• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NCAA Rule Changes (official thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
ScriptOhio;1929138; said:
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel during its conference call on Monday approved adding a visible restricted-area arc three feet from the center of the basket where a secondary defender cannot legally take a charge in Division I men?s and women?s basketball games.
The panel delayed implementation of the arc until the 2012-13 season for Divisions II and III to allow those schools time to plan and place the restricted-area arc in their home arenas. For the upcoming season, secondary defenders in Divisions II and III men?s games will not be allowed to draw a charge in an unmarked area directly beneath the basket, which was the men?s rule in 2010-11. In Divisions II and III women?s games, secondary defenders will not be allowed to draw a charge in an unmarked area three feet from the center of the basket.
The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the final approval body for playing rules proposals from sport and rules committees. The panel of representatives from all three NCAA divisions convenes periodically to consider recommendations.
The three-foot restricted area was recommended by the NCAA Men?s and Women?s Basketball Rules Committees in an attempt to limit the number of collisions near the basket on charge/block plays. The arc is also intended to provide some benefit to offensive players who have legally gained an advantage.


Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/#ixzz1Ng7KeCNA​
Click to expand...


  1. FINALLY
  2. Hiring that Paulus guy has somehow become even more questionable. :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Oregon basketball's key to recent NCAA Tournament success, the hardship transfer waiver, gets an NCAA makeover

Change is coming to Eugene. The transfer hardship waiver, a key factor in Oregon men's basketball's consecutive trips to the NCAA Tournament, is no more. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors adopted Thursday a change to its transfer policy that no longer allows athletes who transfer due to illness or financial difficulty the ability to play immediately. But though they will now be forced to sit out one year, a sixth year of eligibility will be tacked onto their careers. For schools like Oregon that have utilized the waiver so successfully in recent years, it means future newcomers claiming hardship won't be able to play immediately.

Entire article: http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_basketballs_key_to_rece.html
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio said:
Oregon basketball's key to recent NCAA Tournament success, the hardship transfer waiver, gets an NCAA makeover

Change is coming to Eugene. The transfer hardship waiver, a key factor in Oregon men's basketball's consecutive trips to the NCAA Tournament, is no more. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors adopted Thursday a change to its transfer policy that no longer allows athletes who transfer due to illness or financial difficulty the ability to play immediately. But though they will now be forced to sit out one year, a sixth year of eligibility will be tacked onto their careers. For schools like Oregon that have utilized the waiver so successfully in recent years, it means future newcomers claiming hardship won't be able to play immediately.

Entire article: http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2014/04/oregon_basketballs_key_to_rece.html
Click to expand...
I wonder if the NCAA requires some type of physician's statement before they allow these "medical" hardship transfers.
 
Upvote 0
Fouls are too rewarding one on hand, too penalizing on the other. When I am made king the following changes shall occur:

The 7th foul in the half results in 2 shot. The 1-and-1 too often benefits the team committing the foul, at times encouraging them to do it. Fouls should be detrimental to the team committing them. Similarly, after 10 fouls the penalty is 2 shots AND possession. This would lessen the incentive to start hacking to extend games and try to come back (and speed up the final minutes of games, which drag on ridiculously long at times).

Also, there are too many fouls called in a game to be DQ'd after the 5th one. Too often you see a ridiculous call early in the game significantly influence the outcome as a star player sits the final 16 minutes with 2 fouls. The penalty is too severe. Similar to the rule when a team commits 10 fouls in a half, when a player commits a 5th foul the penalty is 2 shots AND possession, but he is not out of the game. He can still play, but every time he fouls it will be 2 shots and possession regardless of his team's total.

Keeping the stars on the floor and speeding up the pace of play would make a great game even better.
 
Upvote 0
Another change I'd like to see is a replay official. We shouldn't have to stop the game to check on whether a shot is a two or a three. That could be reviewed by an official seated at court side while action continues. Also, on plays where the game does stop for replay (out of bounds, fouls) the on court officials could keep teams from getting a free time out when they don't have one while the replay guy does his thing.
 
Upvote 0
LitlBuck said:
Since @Jake likes to talk about rule changes I thought I would steal this from @Bucky32 and post this here

2015 NIT to experiment with 30 second shot clock

Personally, I would like to see this implemented in college basketball because not only would it help speed up the game it would make things a lot more interesting at the end of games.. I mean if the women can do it why cannot the man.
Click to expand...
I'll add that I find this a *little* odd that they choose to do this during a postseason tournament, and not the preseason NIT tournament.

While the postseason NIT tournament may be 'second-rate' compared to the NCAA tournament, I feel it has meaning to many teams that compete in it. Just seems odd that they play all year under one set of rules, and to make the tournament only to have new rules applied.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky32 said:
I'll add that I find this a *little* odd that they choose to do this during a postseason tournament, and not the preseason NIT tournament.

While the postseason NIT tournament may be 'second-rate' compared to the NCAA tournament, I feel it has meaning to many teams that compete in it. Just seems odd that they play all year under one set of rules, and to make the tournament only to have new rules applied.
Click to expand...
That might be one of the reasons that they are doing it. They certainly do not want to affect the NCAA tournament and this my draw some attention to this "second rate" tournament:wink: I agree the preseason NIT might have been a better tournament to try it in but this will draw some attention to the second rate tournament.
 
Upvote 0
Until the referees start calling fouls for impeding the progress of offensive players through clutching, grabbing and nudging, we'll continue to see offensive production decline.

When I was young, a hand-check was a foul, pure and simple. We need to return to that approach. With that said, I support shortening the possession to 30 seconds. If a team can't find a good shot in 30 seconds, the next 5 aren't going to magically provide one.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
I don't have a problem with the 35 second clock and I don't see how whittling it to 30 is going to speed up the game or make it more interesting at the end. The changes I have proposed would do more to accomplish those things than tinkering with the shot clock.

We will still have teams intentionally committing fouls to increase their chances of a comeback - that should tell you all you need to know about the penalties not being harsh enough - and we will still have outcomes adversely impacted by players being eliminated over something as small as a couple of blown foul calls.
Click to expand...
Agree with you regarding the fact that a 30 second shot clock would probably not speed up the game at the end but it might make the end of games a little more interesting since teams would not be able to hold the ball for 30+ seconds. It also might cause some games to be such blowouts that it will eliminate all of the fouling that goes on at end of games.

I think the only way that they are going to cut down on all of the fouling at the end of some games is to do what you suggest and as the team shoot free throws and get the ball back or something along those lines but re possession of the ball would be key.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top