Rule change: shoot only 1 FT each trip to the line

[DBurks2818]

What I wish is that teams could elect to stop the clock with a timeout without actually using it (or at least not using all of it), like in the NFL. The flood of timeouts toward the end of games that are pretty much already decided is the boring part for me personally.

Also this:

Im all for the college rule, make it a 1 and 1 when you first enter the bonus then once you hit 10 fouls its a double bonus.

I think those changes could dramatically reduce the amount of boring time in a game.

[zimpy27]

I keep repeating myself in this type of threads but the game is fine the way it is.

Well the game has constantly been changing. The only thing consistent about this game is that it changes.

[SlowPaced]

I keep repeating myself in this type of threads but the game is fine the way it is.

Well the game has constantly been changing. The only thing consistent about this game is that it changes.

The last major change in the game was handchecking being disallowed, and that was 13 years ago. Everything else has been minor.

[zimpy27]

It's an interesting idea. I be keen for a trial of it. It could effect game outcome quite a bit, reducing the number of shots increase the size of the variance. One team could shoot really well and the other poorly for 5 trips each and it would be a 10 point difference rather than a 5.

[Scalabrine]

How about just instead of a 20 second timeout you get an advancement.

Or, make a 20 second timeout a legit 20 seconds! Quickly gather, talk about a play, make subs, ball advances all in 20 seconds.

[zimpy27]

I keep repeating myself in this type of threads but the game is fine the way it is.

Well the game has constantly been changing. The only thing consistent about this game is that it changes.

The last major change in the game was handchecking being disallowed, and that was 13 years ago. Everything else has been minor.

Yeah but were you happy with pre-handcheck era, pre-three line era? Should we go back?

Plenty were opposed changing the game then as well.. things had to change to get where we are.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

have everyone shoot underhand. now that would be entertaining.

[Ben-N1ce]

I'd like the 1 and 1.

[Cavsfansince84]

I still stand by the best way of shortening games to be allowing teams to refuse fouls called in the final minute or two of games. The last 3 minutes of game clock taking 20-25 min due to free throws and timeouts is the worst thing.

That would also make the NBA a lot more boring. End game situations would be so dull...think about all of the moments where a team was behind at the end of a game and then managed to tie the game up or take the lead after FTs. The Ray Allen shot in game 6, T-Mac 13 in 35 seconds, Kobe's epic comeback against the raptors the season he tore his achilles. Instead what we'd get is a team repeatedly getting fouled and inbounding the ball until the game is over.

Anyway I'm not a fan of the change suggested in the OP. I can't even think of a single advantage to it tbh, considering it wouldn't shorten games much at all.

I actually think all things considered it would still be better than what we have now.

[SeattleJazzFan]

We all fell in love with this game, so why are we trying to change how it was played?

You may not enjoy free-throws, but I think there's something dramatic about a guy being at the line when the game is on the line.

I'd argue there would be more drama. down by one, you get one shot to either lose or win.

[SeattleJazzFan]

There would be about 50 hack a someone’s a game if you only shot one FT. Teams would rather hack curry before he hits a 3. He’d be getting closed out on very hard and knocked into every shot.

that doesn't make any sense. it wouldn't change strategy in that way. you still get two points or 3 points depending on if its a two shot FT or a three shot FT.

[BarneyGumble]

I like it...Harden would be a 13 ppg scorer.

[jonjames]

This would never happen for the sake of hacking abuse. Every team would employ this tactic at the end of games: intentionally foul the other team's worst free throw shooter so they have to make the free throw otherwise they get no points and basically ends that player's team's possession. Right now as it is a bad free throw shooter has the chance to make at least 1 of 2 points which is still much much better than 0. Game scores would also be much lower and outcomes of games would be much more depending on making free throws. Bad idea.

[Black Mage]

Hard pass. Coaches use free throws to talk to their guys. Players use them to catch a blow. Plus how many late game moments have involved a choke job at the line. Heck, the all star game just had Derozan choke on his free throws.

Too important a shot to trivialize it just to shave a few minutes.

[Splashin]

Love this idea, helps with games being faster paced and less incentive to flop like a moron.

[zimpy27]

I like it...Harden would be a 13 ppg scorer.

I don't think you quite understand, it's 2 points for the 1 ft.

[Yoshun]

award 2 points for a make and of course 0 if the guy misses. doesn't really change anything other than moving the game along.

IOW, if your team goes to the line 50 times a game, and they shoot 80% FTs, they will score 80 points whether they shoot 2 FTs or 1 FT at a time. only difference, you improve the pace of the game. FTs are necessary, but boring - this way you decrease the boredom while not changing the way the game is scored.

on And1s, you keep it as is.

fouled on 3pt shots, you could either keep shooting all three FTs or I think it would work to shoot 2 shots - make the first shot worth 2 points, second shot worth 1.

poke holes in it. why not? I don't really see any cons, but the pro is pretty significant. we're not seeing a lot of hack-a-whoever these days, but it would help that issue tremendously as well.

1. Would this work the same at the end of games? One free throw can really make a difference.
2. I actually found a couple of articles on this topic, believe or not, it's not a new thing (though this thread is the first I've heard of it). I found this one interesting: http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/70581/hoopidea-is-one-trip-to-the-free-throw-line-enough

It's an interesting take. Basically, the part that really interesting to me is the piece on how free throw percentage tends to improve from one attempt to the next for each trip to the line. The success rate for each attempt increases from shot to shot, 2nd is better than the 1st, 3rd is better than the 1st and 2nd.

[SlowPaced]

Well the game has constantly been changing. The only thing consistent about this game is that it changes.

The last major change in the game was handchecking being disallowed, and that was 13 years ago. Everything else has been minor.

Yeah but were you happy with pre-handcheck era, pre-three line era? Should we go back?

Plenty were opposed changing the game then as well.. things had to change to get where we are.

I don't know why you're arguing this point. Nobody said change is inherently bad.

[zimpy27]

The last major change in the game was handchecking being disallowed, and that was 13 years ago. Everything else has been minor.

Yeah but were you happy with pre-handcheck era, pre-three line era? Should we go back?

Plenty were opposed changing the game then as well.. things had to change to get where we are.

I don't know why you're arguing this point. Nobody said change is inherently bad.

The point is that the game is fine but could be better, therefore changes should be made.

[codydaze]

Im all for the college rule, make it a 1 and 1 when you first enter the bonus then once you hit 10 fouls its a double bonus.

For those non college fans and dont get what I mean make it a 1 and 1. In college when they first go into the bonus (foul 7), you have to make your first free throw to get a 2nd free throw.

Yeah, I think a 1 and 1 makes more sense. In some ways discourages the Hack-A-Whoever but doesn't penalize good FT shooters by only allowing one shot.