cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on May 2, 2014 15:43:39 GMT -6
At current, the team with the most points at the end of two 25:00 halves is the winner.
I propose this be changed to "the first team to score 4 points is the winner." In other words, best of 7. Essentially, this would be a transition to volleyball type scoring. This would serve a number of purposes, as follows:
1. EVERY team is still in the game until it's over. As opposed to simply avoiding a shutout, a team can go on a hot streak and come back to win. A two-point lead is no longer a death knell. There will be no reason to pack it in, and no "forcing" people to play in a rout well after victory is in hand.
2. The team, rather than the clock, must win the game. Think of every single loss your school has suffered because the other team wouldn't throw at you. Think of every time you stood in the eliminated player line for 10:00 because your one guy was trying to not lose as opposed to trying to win. Think of all the times players sacrifice themselves in the name of clock management. Now, think of all that stuff being thrown out. This is the death of "stall ball".
3. Zero ability to run up the score. No more scores that demoralize players and teams, that hurt recruiting efforts and player retention. The worst that happens is 4-0.
4. Fewer rules to worry about. No more worrying about overtime, no more worrying about time carrying over to the second half, no more worrying about clock management by the refs OR the players; just suit up and play.
5. Players are incentivized to play their hardest. The easiest way to save your arms is to eliminate the other side as quickly as possible.
Like any proposal, there are drawbacks. The largest one in this circumstance would be the lack of straightforward scheduling. Some teams may be done in 15 minutes. Others may take an hour and a half. I would argue, however, that the benefit of an hour and a half of "real" dodgeball is an acceptable tradeoff to the current product, where 10-15 minutes of every game gets lost to "no score" results at the end of halves, and much more to time where one or both teams fail to put forth effort due to the circumstances (typically an insurmountable lead).
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on May 2, 2014 21:04:41 GMT -6
Oh man. This is an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by wkujohnson19 on May 4, 2014 13:23:18 GMT -6
This is an interesting idea but my questions to it is the time straint especially at Nationals with so many games and limited court time the possibility of every game being completed would be extremely difficult. Concerning also that it is a struggle to get every game in on time with the already 50 minute games. I know from experience playing with teams that just prefer a slower style of play the score after 50 minutes is 2-1 with the team scoring the last point with only a few minutes left so by having to score 4 points like you pointed out the hour and a half game will happen. So the teams that didn't have to play have to sit longer and that is thirty minutes of play a second game that is prevented. The idea is intriguing but with the limit of court space and time at Nationals I feel like this will make Nationals extremely difficult to conduct.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on May 4, 2014 15:39:18 GMT -6
I submit that the numbers gravitate against a scheduling difficulty.
24 games were scheduled for the first day of this year's tournament, as you would expect for a 16-team event. Of those 24 games, only 8 had the victor score fewer than four points. Of those eight, only three had the victor score two or fewer points (all of them 2-1 results). Meanwhile, at least five games would have been shortened, as they would have been called at 4-0 rather than having to go into 6-0, 7-0, 10-0, etc.
I further contend that those 2-1 matches are caused by the game clock and are a reason for moving away from same. There is no advantage in winning 3-0 as opposed to 2-0. Having secured a 2 point lead, teams placing an emphasis on the game result rather than the game itself intentionally slow the game down. If the only way to win is to actively participate (i.e. throw more balls), I contend that the pace of play towards the end of games would dramatically improve.
|
|
|
Post by cobrien18 on May 5, 2014 20:35:12 GMT -6
I think this is a vey intriguing idea that should be given serious thought. I think this could seriously combat the issue of stall ball that many teams seem to dislike to play, but realize the effectiveness of such a strategy. A straight best of seven would encourage each team to try to win every point, not merely kill time.
In regards to scheduling for big events such as Nationals, I think a possible solution is to not schedule games at times as is currently done, but instead to schedule games in a queue. By that I mean that each game is assigned a number and as soon as one game ends, the next game up in the queue takes the court. That way, if one game takes far longer than the others, it does not prevent other games from starting. Furthermore, if this proposal were put into effect, I think that outside of nationals, teams should have the option of continuing to play after a 4-0 quick match until the other game occurring in the tournament finishes. I know some games can reach 4-0 rather quickly. If teams drive all the way to a tournament, they should be allowed to play for more than a fifteen minute match, especially if they would just wait around otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on May 6, 2014 21:35:31 GMT -6
What if in order to make sure games didn't go too long you throw in the OLD over time rule? 10-15 minutes per point to finish. If the point ends when the time is up who ever has the most players on the court wins that point. If its the same we go into a sudden death, first team to lose a player loses the point.
|
|
|
Post by jlesk33 on May 12, 2014 13:22:06 GMT -6
I personally like this idea a lot. It creates an environment where every point counts and prevents teams from being humiliated. I also agree with Colin that simply creating a queue of games would help prevent any scheduling issues from occurring. I think we as a league should greatly consider adopting this format for the near future.
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on May 22, 2014 10:54:46 GMT -6
So how are people feeling about this? Honestly I think we should give it a try for a year. For tournaments just use the "que" design where the next game plays on the first available court.
If we do it though there can't be any time limits on points because that will just encourage stalling and defeat the whole purpose.
All I know is that it's been posted for 3 weeks and McCarthy hasn't complained about it yet so it can't be that bad of an idea!
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 23, 2014 5:05:21 GMT -6
I think it's a fantastic idea honestly. Like others have said, it prevents stall ball and forces teams to do as the rule book says and (paraphrasing) "actively attempt to defeat the other team" instead of just sitting back. This is certainly worth trying, but we definitely need a lot more input from other teams if we are to try this this year. So far it's only been Michigan teams and WKU responding about this haha.
With that said, it still does not solve the problem of what happened a month ago, and has happened many times before. For reference: Nationals, CMU/UK in overtime. The other team was too scared to make a mistake and throw the game and actively throw at me when it was 4 on 1.
Now say the game is tied 3-3, and the odds are again 4 on 1 (or about). While I know not every team would take this route, it's still bound to happen.
I know it has nothing really to do with this idea, but it is an instance where stall ball is used quite often and I think we need to look into a solution for that situation.
This is certainly worth trying, but we definitely need a lot more input from other teams if we are to try this this year. So far it's only been Michigan teams and WKU responding about this haha.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Jun 9, 2014 11:56:40 GMT -6
So how are people feeling about this? Honestly I think we should give it a try for a year. For tournaments just use the "que" design where the next game plays on the first available court. If we do it though there can't be any time limits on points because that will just encourage stalling and defeat the whole purpose. All I know is that it's been posted for 3 weeks and McCarthy hasn't complained about it yet so it can't be that bad of an idea! Dylan I was keeping my mouth shut. I absolutely despise this idea. lol
|
|