Hybrid Format for Game Duration: Time-Based AND Points-Based

[RedsGroundsCrew]

Every game should just be played to 100.
No game clock.
25 second shot clock.
When one team reaches 25 points, that is the end of the 1st quarter.
When one team reaches 50 points, that is halftime.
When one team reaches 75 points, that is the end of the 3rd quarter.
When one team reaches 100 points, that is the end of the game.

Beautiful.

This is the first type of format that comes to mind when trying to eliminate the negative effects of the game clock, but it comes with some drawbacks - most notably, the actual length of games would vary to an extreme degree (many fans would disapprove; ALL TV executives would disapprove). On one end of the spectrum, three-and-a-half-hour brick-a-thons would have us begging for a return to a completely time-based format.

[Kathoro]

I don't think the length of games would vary too much more. Maybe 2:30 to 3:30, which is not terrible in comparison to a sport like tennis. People don't seem to mind watching football games, which are generally longer than basketball games. I do agree that the 3:30 brickfest might be less tolerable than the analogous timed brickfest, but I think the overall benefits way outweigh the negatives to an extreme degree, at least from a purely basketball perspective.

[Mike G]

On one end of the spectrum, three-and-a-half-hour brick-a-thons would have us begging for a return to a completely time-based format.

And the other end of the spectrum is when one or both teams' offense are working spectacularly, and the arbitrary end-of-quarter score arrives, and the plug is pulled on the action.

Hell, the refs and even the players could be motivated, consciously or unconsciously, to just get the game over with and go home. Refs by favoring offense, players by slacking on defense.

Since both ends of the spectrum look like terrible travesties, and an average game is not improved at all, I'd say this is one of those weak ideas that we weed out to focus on the good ones.

[Kathoro]

"/And the other end of the spectrum is when one or both teams' offense are working spectacularly, and the arbitrary end-of-quarter score arrives, and the plug is pulled on the action./"

This is not an additional negative. Both offenses could be working equally spectacularly, and the plug could be equally pulled by the arbitrary end-of-quarter time under the current system.

The point about losing defenses giving up near the end of blowout games in order to shorten the suffering is a valid point however.

[v-zero]

Solving the scoring/pace issue is easy enough:

First quarter is played as 25 minutes. The highest of the two scores from the first quarter then becomes the benchmark for the game, so the second quarter lasts until one team reaches twice that benchmark score, the third ends after one reaches three times the benchmark, and the fourth ends once one side gets four times that mark.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

The following is the first hybrid format I considered years ago:

1. Teams play a timed 20:00 first half
2. At halftime, the game clock is abandoned for good and the target score is established for that game (Target Score = 2 * Leading Team's Score)
3. Teams play an untimed second half until one team's score matches or exceeds the target score

I quickly realized that this format included a fatal flaw (a flaw shared by the format proposed in the previous post). Consider this scenario:

With time winding down in the first half, Team A leads Team B 35-30. Team A makes a lay-up at the buzzer and they high-five each other on the way to the locker room. That lay-up changes the outlook of the game in multiple ways:

- Makes the score 37-30 (would have been 35-30 otherwise)
- Sets the target score to 74 (would have been 70 otherwise)
- Increases Team B's required second half output to 44 (would have been 40 otherwise)
- Increases Team A's required second half output to 37 (would have been 35 otherwise)

The lay-up's effects are mostly positive for Team A, but not entirely positive. It's certainly possible that sometime after Team A scores their 35th second half point, but before they can score their 37th second half point, that Team B passes them and steals the game away. In that case, Team A would be kicking themselves for scoring that lay-up!

That's an absolute dealbreaker. A format is not sound if it creates scenarios where scoring could eventually backfire on a team.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

1. Teams play a timed 20:00 first half
2. At halftime, the game clock is abandoned for good and the target score is established for that game (Target Score = 2 * Leading Team's Score)
3. Teams play an untimed second half until one team's score matches or exceeds the target score

In order to eliminate the flaw discussed in the previous post, this format evolved into the following:

1. Teams play a timed 20:00 first half
2. At halftime, the game clock is abandoned for good and the target score is established for that game (Target Score = Leading Team Score + Trailing Team Score; if Trailing Team Score < 25, then Target Score = Leading Team Score + 25)
3. Teams play an untimed second half until one team's score matches or exceeds the target score

I was concerned that target scores would be undesirably low (and consequently, games undesirably short) even if first half scoring remained at its current level. To address this, I felt a rule should be implemented (a rule I believe should be in effect currently anyway) that calls for the game clock to stop momentarily after each made field goal until the ball is returned back into play on the ensuing inbounds pass. Halting the game clock just a few seconds at a time would add approximately 1:00-1:30 of game time to the first half, boost scoring correspondingly, and add a theoretical 1:00-1:30 of game time to the second half.

All along, I believed (and still believe) in the soundness of this format. But many raised concerns that teams would intentionally hold scoring down in the first half as a way to manipulate the target score in their favor. I confess I still don't understand how this would be an advisable strategy, but even the perception that teams were employing this (misguided) strategy was a concern, and led to the format introduced in the original post. I believe using the game clock up until the last few "minutes" of the game would greatly reduce the likelihood of a team manipulating the target score with an unnatural style of play.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

As any basketball fan knows, we currently see the trailing team stop the clock by deliberately and repeatedly fouling during the late stages of most games that find the leading team in possession of the ball. At best, this practice is borrrrring. At worst, it’s a direct violation of the spirit of the rules and contributes to misleading events and outcomes. Of course, I can’t blame trailing teams for employing the practice. Under basketball’s time-based format, deliberate and repeated fouling is their only recourse when trying to mount a late comeback from even a modest deficit. (And let’s not pretend that leading teams play any more honorably in such situations, as they too shift their primary focus to manipulation of the game clock – only by stalling.)

The hybrid duration format is meant to serve many purposes, but none more important than the elimination of these unsightly and unseemly late-game strategies (foulball and stallball, as I call them). I’m certain the hybrid format would eliminate stallball during the untimed portion of each game, and I believe we would see very limited use of the strategy when the timed portion of some games winds down.

I’m confident (especially if the one-and-one were eliminated), but not certain, that the hybrid format would discourage the practice of foulball. The trailing team would rarely be compelled to deliberately foul the leading team late in the game (as a way to buy themselves more possessions to reach the target score – in essence, stopping the “clock”). Basically, the expected yield of two free throw attempts by a particular leading team ballhandler would have to fall short of the expected yield of a possession played out naturally (and this doesn’t even consider other negative effects of fouling that would be suffered by the trailing team). Furthermore, the leading team has a significant amount of control to prevent themselves from encountering such a situation, by keeping their most dreadful free throw shooters off the floor or seeing that they don’t possess the ball.

[Mike G]

RGC, I agree you've come to a good solution; and importantly, it's a simple solution.
There's a certain amount of "tradition" in the foul-shot dragout ends of games, and some fans who dislike any change to tradition will balk at the suggestion that it could be better.

I don't find it a matter of "playing honorably" to avoid the ugly end of games, as both teams are doing what they can within the rules and trying to win.
Since the new rule would require the leading team to score another 7 points, they can't stop playing "real basketball" several minutes from the end of the game.

Your earlier ideas, and others' ideas in this thread, are not as good as the latest one -- play 15 or 16 minutes in the 2nd half, then play to 7 more than the leading team has. Let's go with that.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

While I believe the hybrid format would improve the great game of basketball in many ways, it’s not perfect. It would present one specific (and relatively uncommon) scenario where teams likely would not play good, clean, entertaining basketball. If the (trailing) offensive team is exactly three points from victory, and the (leading) defensive team is either one or two points from victory (a scenario I’ll refer to as 3/2-1), I believe the leaders would deliberately foul in order to prevent the trailers from shooting a potentially game-ending three-pointer. So…

Why is this a problem?
-It would lead to a silly scene where defensive players are scrambling around, just trying to foul the ballhandler (sounds familiar!)
-It would force the officials to make some very difficult and controversial calls. Under the hybrid format, officials would be better able to enforce the rulebook definition of an intentional foul (currently, they look the other way, and understandably so, calling deliberate fouls as common personal fouls) – but should they call the 3/2-1 deliberate foul as an intentional foul? Also, since the offense would anticipate the foul, the ballhandler may make a shooting motion the moment he’s fouled (in many cases, from the backcourt!) to try to earn three free throws – do the officials grant a shooting foul or common foul?
-If the offense makes the first of two free throws (bringing the game into a 2/2-1 scenario), they may (advisably or not) try to intentionally miss the second free throw and fight for an offensive rebound (seeing more value in possibly retaining possession than in inching to within one point of victory and relinquishing possession)

Ugh. These are exactly the types of flaws I was hoping to eliminate. I want a game where the offense is ALWAYS focusing solely on scoring, where the defense is ALWAYS focusing solely on prevention of scoring through legitimate play, and where neither team resorts to silly histrionics. So…

Why is the 3/2-1 scenario any more excusable than what we see late in games currently?
-The leading team commits the deliberate foul (in essence, a team would have to earn the right to violate the spirit of the rules; this is a VERY weak justification, but worth noting)
-This situation would affect relatively few games (only games that encounter 3/2-1, FAR fewer than what we see currently, where bad basketball is played in virtually any remotely competitive game where the leading team possesses the ball late)
-Even in affected games, the strategy is not reusable (unlike the repeated deliberate fouling we see currently; as long as the trailing team makes at least one free throw, the game cannot re-enter 3/2-1)
-This situation would ALWAYS precede a thrilling finish (after the free throws, all that’s left is sudden death basketball; 3/2-1 would be the calm before a truly inevitable storm. Currently, we all know that deliberate fouling most often leads to a yawn-inducing finish, even in games with strikingly small margins of victory/defeat)
-Most importantly, there are ways to address (and prevent) the ugly downsides of the 3/2-1 scenario. So…

What is the best way to address the 3/2-1 scenario?
Deliberate fouls are bad, intentionally missed free throws are bad, and other silly histrionics are bad. With all of that in mind, here is my best and most fair (but not the only possible) solution to the dilemma:
-Each team could inform the officials before the game/leading up to the situation of their intent to foul if the game enters 3/2-1 (which would prompt the officials to stop play immediately when 3/2-1 arises); or perhaps any of their coaches or players could simply flash a signal that indicates a foul and stops play when in 3/2-1 (if this approach is used, the defense would obviously have to make the signal before the offense attempts a shot, perhaps even before the offense crosses midcourt). I’m not picky, as long as the defense doesn’t actually have to go through the unsightly motions of committing a deliberate foul
-Then, the offense chooses any player on the floor to attempt two free throws (I think the offense should be entitled to two shots in this situation, regardless of whether they’re in the double bonus, bonus, or not yet in the bonus at the time). To prevent the possibility of an intentionally missed second free throw, both shots would be administered with no one along the lane
-Then, after both shots are attempted, the original leader is given possession and the game is played out naturally

AND SO, THE ORIGINAL LEADER IS GUARANTEED AT LEAST ONE MORE POSSESSION, THE ORIGINAL TRAILER IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO GAIN ONE OR TWO POINTS, AND THE AFOREMENTIONED CONCERNS ARE AVERTED.

*Additional games may encounter a situation where the offense is at the free throw line with exactly one shot left to be granted, and while the game is in 2/2-1. In such cases (in order to prevent an intentionally missed free throw), I also think they should clear the lane, allow the offense to choose any player to shoot the last free throw, and grant possession to the other team after the last free throw is attempted

**It’s possible that some/all of my concerns about 3/2-1 are unwarranted! After all:
-I’m only pretty sure (not certain) that the trailing offense should attempt a three-pointer
-I’m only pretty sure (not certain) that the leading defense should foul to prevent them from doing so
-I’m only pretty sure (not certain) that the original trailing offense should intentionally miss their last remaining free throw attempt when in 2/2-1

[Mike G]

I don't think it's a good strategy to intentionally foul when you're ahead by 1 or 2, even if the end is one successful possession away. You'd be "giving" the opponent 1 or 2 points, which is a very good possession for them.

Then you can still lose the game by failing to score on the ensuing possession, and then giving up 1 or 2 points again.

A better strategy would be to insert quick players and vigorously defend against the 3.
You still would be inviting the opponent to take the ball inside. And since there's no game clock, they probably would.
And that's still better than giving them a ~75% shot, as with 2 FT.

So the best strategy may STILL be to just keep playing your best offense and your best defense, right to the end.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

That's reassuring. Unfortunately, I'm sure many coaches would (advisably or not) still opt to foul in a 3/2-1 situation (and many more would opt to intentionally miss the last remaining free throw in a 2/2-1 situation).

[Mike G]

It's about like an overtime in the NFL -- sudden death, first team to score wins the game.
Coaches don't throw a Hail Mary pass on 4th down from their own 30. They punt the ball.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

The game clock was a real buzzkill in an otherwise thrilling Indiana/Michigan State game. That game deserved a much better ending than two clock reviews and a meaningless halfcourt airball.

[RedsGroundsCrew]

I love the NCAA tournament as much as anyone, though it does provide a showcase for basketball’s game-clock-related flaws. ALL of the flaws listed below would be eliminated or alleviated by a hybrid format, and without introducing any new problems. Their effect on each tournament game will be included in a later post (some words are bold/capitalized for ease of reference).

-Deliberate FOULing by trailing team (the biggest glitch in the system. It’s bad enough that the strategy violates the spirit of the rules and hinders a game’s ability to reveal the superior team. It’s worse that the strategy almost invariably leads to a boring, predictable, and drawn-out conclusion.)
-STALLing by leading team (when a team’s primary intent on offense shifts from scoring to exhausting time, it robs us of good basketball during crunch time. As for blowouts, leading teams will often stall because trying to score at a steady pace might be seen as an unsportsmanlike approach!)
-Trailing team forced into a SLOPPY/rushed/incomplete possession late in the game or a hopeless last-second heave (The game clock can detrimentally affect quality of play for minutes leading up to the buzzer, but its effect is compounded in the final seconds. Of the 52 games played so far, eight have ended with a meaningful possession. It’s a shame that we accept such a small number, but what’s worse is that each of those possessions failed miserably. The buzzer bloopers include: a Liberty lay-up attempt that failed to draw rim, a St. Mary’s air ball from the corner, an intercepted Davidson inbounds pass, a full-court UNLV heave that didn’t come within ten feet of the basket, a Kansas St. airball shot from behind the backboard, a line-drive three-point attempt that slammed off the backboard after being fired up by Butler’s center while he was falling down, a deflected Iowa St. three-quarter court heave that landed twenty feet short of the basket, and an Ole Miss halfcourt shot that sailed over the backboard as their best shooter watched from the bench. You can’t make this stuff up.)
-Trailing team overtly CONCEDEs game by playing at a slower-than-frantic pace while on offense or by choosing not to foul while on defense (Basketball may be the only sport where one can definitively pinpoint the moment when a team gives up…)
-Bored and impatient fans BOO when a trailing team deliberately fouls in an especially bleak situation (…of course, one of the reasons teams concede is because it’s such an inconvenience to actually try. Imagine – fans disapproving of a team that simply does what gives them the best chance to win!)
-Leading teams allow UNCONTESTED lay-ups for fear of committing a clock-stopping foul (when playing legitimate defense is just too risky!)
-Trailing team intentionally MISSes free throw (this is rare, and to be fair, the hybrid format might present situations when a team is compelled to miss a free throw, but measures could be taken to address that. It’s just funny that under the current format, there are times when the trailing team defense, leading team offense, leading team defense, and trailing team offense are all acting counter to what Dr. James Naismith intended.)
-Game LACKED a signature moment (Basketball’s fluid nature and frequent scoring make the game very enjoyable while you’re watching, but can make it difficult to remember many – or any! - specific moments in retrospect, even from games that are close and/or highly-anticipated. By guaranteeing that each game end with a meaningful made basket, the hybrid format would provide at least one moment by which to remember any given game. Baseball and football are popular, in part, because those sports lend themselves to great storytelling and lasting images. The hybrid format would work in basketball’s favor in this regard.)
-Lead of x points feels much safer than it would under the hybrid format, setting up an all-too PREDICTABLE outcome (If time is short, even a one-possession game can feel predictable currently; a two-possession lead is only vulnerable to exceptionally good three-point shooting and exceptionally bad free throw shooting; a larger lead might require a trailing team to literally defy the laws of physics…)
-Team completes FLUKY comeback (…and in those rare instances when a team mounts a late comeback under the current format, the unsightly methods used can still make it unsatisfying. The hybrid format would lead to more comebacks and purer comebacks.)
-CLOCK malfunction/error/review (The clock is at the center of too many controversies. Even when the clock is relatively accurate, those reviews can really kill the mood. And they’re entirely avoidable.)
-REFS allow overly aggressive defense late in close game (We might see this in hybrid format games, but the effect would be the same for both teams. Currently, if the refs swallow their whistle on a final possession, only one team suffers.)
-Completely disproportionate amount of DEAD ball time during final minutes (Timeouts can be a good thing for TV, as they lead to commercials. I still think there would be plenty of those under the hybrid format. But the repeated fouling, clock reviews, etc. just lead to dead air time and can turn a game from exciting to excruciating.)
-Some portion of late stages noticeably less entertaining/tense than rest of game, turning even relatively competitive games into a BORE (It’s amazing how often it feels like the air has been sucked out of an arena, even when a relatively competitive game is being played. Under a hybrid format, beating the traffic would become a dead art.)
-SILLY scene during final seconds (So many games end with players just standing around awkwardly, trying to get the thing over with. There are other amusing variations, too. Basketball can do better.)
-SUBDUED celebrations (Excluding blowouts, teams should jump around and embrace at the moment every NCAA tournament victory is sealed. They so rarely do. A hybrid format, with its guaranteed walk-off shots, would provide considerably more exuberant celebrations.)
-ROLLing inbounds pass to midcourt (We often see trailing teams do this to conserve time. It’s harmless, but silly and unnecessary.)
-MISLEADING margin of victory (I’m encouraged that an increased importance is being placed on margin of victory when evaluating teams. Unfortunately, the unnatural style of play seen near the end of games can completely warp a game’s final score.)
-Actual game TIME stretches well past the allotted window (We see this in some games that end in regulation, and in many games that require overtime. But that’s a problem for the suits at the TV networks…)
-ANTICLIMACTIC overtime (…OT presents an even more distressing problem for fans. After all, sometimes an overtime period is able to match the exciting second half act that preceded it. More often, though, it provides a very ordinary finish to an extraordinary game.)
-Fouls-to-give dilemma (When a trailing team repeatedly and deliberately fouls an opponent not yet in the BONUS, we see them punished for not having fouled enough earlier in the half!)
-Teams PILE on by running up the score (Fortunately, most coaches are classy enough so that this doesn’t become a concern. A hybrid format would eliminate the concern altogether – all scoring would be guilt-free!)
-Player fouls out of the game by committing a deliberate foul (Many coaches are able to avoid such a DQ, but doing so requires substitution after substitution, which chews up even more actual time and drains even more excitement from the atmosphere)
-Player suffers an INJURY as a result of a deliberate foul (I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often. We shouldn’t accept it as part of the game for an offensive player to serve as a stationary target – or worse yet, have defensive players take a swipe at him while he sprints past)
-An especially hard deliberate foul leads to a FIGHT (It’s rare, but such a phenomenon famously marred Game 4 of the 2007 NBA Western Conference Semifinals between the Suns and Spurs.)
-Game does not END with meaningful made basket (It’s a shame any time a game ends with the blare of a horn instead of the swish of a net. The hybrid format would have provided much more fitting endings, guaranteeing at least 67 shining moments during the NCAA tournament.)