Overtime length?

But if I had to choose a length for overtime, I'd choose 12 [gasp!] minutes. Why? It would keep the game much more exciting and teams would do everything they can to keep for going into OT. Also, it gives teams time to bounce back if the opposing team goes on a scoring run. The points would be a lot higher as well.

Why not just have five periods then?

What would happen with half-time?

Increase the time between periods to ten minutes like in the NHL.

I think this is something that definitely needs to be changed.

Think about that poor bastard at the NBA office who might get fired. If he can't validate his paycheck by changing something, then the accounts department might realise how fucking useless he really is.
+1 for change. Validating paychecks rocks.

Why don't they just have FT shootouts, like penalty kicks in football(soccer), except with nobody contesting your shot, that way the best FT shooters will stand out.

They practically do have unofficial free throw shootouts in the final minute of close games.

FT shooutout idea doesn't sound fair to me. Favors the team with, foul trouble/fouled out players, better FT players and more clutch FT shooters. Doesn't sound like it's better way to generate true winner the better team.

Oh well... same goes for the soccer too I guess, so I guess after double OT, perhaps it makes sense.

It favors the team with better players? Outrageous! It'll never do!

They practically do have unofficial free throw shootouts in the final minute of close games.

Yeah, but only the team with the lead gets to shoot FT's.

These are fun ideas to toss around but in all seriousness, I'd leave everything the way it is. Short of flat out rigging the games, some are always going to be more exciting than others. There's no concept I like better than the current one.

True, what's perfect should always remain perfect.

What's perfect?

The current OT rules, and the Conference Finals (jk).

Why are they perfect?

Honestly, it's beyond me that they don't go for the steal anyway - you're better off getting that than a foul, and if you miss the ball it's a foul which is what you would have done anyway.

As Sauru said, sometimes it's about stopping the clock straight away. I've wondered the same thing though, there are situations where at least aggressively trying for the steal is worth a gamble, especially as there's a chance you'll foul and stop the clock anyway. Depending on the situation, forcing a jumpball in the opponent's backcourt could be a worthwhile gamble as well.

fisher showed why going for the steal is not always in the best interest. he ended up busting nash in the face again. worse yet he did it with no realistic chance to win at that point

Sort of a retaliation to Lopez's cheap elbow from earlier.

Untill the halfway into the game, the Lakers looked good. I was surprised to see the Suns finally coming out of funk, especially with referees on their side, it was 6 vs 5 for them on the court the whole time.

i do not think fisher meant to do it, infact he was probably upset he did it.

Why are they perfect?

Can you stop with the questions?

If you answer the questions he will stop.

OK, in that case benji, I think the current OT format is perfect because 5 minutes isn't too long or too short to decide a winner of a tie game. There, now I will ask nicely, can you stop with the questions? Please

i think the new overtime rules should be another 4, 12 minute quarters. that should fairly determine the winner

Maybe for people who don't have a life.

Explain why.

i think the new overtime rules should be another 4, 12 minute quarters. that should fairly determine the winner

one extra 12 minute quarter is good enough. You and eleven friends should play a 96-minute game and see how you like it. Then come back to this forum and tell us how you like it.

Sauru was just being funny.