Overtime length?

The NBA may be considering a change in overtime length. The proposed lengths are 3 minutes, 7 minutes, a full quarter length of 12 minutes, or staying at the current length of 5 minutes.

I think anything less than 5 minutes is too short. It would be like tossing a coin or even a sudden death outcome, with the first team to go on any run ending with the victory after a minute of freethrows. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current length as it allows both teams a chance to go on a run, and if it aint broke don't fix it. I wouldn't mind 6 minutes just for the sake of it being half of a quarter length, so I guess I wouldn't mind 7 minutes either. I think 12 minutes would just be overkill, with the outcome determined by an endurance race, not to mention the possibility of how long the game could be if there was a second 12 minute overtime.

5 is perfect. Change for change's sake sucks.

Yeah, if you want to boost it, to six minutes would be about it only because that's logical.

Maybe they can try a shootout, like hockey.

^That could be awesome actually. Imagine one-on-one shootouts through all 5 positions. Could make for some great highlights.

I was being sarcastic since hockey shootouts suck, but I'd consider it for lulz during the regular season. Start with the guards, three point shootout until someone misses, than then the next player comes in, with the centers going last.

Or maybe they could do a best of three horse tournament.

Or a half court shootout involving all dressed players. Most makes wins.

There are tons of ideas. Dicking around with the time limit is thinking small.

I think "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "Change for change's sake suck" pretty much sum up the proposal. I too wouldn't mind an increase to six minutes, as already noted it's half a quarter and thus might seem more logical to some folks but five minutes is a fair amount of time with timeouts and other clock stoppages. I don't think it's hurting the game or causing any problems, leave it the way it is.

^That could be awesome actually. Imagine one-on-one shootouts through all 5 positions. Could make for some great highlights.

you mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXx-n-_ti2o

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfixxgmJw50



Personally, I like the 5 minute quarters or a logical change to 6 minute quarters.

What needs to be fixed is the fouling at the end of games. 10 minutes to finish 1 minute of basketball can get lame.

IMO, remove the "penalty" 2 free throws at the end of the game and just give possession. Still award free throws for shot fouls but encourage defense instead of just fouling. Oh, and all minute TOs become 30 second TOs i the last minute.

What needs to be fixed is the fouling at the end of games. 10 minutes to finish 1 minute of basketball can get lame.

IMO, remove the "penalty" 2 free throws at the end of the game and just give possession. Still award free throws for shot fouls but encourage defense instead of just fouling. Oh, and all minute TOs become 30 second TOs i the last minute.

I agree, it can get ridiculous. I'm not sure I'd remove free throws from the equation entirely since the foul limit rules should still apply but maybe place a limit on intentional fouls similar to timeouts, with a technical assessed if you go over the limit. That way you could go over the limit if you wanted to risk giving up three points - the regular penalty free throws plus the technical free throw - but because of the risk, teams would probably be more stingy in fouling to stop the clock.

How do you assess whether or not it's intentional, though? The only other option is to attempt steals, which leads to fouling anyway.

LOL at the ideas here.

Personally, I'd like to see hockey shootout stuff if it were to happen.

1:1 basketball for 5 possessions for 5 different players and defenders for each team. Once the ball leaves offensive player's hand, possession over. Intriguing if you think of Kobe VS Wade.

I'd go 3 minutes. Less the better. The game goes for 48 minutes, the last few minutes of these games that wind up in OT are really exciting and I find the excitement dies down when you've got 5 extra minutes because most of the time one team will pull away and make the result fairly obvious before that 5 minutes is up. Hell, I'd like it to be 1 minute.

How do you assess whether or not it's intentional, though? The only other option is to attempt steals, which leads to fouling anyway.

You grab a player around the waist without making a play on the ball, it's pretty obvious you're intentionally fouling to stop the clock/put them on the free throw line.

i think 5 is good. if any change up it to 6 but whats the point in adding 1 minute? 12 minutes is too much and i think the outcome can change based on fouls. you think you can keep howard in the game for an additional 12 minutes?

How do you assess whether or not it's intentional, though? The only other option is to attempt steals, which leads to fouling anyway.

You grab a player around the waist without making a play on the ball, it's pretty obvious you're intentionally fouling to stop the clock/put them on the free throw line.

What's to stop the defense simply slapping at the ball in such a way as to ensure they'll end up committing a foul, though?

I think 5 is ok, no more then 6 can work. 7 and above are just brutal. Triple-overtime, 12 minutes each, you'll play 84 minutes if you're Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry.

What's to stop the defense simply slapping at the ball in such a way as to ensure they'll end up committing a foul, though?

If you have to do that to avoid getting the technical, then you might as well go for the steal. If the referees' judgment is to be trusted in making flagrant foul calls where intent/whether or not the player was going for the ball has to be determined, it can be applied to intentional fouls to stop the clock as well. Even if that was going to be a loophole though, at least it would be making a play on the ball and like I said, players are probably going to go for the steal in that instance.

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.

its a matter of players getting hurt. the refs know the player is going to foul. they also know that when a player goes at someone with the intent to foul they could get hurt. sure go for the ball and alot of the time they do but when the player has his back to you then you just grab him and put him to the line.

also if you go for the steal everytime and miss you could let 5-6 extra seconds tick off the clock or even worse you can let the guy break free then someone has to come off his man to foul him leaving someone open for a potential open dunk. i have seen that situation happen often

also if you go for the steal everytime and miss you could let 5-6 extra seconds tick off the clock or even worse you can let the guy break free then someone has to come off his man to foul him leaving someone open for a potential open dunk. i have seen that situation happen often

Bingo...sauru beat me to it. Old man must've woken up early for his country kitchen buffet. A missed steal is a key way to get burned by any player worth a damn. Thats why its easier to just wrap them up sometimes.

I think the 6 minutes idea wouldnt be bad like everyone said but anything more than that is just extending the game beyond sane measures. OT is awesome because its short and momentum can go either way and the players dont start dragging ass till the 2nd or 3rd OT.

Also i encourage benjis outside the box thinking. Except i would make the shoot out tournament forcing coaches to rank their players on shooting. For instance: Shaq as the Cavs #12 has to shoot out with Ray Allen...and obviously Lebron would go against the Celtics worst shooter. Get all the way through and maybe even surprise eliminations would occur and you could end up with something as exciting as march madness every OT Game. Also gives coaches a chance to humiliate players their pissed at by giving them the #12 slot essentially making them the LVP or not letting them shoot out: letting the opponent auto advance.

also if you go for the steal everytime and miss you could let 5-6 extra seconds tick off the clock or even worse you can let the guy break free then someone has to come off his man to foul him leaving someone open for a potential open dunk. i have seen that situation happen often

Bingo...sauru beat me to it. Old man must've woken up early for his country kitchen buffet. A missed steal is a key way to get burned by any player worth a damn. Thats why its easier to just wrap them up sometimes.

Except that 90% of the time, the offensive player is merely holding the ball waiting to be fouled. They don't even try to protect it. Even if they did, I doubt they'd blow by their defender since at that point they're opening themselves up to mishandling the ball (see: Tracy McGrady's 13 in 35) and turning it over anyway. Even if they did, most teams have a couple of players there; Orlando could easily have ended up with, at worst, a jump ball when Pierce was waving the ball around over his head last night.

And don't even get me started on teams that don't attempt to make a stop on the inbound pass...

i think 5 is good. if any change up it to 6 but whats the point in adding 1 minute?

I agree with Sauru. Even at 6 mins. it could suck because of this...

What needs to be fixed is the fouling at the end of games. 10 minutes to finish 1 minute of basketball can get lame.

...the extra minute could still end up as a foul and FT fest.

If that's the case, the FT shootout idea isn't bad at as a tiebreaker.

Another one is to give the teams a possession each. First team to score and prevent the opposing team from scoring wins. Kind of like sudden death but also applied in the defensive end. If both teams keep scoring with their possessions the game continues. If both teams continue to miss shots, the game still continues. A team must consecutively score and defend (or vice-versa) in order to win.
Only one FT is needed for fouls made past the penalty limit. A made FT results as a score, possession then goes to the other team. All the defending team needs to do now is to prevent a basket from being made in order to win.

I think 5 is just fine as it is. If they're going to change it then 6 seems the most sensible since it's half a quarter's length, like a few people have already mentioned. Anything more than 7 would be too much in my opinion and anything less than 5 would be too short to decide anything.

I was being sarcastic since hockey shootouts suck, but I'd consider it for lulz during the regular season. Start with the guards, three point shootout until someone misses, than then the next player comes in, with the centers going last.

Or maybe they could do a best of three horse tournament.

Or a half court shootout involving all dressed players. Most makes wins.

There are tons of ideas. Dicking around with the time limit is thinking small.

3 point shootout? No, fucking one on one with no goaltending, and no 3's. Or one 3 pt shootout, one freethrow shootout, a single one-on-one post play, one player going straight-up to dunk on another, and then dodgeball.

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.

Or one 3 pt shootout, one freethrow shootout, a single one-on-one post play, one player going straight-up to dunk on another, and then dodgeball.

DODGEBALL! I love that idea!!!
Actually, the 3 point shoot out isn't a bad idea. I have always felt that three-pointers should play a much bigger role that they currently do.

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.