A New Beginning For Basketball’s End
While undeniably a great game, basketball would be exponentially greater if it stops letting the clock warp end-of-game quality.
In the Round of 32 of the 2014 NCAA Tournament, Villanova sought to spark a comeback from a late 10-point deficit, and fouled UConn deliberately with 1:22 remaining in the game. And again with 1:06 remaining. And with 57.2 seconds left. And 46.7. And 33.7. And 19.9. And 8.2.
The Wildcats ended up losing by 12.
They were not alone in this mostly futile pursuit, though. The 2014 NCAAs saw 45 of its 67 games feature deliberate and repeated fouling by the trailing team in the second half or overtime, and not once did the fouling team come out leading at the end of that period. Only four times did the fouling team even tie the game (Ed. note: This said “came out with the W” in a previous version of this piece), although three of those teams ended up winning the game in overtime. In total, only 11 of the 49 total fouling sessions (including the four OTs) saw the trailing team ultimately narrow its deficit by even one point.
Foul-a-thons are prevalent in the NBA, too, and are strikingly similar in their ineffectiveness. During the 2014 Playoffs, 46-of-89 games (51.7 percent) included deliberate fouling by the trailing team during the fourth quarter or overtime. Again, in none of those instances did the fouling team come out leading at the end of that period (Ed. note: This also said “came out with the W” in a previous version of this piece). Only three times did the fouling team tie the game, and none of those ended up winning in OT.
If only a solution existed that would eliminate foul-a-thons,
a strategy as futile as it is boring …
Of course, even though fouling rarely works, trailing teams resort to this strategy because no better option exists. Offenses with the lead would be thrilled to see trailing defenses spend the time to play legitimately, but time is not a luxury for trailing teams, who can’t afford to allow their opponents to stall the game away. Considering that teams also can manipulate the game clock in this way in a tie game — in an effort to take the final shot or leave as little time as possible for their opponent’s ensuing possession — a game where the late stages are completely free of stalling is especially hard to find.
Just two 2014 postseason games — Ohio State/Dayton (NCAA 2nd Round) and overtime of Portland/Houston Game 1 (NBA 1st Round) — featured stalling-free final periods during basketball’s 2014 postseasons.
If only a solution existed to eliminate stalling as a tactic …
Trailing teams also tend to play frantically, which can make the most critical possession of a game the sloppiest. Consider some of the “buzzer-beater” attempts from the 2014 NCAAs:
- Treveon Graham’s halfcourt shot that sailed over the backboard at the end of regulation in VCU’s 2nd round loss vs. Stephen F. Austin
- Jordan McRae’s shot from beyond halfcourt that sailed over the backboard in Tennessee’s Sweet 16 loss vs. Michigan;
- Justin Anderson’s three-quarter court shot that fell woefully short of the basket in Virginia’s Sweet 16 loss vs. Michigan State
- Nik Stauskas’s halfcourt shot that slammed off the edge of the backboard in Michigan’s Elite 8 loss vs. Kentucky.
All terrible.
During the entire 2014 NCAA Tournament, 17 second half/overtime periods ended with a possession during which the offense could have tied or taken the lead. Only one of those possessions was successful (Steven Ridley’s buzzer-beating putback in Texas’ 2nd round win vs. Arizona State). Even if we broaden the definition of a buzzer-beater (any possession where a team can tie or take the lead with the shot clock turned off), only 14 of 48 applicable possessions were successful.
The pros are also susceptible to such sloppy endgame play. The first round of the 2014 NBA Playoffs alone included the following:
- Pero Antic’s hideous missed three-pointer in Atlanta’s Game 4 loss vs. Indiana
- Kyle Lowry’s swatted runner, attempted while falling to the floor in Toronto’s Game 7 loss vs. Brooklyn
- Patty Mills’ catch-and-shoot air ball in San Antonio’s Game 6 loss vs. Dallas
- Reggie Jackson’s misguided and hopeless three-quarter court heave, released with 3.7 seconds remaining in regulation in Oklahoma City’s Game 4 overtime win vs. Memphis.
Overall in the playoffs, 19 fourth quarter/overtime periods ended with a possession during which the offense could have tied or taken the lead. Only three of those possessions were successful. Even with the broader buzzer-beater definition, only 10 of 55 possessions were successful.
If only a solution existed to ensure that such ugly basketball is no longer played during a game’s most critical stages …
We also often see trailing teams concede a game. Concession might come in removing its best players from the game, or not fouling when playing defense, or dribbling out the clock while trailing. In the 2014 NCAA Tournament, 41 teams conceded their season in some fashion like this, and 52 of this season’s NBA playoff games also were conceded. In fact, the expectation to concede is so common that restless fans sometimes disapprove if a trailing team employs the only available strategy, as evidenced by the boos heard when Iowa State fouled deliberately in a particularly dire situation in a Sweet 16 loss vs. UConn.
If only a solution existed that would compel teams to employ the optimal strategy through the end of every game …
The great game of basketball is vulnerable to a number of other unfortunate phenomena:
- clock controversies, errors, and reviews (including North Carolina’s Round of 32 loss vs. Iowa State, when the Tar Heels failed to attempt a buzzer-beater in part due to the game clock not operating properly)
- uncontested field goal attempts allowed by leading teams
- trailing teams who are punished for having fouls to give (which applied to five teams in each the NBA Playoffs and NCAA Tournament, including Virginia, which needed to commit back-to-back-to-back-to-back fouls to finally send Michigan State to the line in a Sweet 16 loss)
- overtimes that often fail to match the excitement of the end of regulation (including Tennessee’s 12-point overtime win vs. Iowa in the opening round, and UConn’s 8-point overtime win vs. St. Joseph’s in the Round of 64)
- players who foul out in overtime and/or by committing a deliberate foul for a trailing team (22 such players in the NCAA Tournament; 12 such players in the NBA Playoffs)
- somewhat-silly rolled inbounds passes
- unwritten rules that compel leading teams to bypass easy baskets
- overly aggressive fouls that inevitably occur when fouling is so often encouraged/required (Wisconsin’s Traevon Jackson was on the wrong end of such a foul in a Round of 32 win vs. Oregon).
If only a solution existed that could eliminate all of these flaws …
Also, basketball’s fluid nature, frequent scoring, and often-unceremonious endings make even its biggest games vulnerable to a lack of a signature moment more than any other sport.
If only a solution existed that would ensure that every basketball game had at least one play to define it …
Basketball’s aforementioned flaws are directly attributable to the influence of the game clock. So, it begs the question: does basketball really need a game clock? In a word, sorta.
Obviously, not all sports’ competition durations are governed strictly by time. Numerous different formats exist, including:
Races: auto racing, most swimming and running events, etc.
Completion of a Predetermined Number of Rounds/Turns: bowling, gymnastics, diving, field events in track and field, etc.
Governed Generally by Time, but might end by a particular accomplishment at any moment: boxing, mixed martial arts, wrestling, etc.
Accumulation of Accomplishments: baseball/softball, golf (arguably), tennis, volleyball, etc.
Governed Strictly by Time: basketball, field hockey, football, ice hockey, soccer, etc.
Sports on that final list must depend on a clock because accomplishments (whether it’s goals or general scoring possessions) are accumulated relatively sporadically. That is, except for basketball.
In the sport’s early decades, baskets were awfully hard to come by, which aligned the sport with others governed strictly by time, but for about the last century or so, baskets have been scored with an ease and frequency that would seem to align the sport more closely with those that allow accomplishments to govern their duration. Instead, basketball clings to its clock, and enables all of the drawbacks discussed above.
Game clocks do have a solid purpose in today’s sporting environment: relative conformity of game length for TV. Until very recently, we could be sure that NBA games would adhere to a 150-minute window of actual time, and that high-level NCAA games would fit into a 120-minute window. Conversely, baseball’s game length variability provides an easy target for detractors, and the length of a tennis match is difficult to predict within the hour. If basketball were to abandon its game clock completely (and simply play first-to-x-points-wins), we would see some games end in less than 90 minutes, and others last well beyond three hours. That won’t work.
But can basketball have the best of both worlds, in a way no other sport can? What if basketball employed a game clock for most of each game, to reap its primary benefit (reducing game length variability), but abandoned the clock just before it causes quality, style, and pace of play to suffer (using actual baskets/points as the basis for duration instead). The possible combinations are endless, but the idea would be for each game to include a majority timed portion, followed by an untimed final act.
Hypothetically, for NCAA basketball:
- At least 36 minutes of timed play (a complete, 20-minute timed first half, and at least 16 minutes of timed play in the second half)
- When the cutoff is reached, a target score would be set (equal to the leading team’s score plus seven)
- Play would then resume, without a game clock, until one team matches or exceeds the target score
For example, consider the 2014 NCAA Championship game. Suppose UConn called a timeout to end the timed portion of the game, holding a 56–52 lead. At this juncture, the game clock would be abandoned, and the first team to reach 63 points would be declared the national champion.
Similar rules could be implemented for the NBA. Imagine Game 5 of the 2014 NBA Finals, where San Antonio held a 98–80 lead with around three minutes left. In that case, the first team to reach 105 points would win that game (and if it was the Spurs, they would be declared NBA champions.)
We’ll never know how either of these games would have played out under a hybrid format, but we do know that both teams would be able to play normal basketball, and someone has to make a walk-off shot to win. We wouldn’t see any of the flaws listed above, but we would witness two game-clinching baskets to remember, possibly for a lifetime.
A hybrid format seems radical at first glance, but given its ability to preserve a more familiar style of play through the end of every game, it might be less so than the format currently used.
We’ve seen sports evolve in countless significant ways. It can be mystifying to think that long ago, professional athletes were bound to one team for their entire career. Or that college football games were allowed to end in ties and seasons allowed to end without a national championship game. Or that basketball games were played without a shot clock. Or that we couldn’t immediately see the score upon tuning in to a game on TV.
And once enough time passes from today, we’ll be amazed to think that incorrect umpire calls were allowed to go uncorrected in baseball. Or that hard-charging baserunners were once allowed to barrel into stationary catchers. Or that head injuries were treated so casually in many sports.
Given that context, is modifying basketball to bring out its best qualities while limiting its worst so crazy?
If only we were as mystified to think that a clock is allowed to compel basketball teams to play a style inferior to that which makes us love the game so much …
