cu blujs wrote:I'm not really a purist, but personally (and this is just my little opinion) I think its a dumb idea - and I don't see any assurance it would lead to any reduction in the length of a game. How many games actually end up that way? Maybe three or four out of a teams entire season, if that? Since it equates to a 70 point game, what about the game that is in the 50s? Are they going to play until a team, which is scoring at 1.4 points per minute scores 7 more? That's almost another 10 minutes of playing time. And, there are plenty of games where the teams scoring actually slows down in the last few minutes. My guess is there would be just as many games that go on for well over the time it might take to end in 4 minutes of game clock as we see now where there are more than 6-8 free throws in those last four minutes. Or, is it going to be the first of 4 minutes or 7 points? Why not just play every game to 70 points then? It could be like 3v3 games or like volleyball. Of course, first to 70 could end up in a 3 hour game some nights. Funny thing is I have heard some suggest volleyball should speed up games by going to a timed period for each set. Whoever has the most points when time expires wins that set.
It wouldn't make games shorter, and that's not the idea. Ideally, games would take about the same length - but as you said - some could stretch out much longer and some could end a on a quick 30 seconds 7-0 run. I think the idea is to replace the large amounts of dead ball time at the end of games (foul - free throws - timeout - inbound, quick shot, maybe 10 secs off clock - foul - free throws - timeout) with live ball time of the teams still playing basketball.
Yes, scoring slows in the last few minutes of games - that's because the leading team almost always starts burning the whole shot clock in this time instead of running normal offense. These rules would increase scoring at the end of the game.
Also, just making it first to 70 wouldn't work for your exact reasoning - game times would vary too greatly. I believe 7 was chosen as the target point number just to prevent the game from ending too quickly on back to back threes (to require 3 possessions, though 2 is technically still possible with a 3-and-1).