Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL....Congratulations to UCLA for getting to the Final Four. But I have a suggestion for the gods of college basketball: reduce the number of timeouts allowed and don't allow timeouts at all during the final two minutes of the game. The 20 lumbering minutes that it takes to finish the last few minutes of most games is nothing short of excruciating, but in games where both teams have used up their timeouts the final minutes are some of the most exciting in sports.

So: no timeouts in the final two minutes. Let 'em run. Who's with me?

Kevin Drum 9:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (86)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

No one with a brain.

Posted by: The Past, Nov 10, 2004 on March 25, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Every sportswriter in America is with you on this one, Kevin. You do know the old joke about the college basketball coach, don't you? On his tombstone, the inscription read, "Wait, I've got one timeout left!"

Posted by: JMG on March 25, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

I think in games with TV timeouts, each team should get one timeout per half.

Posted by: Z on March 25, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

kevin,

you would see a whole lot less game-winning shots. i agree that it's something of a problem, but if you had no timeouts, the game would be completely out of control, particularly in college.

also, one of the best marks of a great basketball coach is his ability to manage the final 2 minutes of a close game. you'd be greatly diminishing the role of the coach, which would lead to more of the one-on-one, improvisational play that people seem to despise so much.

Posted by: brian on March 25, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

That might be a good idea, but how about a less-radical alternative: make all the timeouts in the last 2 minutes only 20 seconds long. The tactical purpose of the timeouts would be preserved, but it would take much less time for the game to finish.

Posted by: matt wilbert on March 25, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Remove all the timeouts. Do the players know how to play or not?

Posted by: Kurtz on March 25, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Why not get rid of that stupid "dribbling" rule, too? The game would f-ing rock if those guys could build up a good head of steam before going in for the monster dunk!

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 25, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

I like Matt Wilbert's proposal. Or perhaps limiting the number of timeouts in the last two minutes to some formula that is based on the amount of timeouts remaining before the last two minutes.

Posted by: gq on March 25, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

If NCAA basketball is going to make a major rule change, how about eliminating the concept of fouling out. Why should one or two bad calls by the refs put a player on the bench? When a player gets the 6th, 7th, and etc fouls, give the other team 2 shots and the ball. Or perhaps the team loses a timeout, or the opposing team can add or remove 30 seconds from the clock.

Posted by: Meander on March 25, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Economics, economics, economics. Who controls the game of college basketball? Two actors: television and coaches. Who benefits from the system as it is? Television and coaches. Which two actors would be hurt if we changed it your way. Television (who now have a captive audience for a lot of commercials and many fans only actually tune in for the end of the game) and coaches (their ability to control the game earns them big bucks). What are the odds of the system ever changing to the detriment of those who call the shots (literally and figuratively). Somewhere between zero and none. Q.E.D.

Posted by: Gord Brown on March 25, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

I would just like to have another half, so Memphis can come back and win.

Posted by: Libby Sosume on March 25, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

The Gods of the Advertising $$$ are against you.

Posted by: bakho on March 25, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

"I would just like to have another half, so Memphis can come back and win."

I saw the 50-45 score and thought it WAS the halftime score.

A few years ago Duke--yes, Duke and the sainted Coach K--ran out of timeouts with about six minutes left and a 15 point lead against Kentucky.

So Kentucky went on a run and didn't call any TOs for Duke to regroup. The last five minutes of the game went by with hardly a stop in the action, beautiful to watch. (Kentucky won.)

Posted by: Jim Bartle on March 25, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

We must have the time outs so the army can show those recruiting spots 5 times at the end of the game.You are either with us or against us.

Posted by: gi joe on March 25, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

NO timeouts?

That's crazy.

But limit it to two (MAYBE 3) in the final two minutes...I've never heard the suggestion before, but I like it on first glance.

Posted by: Raleigh on March 25, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

"The Gods of the Advertising $$$ are against you."

Disagree.

If teams have the timeouts but are limited in how many they can call in the last two mintes, they'll just call them earlier. If you pack all the non-action in the last two minutes, people channel surf.

Posted by: Raleigh on March 25, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

The no-fouling-out proposition is shockingly sensible. Imagine that a team behaved as perfect gentlemen the whole game, and found themselves down by one point with five seconds left and the opposing team with the ball. They'd have to foul seven times in those five seconds just to get a chance at getting the ball back! But a less well-mannered team that had racked up its quota of fouls would regain possession after the foul shots.

I'm sure there's probably a larger moral lesson here.

Posted by: Matt on March 25, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK


You call it excruciating. I call it the best part of the best games.

Reducing the complexity of close games only reduces dramatic tension. The heightened reality of the end game depends on delay of gratification.

After the reform of basketball perhaps Hollywood will decide to limit the number of plot twists in its thrillers.


Posted by: Ross Best on March 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Absolutely - for the pros as well. Completely changes the game into something more like a chess match. The only thing these interminable delays are good for is packing in the TV commercials

Posted by: martin on March 25, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. Yes. Yes. Time-outs during the last 2 minutes must be more limited...

Posted by: Detroit Dan on March 25, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

The timeouts are less of a problem than the interminable foul shots. Bring back the 1-and-1 by eliminating the double bonus (pros too) - it was ostensibly put in to speed up the game but we have nearly two decades of empirical proof that it does the exact opposite.

Posted by: chaboard on March 25, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

I propose an even more radical solution.

No clock stopage.

At all.

That's right, make it like Soccer. Just imagine how crazy the game would get as it wore on towards the end.

Posted by: zed on March 25, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

The television games already have timeouts every four minutes (16, 12, 8, 4 each half), so limit the coaches to one timeout of 20 seconds each half and we'd all see better basketball.

Posted by: James Finkelstein on March 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hell yeah! And make them play in their socks, too.

Posted by: Mike B. on March 25, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

The idea of having different rules for different times during the game is rediculous. Just give 'em less stupid timeouts to start with. Of course, CBS will NEVER let that happen.

Posted by: Blue Texas on March 25, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

I've had this same argument many times before and I'm not with you. Timeouts are an elemental part of the strategy of any timed game. So, forget it.
However, the game would speed up dramatically and your impatience diminish proportionately if the timeouts they took were actually the ONE MINUTE GODDAM MAXIMUM they are supposed to be and not the 2, 3, 4 or even 5 minutes they've been stretched to become because of television.

Posted by: secularhuman on March 26, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

It will never happen. Why even have timeouts if you can't use on in the last two minutes?

Posted by: Jimm on March 26, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

and no fouling-out is idiotic. switch to australian rules football.

Posted by: secularhuman on March 26, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Lately I've been watching Mexican soccer games on the Spanish-language networks. You don't need to be able to understand the commentary to enjoy the games. It is *so* nice to be able to watch nonstop action, nothing at all like the nonsense with basketball ... though of course basketball isn't nearly as bad as football (an average of 12 minutes of ball-in-play action in a 3-hour NFL game).

Posted by: Peter on March 26, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Good idea Kevin. Another good one would be to have water run up hill. It would really simplify irrigation.

Posted by: CapitalistImperialistPig on March 26, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know the corect solution, but I agree that the time-outs are a killer.

How about limiting them to 20 seconds in the last two minutes - enough time to organize, but not enough time to lose the fans.

Posted by: Mark-NC on March 26, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

People are missing a huge point here, and I don't know if Kevin has copped onto it either, but: there's a commercial just about every 4 game-minutes. So in addition to the 4 timeouts you get per game, you get at least 4 timeouts PER HALF. If a coach being paid a six-figure salary can't get the point across to young men, however stupid those young men may be, who are attending college for free because of their basketball skill, then all parties concerned are not doing their jobs. Some coaches would suggest that by the end of a season, a coach ought to have pretty well established what the boys are going to do if they find themselves tied with 00:12 left.

And if it would stop players from that ridiculous bullshit where they call a time out where they're falling out of bounds with the ball, Kevin's idea would be gold even if only for that.

Nothing gets done in these time outs: it's the college coach equivalent of playing to the back rows, showing people who don't know anything about basketball that they're Coaching Really Hard so that Dick Vitale will give them a nickname. College teams should get 2 times out.

Posted by: KPatrick on March 26, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

The numerous intentional fouls are worse than the TOs. A team should be permitted to "decline the penalty", a la football, and keep possession (with a reset of the shot clock to boot). Then they would just play the damn game at the end, instead of dragging it out with all the fouls.

Posted by: kth on March 26, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK


But if you limit timeouts, there are fewer chances to watch that Applebee's commercial with the two guys singing a rewritten "Gilligan's Island" theme being played over and over and over and over and over again until your head wants to explode.

Posted by: TomB on March 26, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Memphis played like a 16th seed in the first round; unfortunately for them, they were playing a team that played like a 15th seed.

Posted by: Brian Boru on March 26, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

This is just dumb, Kevin.

Dumb I say.

It's a lousy idea.

If I was impolite, I'd say "Screw you".

Posted by: Anon on March 26, 2006 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Just TiVo the game and watch it with buffer. Then you can skip through the timeouts.

Posted by: Monkey on March 26, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

UCLA was OUT OF TIME-OUTS in the last two minutes!

Posted by: cedichou on March 26, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: as a few others in here have suggested, what you're missing is that the time-outs at the end of games allow coaches and teams to regroup, strategize, and manage the game in a way they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Their ability to do so enables those very comebacks and last-second attempts that make the ends of games so exciting.

Posted by: alyzen on March 26, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

Not allowing time outs in the last two minutes, just pushes the window of timeout final usage back two minutes. You still have the same problem just two minutes earlier.

Suppose your solution was implemented. How would the game change? It wouldn't the period before the end of time out usage would look alot like the way games end currently.

Posted by: patience on March 26, 2006 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

This is not the thoughtful analysis I expect from Kevin Drum. Buddy, I love you; you're my favorite blogger, but stay away from sports.

Posted by: Scott Herbst on March 26, 2006 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

So it will be UCLA vs LSU this Saturday. LA vs La.

Posted by: Big Red on March 26, 2006 at 5:31 AM | PERMALINK

nah, ain't gonna happen. even with the incessant time outs, indeed, partially 'cuz of 'em, it's still unbelievable exciting in those final few an d excruciating final 'minutes', however long they may take.

GO BRUINS!!

Posted by: Jones on March 26, 2006 at 5:48 AM | PERMALINK

right track wrong solution. there are entirely too many timeouts but it's not the end that kills you, it's the fact that they can waste so many early on and still have so many left at the end. when a guy calls timeout falling out of bounds, or they have to burn one because they can't throw it in in 5 seconds or just get trapped in the corner and panic, they should be penalized more! with all the media timeouts there's no reason for a coach to have more than 1 per half. if they burn it early in the half, then they're just screwed.

Posted by: Don on March 26, 2006 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

You know, now that i think about it, these final-minutes time outs kinda remind me of foul balls in baseball: They keep alive and heighten what's truly great about all sports: TENSION.

As somebody once said: There's more tension in the 9th inning of one good World Series game than there's been in all the Super Bowl games combined.

Amen.

Posted by: Jones on March 26, 2006 at 6:39 AM | PERMALINK

Excruciating? Why do you hate basketball? And, if you hate it, why do you watch it?

Posted by: i dunno on March 26, 2006 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

In the old days, the point guard would look over to the coach to get the play. He would then hold up some kind of hand signal to the other four so they could know what the play was going to be.

Today, the constant timeouts just to call a play imply that the players are too stupid to memorize the plays.

Because of the lack of interruptions, hockey and soccer are more exciting. Baseball seems to be an exception.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 26, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Because of the lack of interruptions, hockey and soccer are more exciting. Baseball seems to be an exception.

ooooh, harsh.

Posted by: shortstop on March 26, 2006 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

UCLA demonstrated how well coached they are in the final minutes against the Zags - Played as a team with time outs.

And then there is that problem of not having enough timeouts, ala Michigan when Chris Webber tried to call an "extra" timeout.

The major difference in the UCLA win was the huge disparity in coaching - UCLA is extremely well coached - The Memphis guy is another used car salesman whose "Guru" is some clown from the Fresno community college system - Once "didn't realize" that he was playing a 21 yr old from the Dominican Republic as a high school sophomore - the old "Just Win Baby" of the Juco oriented, non-graduating, street ball used car salesmen.
They are going to have to expand the jail system in Manhatten, Kansas now that Huggins has returned to the college scene as the new "Cal Worthington" coach at Kansas State. There will be a whole lot of "Ws" however.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 26, 2006 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

I been watching and loving this game since your beloved Lakers were in Minneapolis. The shot clock has made it a faster and more exciting game.

In my opinion just leave the game alone as far as the timeouts in the last two minutes.

I do like meander's idea about not fouling but putting an added penalty on the fouler's team after passing some mark, say five fouls. I think there are just enough 'bad' (mistakes) calls to justify a change. But having been a basketball referee, I can tell you that it is very difficult to get it right every time.

Posted by: Chief on March 26, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

Correction - USLA played without timeouts at the end of the Zags game.

Chief,

Ah, the days of George Mikan - Spot on about the clock - I remember the days of Hank Iba at Oklahoma State - They would run the weave for the first five minutes.
In addition, the worst element of basketball was the stall - Saw Iowa State defeat Wilt and KU with the stall - Once saw a high school game in Kansas City where Shawnee Mission stalled the entire second half against a feared opponent. Really thrilling B-Ball watching one guy holding a ball and not moving for 10 minutes.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 26, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think they should start the game with the score tied and then play a two minute game.

Posted by: Ara Rubyan on March 26, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

I think you are missing the real point.

Posted by: Coke on March 26, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

If they are allowed to call a time out while falling out of bounds -- I think they should get the ball back while being launched out of bounds by some sort of catapult.

Posted by: B on March 26, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

I for one am completely behind the proposal.

Posted by: crappy coach on March 26, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

1) I wouldn't say 'no timeouts' in the last 2 minutes, perhaps a limit, but...
2) No timeouts by people in mid-air
and
3) The intentional fouls at the end of the game need to be called as intentional fouls. Alternatively
4) Free throws are optional. If you want to maintain possession (with a shot clock reset) instead of take free throws, let that be your right. A free throw is supposed to penalize the team making the foul. If that's a case, intentionally fouling the other team shouldn't have an upside.

I think the problem is more the free throws than the time outs.

Posted by: Rick on March 26, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

what is this, fuckin espn.com?

stick to your core competency!

Posted by: boris on March 26, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'm rather astonished that tons of people are proposing huge changes in the game that would completely change the tenor and balance of the game, and no one has proposed the obvious "get rid of the fucking TV timeouts" idea.

Not going to happen, of course, but TV timeouts are awful. They kill momentum, and they are admittedly there for no game purpose at all, just to help advertisers. Foul shots and regular timeouts have important strategic purposes. Yes, they're incredibly annoying, but I don't see a serious problem. TV timeouts just suck. They ought to be gotten rid of. You'd still have plenty of time for commercials, too - at half time and during regular timeouts.

Posted by: John on March 26, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Ben Howland uses all of his timeouts up long before there are two minutes left in a game anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference for UCLA.

This really isn't the problem you want to make it into, Kevin. It's really only an issue during the tournament. During the rest of the season, you only have long commercial breaks at the TV timeouts (under 16, 12, 8, and 4), and even then only on natural stoppages of clock (fouls, out of bounds, etc.). But in the tournament, every timeout turns into a TV timeout. It just so happens that this is only an issue at the same time that most of the people are watching.

Posted by: Vladi G on March 26, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

As to intentional fouls, it's true that they probably don't call them as much as they should. But an intentional foul doesn't mean just that you foul someone intentionally. It means that you foul someone purposefully without making a plausible attempt to get the ball. At the end of game fouls are being made as part of a play for the ball, so they're not intentional fouls. Of course, the foul game is incredibly annoying. But it's part of the game. I don't really like the idea of changing a whole game around just because a few people are impatient.

Posted by: John on March 26, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Limiting timeouts won't solve the problem, which is that TV makes the game between a half-hour and hour longer. Remember it used to be 40 minutes of basketball with a 15-minute intermission. Free throws and timeouts made it last about 90 minutes. What made the game interminable was the incompetent play. Geez, there were more Applesbee ads than there were three-pointers.
While I'm ranting, I gotta agree with the people who hate the falling-out-of-bounds time out. You could fix it by saying a player can't call timeout unless he has both feet on the court. Make it inbounds on the court and you'd get rid of my other pet peeve - the guy who calls timeout because he can't get the ball inbounds. You should only get one chance to toss the ball inbounds, for heaven's sake.
Of course, such a rule would reduce the taking of timeouts - and TV wants those timeouts taken, so we can see more Applesbee ads.

Posted by: Ronn Zealot on March 26, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Ben Howland uses all of his timeouts up long before there are two minutes left in a game anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference for UCLA.

And just to clarify, that wasn't snark. I'm serious. He always uses his timeouts up well before the end of the game. He usually starts calling them with about 10 minutes to go, and always after made baskets by the Bruins. I'm a UCLA fan, and I've always thought it would be nice to have a TO in your pocket for a late situation when you have trouble inbounding the ball, but who am I to argue with success?

Posted by: Vladi G on March 26, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Louis B. Mayer (Hollywood studio legend guy) is rumored to have said that the only good plot is a delayed f***. (Pardon my ass-terisks.)

Posted by: ferd on March 26, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

A few years ago Duke--yes, Duke and the sainted Coach K--ran out of timeouts with about six minutes left and a 15 point lead against Kentucky.

17 point lead. 2nd half. 7 minutes to go. Greatest comeback/worst punt in college hoops history. Sweet mystery of life. (That UK team came back from double digit 2nd half deficits in its last 3 games to win the title.)

(prior: UCLA v. NC State; national semi-finals, 2nd OT, 7 point lead, no shot clock, no 3 point shot. NC State rallies to win.)

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 26, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

17 point lead. 2nd half. 7 minutes to go. Greatest comeback/worst punt in college hoops history.

Maybe up to that point. Of course, Illinois, down by 15 to Arizona with four minutes to play hadn't happened yet. They were also down 8 points with one minute to play in that game. THAT is the greatest comeback in college basketball history.

Posted by: Vladi G on March 26, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

"Who is with me?"

Definitely not corporate America. When else would we get to see all those commercials?

Posted by: Terry K on March 26, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I was just proposing the same thing the other day. The last two minutes of the Zags-UCLA game were as exciting as anything I've seen this March, precisely because neither side had any timeouts, so that the kids got to play instead of the coaches getting to scheme.

Posted by: Nils on March 26, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Go Bruins! and props to "the third Paul" for knowing the Vance Wahlberg/Dominican kid story. Very impressive!

The prob isn't the # of TO's - it's the interminable length of the TV timeouts. Make 'em a minute and let's get on with the game.

And BTW, Vance Wahlber (Fresno city college coach) is a virtual lock for a major college position.

Posted by: gab on March 26, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

This is why soccer is a much more developed game than basketball or football. No timeouts, just pure sport from start to end.

Soccer is played by athletes for athletes, not for advertisers. Big fat guys with huge guts don't cut it.

As Nike says, "Just do it."

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on March 26, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with those folks above who blame the TV timeout. Coaches would generally have less timeouts to use at the end of the game without those forced stoppages, which, as people have noted, interrupt the flow of the game and are way too long.

And the TV timeout that follows no less than 30 actual seconds after returning from an in-game timeout (because of a foul on the inbounds pass or something) has to be one of the stupidest and least fan-friendly achievements in sports.

Posted by: matt w. on March 26, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Soccer -- that's the game where advertisers' logos have replaced the team names on jersies and are projected directly onto the field with computers?

I actually think that these solutions are more conducive to better gameplay, but let's not pretend that soccer is somehow above the money.

Posted by: matt w. on March 26, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with you, Kevin, this is my big pet peeve about basketball. Slowing down the action at the end of the game is inexcusable. Unfortunately, the networks pay the bills, and I'm sure they love having multiple commercial opportunities, knowing that no one will turn off because they're waiting for the end of the game. So we'll never see this change made, but it's certainly a good idea.

Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD on March 26, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Great idea. Also, they should not be able to stop the clock in the last two minutes by fouling. Just count the fouls without stopping play and let the teams shoot freethrows after the clock runs out.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert on March 26, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I once heard someone seriously argue that Duke had an unfair advantage because they were on television a lot and therefore had more TV timeouts.

Posted by: artpepper on March 26, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Advertisements during soccer games don't interrupt the flow of play. I'll take logos on jerseys and computer-projected ads on the fields over TV commercials, any day.
There's a right way to handle advertising, and a wrong way. Soccer does it the right way, basketball and football the wrong way.

Posted by: Peter on March 26, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

They were also down 8 points with one minute to play in that game. THAT is the greatest comeback in college basketball history.

Close, but UK was down 6 points w/ 19 seconds to go against Kansas in 1978. And won. In regulation.

With 31 seconds to go, Darnell Valentine hit 2 free throws. UK's Dwight Anderson scored at the :18 mark. Anderson drew a (flopped) charge call on the inbounds play. Anderson missed the front end of the 1 and 1, but UK rebounded the miss. Kansas fouled Anderson at the :10 mark, and Anderson hit both free throws. Dwight Anderson (again) stole the inbounds pass and Karl Macy hit a 12 ft shot and the :03 mark for the tie. Several Kansas players then called TO to regroup, but they were out of TOs. Technical foul. Macy hit the free throw and then UK threw the ball the length of the court following the tech. End of game.

So, actually 7 points in 15 seconds from the basket at :18 to the FT at :03.

I guess you had to be there.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 26, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

Even better idea,

get rid of timeouts altogether.

Posted by: argyle on March 26, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hah! 8 points down, with 17 seconds to go, in the pre-3 era. UNC vs. Duke.

UNC wins! Don't talk to me about no 6 point UK comeback ...

Posted by: drinkof on March 26, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis:

Kyle Macy? See also the Slate article on AWGs (which unpardonably omits Danny Ainge.)

The idea of speeding up the end is ok, but after many U of Oregon nailbiters in The Pit back in the Ronnie Lee era, I've gotta vote with Louis B. Mayer.

Posted by: MaryCh on March 27, 2006 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting that the argument for eliminating timeouts in the last two minutes is made from the point of view of the television viewer, not the players and not those actually watching from the bleachers.

It's hard to imagine that the players would actually prefer such a change. Getting the games over more quickly clearly means fewer comebacks and you've got to be pretty confident of winning to prefer lower odds of comebacks as a general rule.

Fans in the bleachers don't have to watch commercials, at least not on TV, and have a chance to cheer and hoot and talk among themselves. If the game is gripping why would they be in a hurry to get home?

The better reform--and no less likely than the wildly improbable proposal on the floor when you get right down to it--would be to keep timeouts and keep the camera and commentators at the game.

Posted by: Ross Best on March 27, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

kevin, can't you say "strategy, baby"?

Posted by: e1 on March 27, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

"Hah! 8 points down, with 17 seconds to go, in the pre-3 era. UNC vs. Duke.

UNC wins! Don't talk to me about no 6 point UK comeback ...
Posted by: drinkof"

I saw that game, drink. Stunning.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 27, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

I like kevin's idea, or some variant of it to make the final few minutes more enjoyable. However, wouldn't teams simply use timeouts to slow down the final minutes prior to the final 2? Would some sort of limit on the # of timeouts used within stipulated times work? I.e. no more than 1/ minute or whatever? Someone suggested letting the clock run in the final stretch. Maybe that would work.

Posted by: Aidan on March 27, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

In addition, in the final two minutes if team A fouls team B, team B gets shots and the ball.

Posted by: Maynard on March 27, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, we in metro D.C. now have two teams to root for this weekend, as the Maryland women earned a Final Four berth Monday night by beating Utah in overtime in Albuquerque. Fear the turtle...and the Patriots, too.

Posted by: Vincent on March 28, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 829

Posted by: Mike Furir 727 on March 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly