screw anyone here that thinks the Elam Ending would be good for college basketball.
Elam Ending
- Thread starter hailtoyourvictor
- Start date
Buzzer beaters have produced some of the best and most iconic moments in college basketball history. Removing them from the game isn't going to make the sport more entertaining.
Yeah if they want to change a rule that ain't the one.
What's not to understand? Hail is saying removing the aspect of the "buzzer-beater" wouldn't make the game more entertaining....And it wouldn't. A target score ending would be awful. It would eliminate the excitement.....No more NC State game ending dunks, with a second to go....Up to Jenkins shot to beat UNC. Imagine a history of CBB with the Elam Ending being in place....
Yikes. No Keith Smart.....Jordan's shot? Nope....Michigan never comes back to beat Kansas......NC States upset never happens, b/c Valvano's strategy to foul Houston is off the table.
Elam ending would be awful.
Remove a title from NC State and erase the Jenkins shot? It might not actually be that terrible of an idea.
All joking aside, I don’t want it for college basketball. I do sort of enjoy it for that throw back tournament but that’s because I don’t really care about that as much.
What’s the difference between a buzzer beater and a game winning 3 that reaches the target score? I don’t follow.
Using that rule for college basketball would be a terrible idea. It’s s fun rule to use for the NBA All Star game that’s meant simply just to entertain the fans and/or raise money for charity.
Not that much of a difference. Both end the game. I'm talking about what leads up to that point. Down 70-60, Elam target is 78. You need 18 points to win. It pretty much takes any type of drama away.
How many games with Elam ending have you seen? Lots of teams go on 18-8 runs in basketball. That happens all the time.
Maybe. I’m not arguing for or against it. It’s just weird to me that the argument being used was essentially that there was no game winning shots.
Logically it makes sense, sentimentally it’s ridiculous. Everyone who has ever watched or played basketball is not going to relate to it. No more overtime thrillers. No more buzzer beaters.
Keep it in events like TBT, ASG, And1 Mixtape tour, whatever else, but not at the core levels of competition.
Keep it in events like TBT, ASG, And1 Mixtape tour, whatever else, but not at the core levels of competition.
Guess I have been under a rock. Don't even know what Elam ending is but it sounds stupid for sure
I wouldn’t because that means it is probably 1-2 seasons out from being written into the rules of the game. I don’t like the idea of fundamentally changing the way games have been won/lost for the entire history of the game. Basketball is growing, it doesn’t need some cartoonish pickup basketball style ending.
Also in the pipeline is doing away with free throws
7 fouls, opposing team gets one point and ball
12 fouls you get 2 points and the ball
3 point fouls, follow same rules apply
This change will be similar to the G League proposal . 2 conferences are on board to trial this proposal for the 24 season
7 fouls, opposing team gets one point and ball
12 fouls you get 2 points and the ball
3 point fouls, follow same rules apply
This change will be similar to the G League proposal . 2 conferences are on board to trial this proposal for the 24 season
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
If they were to set a target at 70 points, the Big Ten games would be four hours long. 
It would take UVA a week......If they were to set a target at 70 points, the Big Ten games would be four hours long.
Russillo and Simmons made an interesting point that if basketball had always been played that way, people would think using a timer to end the game is ridiculous. Both would work and provide similar drama, imo. Acting like we’d have missed out on all these great moments isn’t true either, because this style of ending would’ve provided plenty of great moments.
I disagree. The closer the timer gets to 0 the lower probability of scoring on the final possession to tie/win are. That thrill and count down isn't there with the Elam Ending.
Sure the Elam Ending could create other drama, but some scenarios you're just never going to replicate.
Would that game still have been great if it didn't go to OT and the final possession was a normal possession? Sure. What makes it iconic is how much desperation went into that pass and the low probability of being able to catch it, gather, and hit in 2 seconds.
I'm not even a UNC fan and I jumped around my living room at this ending.
And you can just imagine my reaction to this one.
Ya, don't take buzzer beaters away from my sport. No matter how much sense some people think it makes.
Maybe it’s because there are so few times it actually happens? Most games end with meaningless final five minutes filled with jacked up threes, walkons turning it over, or free throw shooting contests.
I could potentially understand an argument where the Elam ending would produce so many great endings that it would actually become old hat and we would appreciate them less because there would be so many.
I don’t follow. That’s what a buzzer beater is. A game winning shot. In the traditional format, a game winning shot and a buzzer beater are equivalents.
I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or trolling or what. Hitting a buzzer beater down 1 with time expiring is not equal to making a game winner in the Elam format in terms of probability and/or desperation.
I get that. I’m saying that I was using the word “game winner” in place of “buzzer beater” for the current set up because as the rules currently are, there is no difference in those phrases.
What? That's not what you were doing. You were saying there is no difference in a buzzer beater and a 3 that reaches the target score.
The probability of making a shot with 3 seconds left on the clock is way lower than make a shot with a full shot clock. That's part of the difference.
There is desperation in knowing if you miss that improbable shot you don't have the chance of another stop and possession. You miss, it's over and you lose. You make it, it's over and you win. That's part of the difference.
There is zero chance I'd ever budge on my opinion of this. Some of my earliest basketball memories are counting down "3...2...1..." and shooting in my living room. Buzzer beaters are a great part of the game even if Simmons thinks we'd hate them if we never knew they existed.
I’m getting confused. Too many back and forths. I said it was weird that the OP seemed to be implying that Elam Endings didn’t have game winning shots, because he definition they do. But then to you I was responding about buzzer beaters in the current format being infrequent.
I’m not sure why a shot with 3 second left would have less of a chance of going in as that same shot that is needed to win a game with target score. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Now, I will certainly admit that the clock can often create a TYPE of shot that is harder. A half court heave because you don’t have time to get all the way up court. But an open 3 in rhythm is the same level of difficulty regardless of whether there is 3 seconds or 3 minutes.
I’m the OP. And my OP is referring to buzzer beaters. A game winning shot at the buzzer, IMO, is more exciting than a game winning shot in the Elam Ending.
I didn’t say a shot at 3 seconds has less of a chance of going in than a shot to hit a target score. I’m saying when you have a full shot clock the probability of scoring is undeniably higher than if you have 3 seconds to score.
Because you aren’t racing against time to score in an improbable scenario. And that’s just tie games.
If it’s 75-74, your shot at the buzzer is literally all or nothing. That adds excitement IMO.
Again, there’s zero chance my opinion on this could change. We can say the same things over 100 times and we’ll still end up disagreeing.
Similar threads
