Univ of Detroit team with your hand-picked coach and your recruits -- including two future NBA stars (Tyler and Long, both second round picks of the Pistons by You Know Who in 1978) -- did against Earvin Johnson when he was on the road in December in one of his first few games as a freshman?" Answer: the wrong end of a 103 to 74 rout.
# 5 | Scott Simmons | March 26, 2008 9:11 AM
Of course, if basketball were broken, Dick would be the very first person we'd go to to find out how to fix it, right?
Oh, wait, I meant 'last'. :)
# 6 | thm | March 26, 2008 9:47 AM
Well, yellow/red cards in soccer are not supposed to be a part of the "normal course of play." Same for Game Disqualifications in hockey. They're reserved for egregious violations of the rules and generally not taken for strategic reasons.
Of course, minor hockey penalties are part of the normal course of play and are, in a certain sense, disqualifications. And in baseball, players who are substituted out can't return to the game. Like fouls in basketball, both of these require strategic thinking about the strengths of the whole team.
# 7 | Markk | March 26, 2008 10:25 AM
Yellow cards are certainly part of the "normal course of the game" in soccer. They don't happen as much as fouls in basketball, but they happen for many of the same reasons.
# 8 | Chad Orzel | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM
Upstate NY, re "fouling to stop the clock": I don't think any other sport works like that. Everywhere else, a penalty is unambiguously bad for the penalized.
Yes and no. Basketball may be the only sport where you can gain time through strategic misconduct, but that's just a function of the clock-stoppage rules-- American football is the only other major sport where whistles stop the clock, and the NFL has a rule requiring time to run off on a defensive penalty.
But fouling is not without a penalty for the fouling team-- it puts the other team on the free-throw line, with a chance to score uncontested points. And it's not like other sports don't have situations where it's in a team's best interests to commit a foul-- in soccer, for example, you'll sometimes see players deliberately taken down, trading a sure goal on a breakaway for a chance at a goal on a free kick or penalty kick.
Late fouling in basketball is a calculated risk, and part of the strategy of the game.
# 9 | Harry Abernathy | March 26, 2008 10:47 AM
How would Dickie V feel about a penalty box like hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, rugby, etc.? Let any player foul as much as they want, but every time they do it, they have to be pulled out of the lineup for one or two minutes of game clock time. That would be fairer than rugby, where players can sometimes sit out for ten minutes.
Does he want all major sports to somehow come together and create a universal fouling system?
# 10 | Chad Orzel | March 26, 2008 11:09 AM
Actually, now that I think about it a bit, it's sort of fun to think about tweaking Vitale's basic proposal. I think it'd be neat to go with a geometric progression, shooting 2^(n-5) free throws for each foul. So, the sixth foul is two shots and the ball, the seventh four shots and the ball, the eighth eight shots and the ball, and so on...
It'd be a powerful incentive to limit the additional fouls committed by a star player, and as a bonus, it'd teach basketball players some valuable lessons about math...
("Well, Bob, that's Hibbert's tenth foul, which means that Johnson goes to the line for thirty-two free throws...")
# 11 | Chris Koeberle | March 26, 2008 11:49 AM
("Well, Bob, that's Hibbert's tenth foul, which means that Johnson goes to the line for thirty-two free throws...")
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Everywhere else, a penalty is unambiguously bad for the penalized.
Delays of game are sometimes used to make a field goal easier. Delay of game doesn't have the same moral character as a basketball foul, though.
# 12 | PhysioProf | March 26, 2008 3:22 PM
What a fucking dipshit. Someone needs to explain the Law of Unintended Consequences to Vitale and his scrotum-sucking sycophants. The entire strategic structure of the game is built around fouls, foul-trouble, and the risk of fouling out. Why would you even consider fucking with that?
# 13 | DrugMonkey | March 26, 2008 4:30 PM
This just demonstrates what is wrong with these stupid non-contact contact sports. pfaah. hockey, lacrosse are the bomb.
sports yoda says, "hit or hit not. there is no candy-ass flopping".