RealGM

This came up in a disastrous thread where someone was supporting this for ending games. While that was made clear as a stupid idea, this isn't so bad. A set first to xyz in overtime could be pretty fun and as long as it's a perfectly logical number, I'm not against it.

making Kawhi the example of the player who's been overloaded in minutes is troll-tastic

I don’t like it just like I hate the format used in the all star game silver has runined the nba

Bro we need to undo rules and get the game closer to what it was like in the 90s. We'd still have games over 100pts, but we could definitely reduce this video game scores.

Elam ending ? Lol

i wouldn't mind it. we would see more defense and the defensive effort would be rewarded because if you're down in OT, you can keep playing intense defense and the other team can't rely on the clock expiring to win the game.

there's been a lot of games where a team that's down is making huge defensive stops and building momentum for a comeback, but fall short because they ran out of time. we'd see a lot of comebacks and teams that are winning can't just relax and wait for time to expire.

Stupid af, hate commissioners that don't like the sport they're hired to represent. Why the **** would anybody want this? There isn't even that many double OT games, **** off.

would rather have Stern's corpse be commish than this weirdo

This guy has fallen off sooooo damn much! He was doing great at first, but has just become a pushover for NBA players and seems to not give a **** about the fans or the game in-general.

why would this be bad? up to 15, dead 21. every game ends on a game winner, shoot 1 free throw worth for both points in OT. the pressure and drama would be amazing to watch.

An entertaining scenario with this format:

- In OT, first to 11 points win.
- Team A has 10 points and Team B only has 3 points.

In a normal game, if there's only 1 minute left in the OT period, Team A pretty much just has to milk the clock and they win the game. In a normal game, Team B might start making crazy defensive stops in the last few plays, but it's too late because time expires.

However, if it's first to 11, Team B can turn up their defense and go on a huge run to win the game. Team A loses because they stopped giving effort after their 10th point, whereas in normal rules they can just stop trying and win because time is on their side.

If they lower the target score to like 7 points, it would make the defensive effort even more huge.

Silver is so horrible he makes me miss Stern. He needs to removed ASAP, he simply refuses to stop messing with a product that was relatively good when he inherited it.

JayMKE wrote:Stupid af, hate commissioners that don't like the sport they're hired to represent. Why the **** would anybody want this? There isn't even that many double OT games, **** off.

would rather have Stern's corpse be commish than this weirdo

I know it used to come out that around 6% of games go into OT (this was mid 2010s). That's not double OT, so that would be a lot less.
If they want to implement this, just do it, don't make up lame excuses.

Lockdown504090 wrote:why would this be bad? up to 15, dead 21. every game ends on a game winner, shoot 1 free throw worth for both points in OT. the pressure and drama would be amazing to watch.

Exactly, people just refuse to think because they're too accustomed to what they're used to.

I understand the "don't fix it if it aint broke" mantra, but everything can be improved. That's why the NBA added a shot clock, a 3 point line, etc.

If you don't innovate you end up antiquated just like in the business world like Blockbuster, Myspace, Toys R' Us, RadioShack, etc.

EDIT: I can already imagine if this was the other way around and the NBA already had target score endings throughout their history and suddenly wanted OT to end after 5 minutes, people would complain and say, "so what's even the point of playing defense when you can just shoot 3s and outscore your opponent to win in OT? this takes away the purpose of defense when now it'll be a race to see who can score the most within 5 minutes."

I think if it goes overtime each team picks one guy to go 1V1. No not basketball actually fighting. Bloodsport fam lets see some blood get spilled. All those non guaranteed contracts gotta prove their worth somehow. Prove it by knocking out your opposition for the W.

I really don't mind it for overtime.

Can't say I'm a fan of it for regulation though.

Flash Falcon X wrote:

Lockdown504090 wrote:why would this be bad? up to 15, dead 21. every game ends on a game winner, shoot 1 free throw worth for both points in OT. the pressure and drama would be amazing to watch.

Exactly, people just refuse to think because they're too accustomed to what they're used to.

I understand the "don't fix it if it aint broke" mantra, but everything can be improved. That's why the NBA added a shot clock, a 3 point line, etc.

If you don't innovate you end up antiquated just like in the business world like Blockbuster, Myspace, Toys R' Us, RadioShack, etc.

Because he's putting a band-aid on the bigger issue which he refuses to address. This doesn't solve anything. OT games are plenty exciting I'm not buying the 'over runtime' TV excuse either.

He needs to tackle this issue head on and stop dancing around the bush.

Come up with a think tank and understand how losing 15-20 games or whatever will impact the league LONG TERM. Or fine teams for sitting healthy players. We put a moon on the moon and Silver can't think this thru.

Please somebody stop Adam Silver....

azcatz11 wrote:

Flash Falcon X wrote:

Lockdown504090 wrote:why would this be bad? up to 15, dead 21. every game ends on a game winner, shoot 1 free throw worth for both points in OT. the pressure and drama would be amazing to watch.

Exactly, people just refuse to think because they're too accustomed to what they're used to.

I understand the "don't fix it if it aint broke" mantra, but everything can be improved. That's why the NBA added a shot clock, a 3 point line, etc.

If you don't innovate you end up antiquated just like in the business world like Blockbuster, Myspace, Toys R' Us, RadioShack, etc.

Because he's putting a band-aid on the bigger issue which he refuses to address. This doesn't solve anything. OT games are plenty exciting I'm not buying the 'over runtime' TV excuse either.

He needs to tackle this issue head on and stop dancing around the bush.

Come up with a think tank and understand how losing 15-20 games or whatever will impact the league LONG TERM. Or fine teams for sitting healthy players. We put a moon on the moon and Silver can't think this thru.

i do agree with that last part, but i do think targeted score is just great gameplay. eliminates the foul game at a critical juncture, team thats up has to play D, they cant just rely on the clock to save them.

1993Playoffs wrote:Elam ending ? Lol

Well, it's a special case of the Elam ending, in that the teams would always start out tied.