Idea for overtime games. No curmudgeons allowed.
- Thread starter Boyd94
- Start date
For real. They had success driving. Not sure why he felt the need for a three.
The best solution, of course, is to implement the Elam Ending. At the last media timeout, determine the target score by setting it 8 points more than what the team with the lead has. Cut the game clock off and let them play. When the target score is reached, the game is over. No more "strategy" like hacking and fouling to extend the game and no more milking the clock. Just two teams trying to make shots and get stops on defense.
I like discussing unorthodox ideas for fun, but this one is just plain stupid. The game has become too three point-oriented already, the last thing I wanna see is play where that's the ONLY thing happening.
But I wouldn't mind seeing more experimentation with that Elam Ending they use in the TBT. That works really well. Cuts out all that annoying intentional fouling at the end of games and guarantees every game ends on an exciting game winner.
But I wouldn't mind seeing more experimentation with that Elam Ending they use in the TBT. That works really well. Cuts out all that annoying intentional fouling at the end of games and guarantees every game ends on an exciting game winner.
slightly off topic but I've always felt that winning or losing in an overtime game should not be counted against you in the RPI or NET or whatever as much as winning/losing in regulation
not sure what kind of formula you'd need to get it right
not sure what kind of formula you'd need to get it right
It kind of does. Usually with computer based models, it's largely based not just wins/losses but rather margin of victory. You assume that in OT there won't be a big difference.
But yeah a 9 point victory in regulation would be equal to a 9 point victory in OT.
This illustrates an even bigger point IMO. Say you are absolutely crushing a team. You are up by 30-35 with ten minutes to go. You empty the bench. You still win comfortably but you only win by say 20 instead of 35.
I always felt like that should be factored in as well.
In the long run none of this probably matters a whole. lot. There's just not that many OT games that teams play in a given season.
I can’t speak for those formulas, but in the one I programmed 15-20 years ago an OT win or loss was valued nearly the same. Every thing was on a 0-1 scale, the sum of the 2 teams probabilities = 1, so on a neutral court OT game the split was like 0.52 & 0.48. Home court was worth 0.13, semi-home (like UK in Louisville was 0.07), then point spread was taken into account too, but weighted less after 15 points.
That is why my formula did not reward much a win by 40 over a win by 20.
IMO, if you won by 20 you’ve shown you dominated the game, anything more than that is just running up the score, which a lot of those teams that won by 20 could have done too but choose not to.
Yeah and some I think do it the correct way and have some kind of diminishing returns. Like a 30 point victory should still be better than a 20 point victory but it should be worth less than say the gap from 20 to 10.
Similar threads
