Future NBA Rule Changes to Improve the Game

Eliminating the illegal defense rule was a positive step forward for the NBA, despite what others believe. This rule change puts a premium on all-around basketball skills and players, a move to eliminate isolation basketball. With the illegal defense rule, basketball was played two-on-two, meaning a team could afford to have strictly defensive players, or strictly shooters play major minutes. With the change, the emphasis is on better all-around players who can move without the ball, shoot, create their own shot and defend. This season, more offensive-oriented teams (and more entertaining teams) like the Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings, Dallas Mavericks, Seattle Supersonics and MIami Heat are also among the best teams, a shift directly related to the rule changes of the past 3-4 years.There are two more rules changes that would continue to place the emphasis on all-around players, smarter players and better basketball without punishing good defense. The first change is the artificial movement of the ball to the frontcourt when a team takes a timeout. I understand the NBA is trying to increase the competitiveness of end-game situations and create more buzzer beater endings, but why punish the defense just because a coach hordes his timeouts until the end of the game? College basketball is plenty exciting without having to artificially manufacture buzzer beaters. If the NCAA adopted the NBA's rule, some of the greatest endings in basketball history never would have happened. UCLA's Tyus Edney's 4.8 second dash against Missouri in 1995; Grant Hill to Christian Laettner against Kentucky in 1992; Valpo's Bryce Drew to beat Mississippi in 1998; and, of course, BYU's Danny Ainge against Notre Dame. The second rule change would be a complete overhaul of timeouts, more in line with International rules. Nothing is worse than watching an exciting, nail-biting game until the last two minutes when a series of beer commercials are interrupted by snippets of actual action as coaches use timeouts on seemingly every possession. These are the best players and coaches in the world. Shouldn't they be prepared to play in a close game without having to huddle on every possession to discuss it? It's amazing that with all the sophistication and timeouts, teams generally run a clear-out from the top or a pick-and-roll to get their final shot anyway, so why the need for the continuous timeouts? Similarly, why should a player who dribbles himself into trouble get bailed out just because his coach has a timeout left? Analysts always praise players for their high basketball IQ when they call a timeout when in trouble, but shouldn't the answer be to just stay out of trouble? Why punish good defense and bail out bad offense? While I disliked the International rule initially, I prefer it now, as it puts the emphasis on the players, not the coaches, and rewards good plays and players, not alert coaches. Internationally, teams receive one timeout per quarter and two in the fourth quarter. This is all coaches should need; saving four to five timeouts for the last three minutes of play is ridiculous. It places the emphasis on the coaches, and not the players. While it is good for commercial revenue, fans attend games and watch on television to see the players make plays, not the coaches devise strategy. Basketball is an active, free-flowing game, not chess. Coaches who feel the need to micro-manage their players every move should do so through pre-game preparation; coach your players better in practice and trust them to make plays in the game, whether it is the first or fourth quarter. Similarly, in International rules, the coach must call a timeout to the scorer's table, and the timeout is awarded at a stoppage in play. A coach or player cannot stop the action with a timeout. Dribble into a trap? Tough. Jump in the air to call timeout? Nope. Eliminate a five-second call? Turnover. Dive on the floor for a loose ball? Jump ball. But, they say, it is a smart play to call timeout when you are in trouble. No, I answer, stay out of trouble. Why punish good defense and reward bad offense? It might seem unfair to the offense, but what about the defender who works hard to create the trap and is about to benefit from the turnover when a coach yells timeout and bails out the offensive player? The offense is in control; if they make a bad play, they should have to live with the result, not call timeout to make everything better. While these rule changes would be unpopular initially, they create action which rewards good plays, good preparation and punish poor decision-making or bad offensive plays. These changes put the outcome of a game into the hands of players, not a shrewd coach.