In Reply to: Re: The reason I feel that 30 is better is that it allows teams… posted by UCLA78 on September 14, 2023 at 07:21:37
not so sure about four quarters not being traditional - just what i said, think i remember four quarters in basketball also, but not a big deal to me.
Completely agree with Fuzzy's point about the clock - i DO remember before there was any clock - Bruins and Trojans stalling away ten minutes instead of playing a game (remember the photo of them sharing a newspaper that had been tossed onto the court by a spectator while the Trojan sat on the basketball?) That was too much so yes, having a clock was a good thing.
But 30 seconds is plenty enough to solve that problem. Anything less is an effort to turn the game into a free flowing ad lib that has led much of the NBA and FIBA game to be a whole lot of one-on-one stuff -- as in the demise of the USA National Team in this year's world championships, just somebody take the ball and try to make something happen. i far prefer John Wooden's patterned offense and i've liked what Mick Cronin has been doing at UCLA.
The advance to front court by calling a time out is an adjustment to add serious offense to the final minute or two of each half. It replaces the full court heave and pray but so few of those actually paid off. Maybe it should apply only in the final 30 seconds of a game (or of each half) but to me it seems an interesting single element to consider.
But agree on the rest of it, especially the two halves. The increased size of the players over the sports early years has changed the nature of the game enough just by itself (a 10 foot basket hardly seems enough to constitute a skills challenge for guys like Mara and Bona). For the rest - with my colleagues in years, i'm in favor of keeping things as close to traditional as possible.
Big surprise there.... LOL
Post a Followup