Dicky V & fouling out

[BisonAccountant44]

For at least the last two Men's NCAA tournaments I've been hearing Mr Vital complain about the fact that players can foul out in basketball, and I'm sure after Dorsy fouling our last night he's going to be back at it again. While I don't necesarilly agree with him, he does bring up a couple of good points.

Personally, I feel like his idea of giving a team 2 shots and the ball back for any players foul after their 5th, or 7th depending on the interview, would basicly make minor fouls the same as an intentional or technical, and would be too much of a fundamental change to basketball as we know it. I think it could also potentially have more impact on a game than losing a play to fouls, and would put far too much emphasis on small fouls.

Now if he were to propose something a little more conservative like adopting the NBA's 6 fouls or maybe keeping the rule at 5, or even 6, but implementing a +1 for any overtime periods (basicly granting players a foul like teams get timeouts) I could maybe go along with it.

Thoughts?

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/24/dick-vitale-advocates-eliminating-fouling-out/

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/04/01/dick-vitale-wants-basketball-to-eliminate-fouling-out/

[tony]

I can see a new type of BB player now - hockey thugs.

[missingnumber7]

Why play a game...just start fouling at the begining of the game when the team is better than you. We could be Duke...just foul...and play offense.

[bisonaudit]

Why play a game...just start fouling at the begining of the game when the team is better than you. We could be Duke...just foul...and play offense.

2 shots AND the ball, would prevent that strategy from working.

Still I don't really care for the idea. The biggest problem with the current situation isn't the rules on fouling out it's the coaches who sit players 'in foul trouble' and cost themselves the game by taking their best players out of the game when there's no need for it. It's just another example of coaching not to get fired as opposed to coaching to win.

[SlickVic]

2 shots AND the ball, would prevent that strategy from working.

Still I don't really care for the idea. The biggest problem with the current situation isn't the rules on fouling out it's the coaches who sit players 'in foul trouble' and cost themselves the game by taking their best players out of the game when there's no need for it. It's just another example of coaching not to get fired as opposed to coaching to win.

OH NO not this again arnt you the one who was trying to tell us all football coaches are idiots that dont go for it on 4th and 5 or less?? it was something rediculous along those lines

[bisonaudit]

OH NO not this again arnt you the one who was trying to tell us all football coaches are idiots that dont go for it on 4th and 5 or less?? it was something rediculous along those lines

They're not idiots, they're perversely incented into doing the wrong thing. And not unlike most of us most of the time they're afraid to look bad in front of their peers.

Yes, this again. We've all been brain washed into this conservative, play not to look bad mentality.

Baseball has the same problem w/ 9th inning specialists. At least in some places (Minnesota, Detroit, Cleveland), whether they know it or not, they aren't throwing their best guy in the 9th, even if they're paying them as if they are. It's usually the 8th instead, which is somewhat of a lesser sin, and more often with runners on in a close game, which is where you should be using your best relievers regardless of the inning.

Too much punting. Too much pine time for stars who happen to pick up a 3rd foul early in the second half. Too many closers coming in w/ 3 run leads in the 9th and no one on base and too much Juan Rincon in 1 run games w/ runners on in the 7th.