new arts.

— Okay, we’ve got our new sports shape, rhythm and map above, now let’s talk a little about the how the sports are played. I’ve got ideas to freshen up the four sports that I’m most familiar with: soccer, basketball, football and baseball. In each section below, I’ll lay out the ideas, some of which are more abstract and others that are more concrete.

SOCCER

Go for the win.

The first argument from any meathead against soccer is that it’s boring, in that there can be a tie. First, I love a soccer game - the tactics and the effort and the moments - even if it does end in a 0-0 or 1-1 tie. However, I sympathize with the meathead in some respect and I do believe that the draw, even if just subconsciously, takes a little off the top of the game’s competitiveness. It’s as simple as this: if you know you can only win or lose you’re going to try harder to win.

A counter to that is, over the course of a long season, the draw (which is 1 point) adds some variety to outcomes and to game plans. It offers some additional hope, outside of just the three-point victory. That’s all true, however, in a promotion-relegation system, which most soccer leagues are, that “variety of game plans” usually just means focusing all your efforts on defending and praying for one or two scoring opportunities, and ultimately, playing for a tie, rather than a win.

If we remove the concept of a draw, perhaps more teams will play like their life depends on it. Those at the bottom will do so to avoid relegation and those at the top will to keep pace for the title or tournament spots. — And don’t get me wrong, teams with less talent will still “park the bus” (a term for total focus on defending during a game) against teams with more talent - it’s still an effective strategy. But, with no ability to tie, instead of just hoping for a scoring opportunity, the lesser team will have to create an opportunity.

Ideas for extra time

If someone has to win, then we also have to address extra time. Personally, I’m against penalty kicks. The idea of all that effort and strategy coming down to what is mostly randomness, kills me. I like the “golden goal” method in college soccer - first team to score in extra time wins. It really puts you on edge. Furthermore, if the concept of penalty kicks is taken out of the equation, teams would really go for that “golden goal,” instead of seemingly going through the motions while awaiting penalty kicks, which often feels like the case in the current, extra time format in tournaments.

To keep legs fresh, a team should be able to use all their substitutes in extra time. I’d still rather see a game-winning goal by the 20th man or woman and the whole “B” team, than a game won on penalty kicks by the main starters. … Finally, I understand a game can’t go on forever; you can’t run players into the ground, so I’d say after two, 30 minute extra times (60 minutes total), you probably do need to go to penalties. And in that case, go best of 11 (the full team) and not just best of 5 — take out some of the randomness.

Stop the clock.

Stoppage time is like running a marathon, seeing that finish-line tape, approaching it, and then it moves back, and then it moves back again, and then maybe it will again - you don’t really know, and when you finally cross it, eh, the climax is a little diluted. You wanna see that finish line tape the first and only time, then bam, go through it. So, in soccer, stop the clock. The pro leagues should, again, adopt the college rule of stopping the clock during injuries or major reviews and then re-starting it after. That way, when the game clock says two minutes left, the players and the spectators know there really are only two minutes left and we can embrace that urgency together.

p.s. This could also help with the bullshit “injuries” during a game. No more players laying on the ground, pretending to have a broken leg to waste time. Here, if you don’t get up within a few seconds, the clock stops for injury, then resumes.

BASKETBALL

Cut the free throw.

Free-throws ain’t it. Oh, my God, every 5 minutes I gotta watch these people stand around at the line and - in one of the world’s greatest psychological mysteries - watch them dap up, every time, after every attempt, whether it’s a make or miss. Let’s cut it.

So, what do we do for fouls then? I’ve got one easy idea and one that’s more complex. The easy idea is, if a player is fouled in the shooting motion, just give the team the points. Let’s skip the free-throw song and dance, give the points, and get on with it. I know the counter is that free-throws aren’t automatic, but, I believe we can still have a fair outcome to the game without them. For non-shooting fouls, for example, when a team is “in the bonus,” you could just give one point. In fact, it could be strategy late in games. A team in the bonus could foul, knowing they’ll give up a point, but also get the ball back (though the amount of times you can do this would need to be limited).

Here’s the more complex - but also more interesting - idea. What if NBA players were allowed to foul on shots, but, they’re only given three fouls per game (right now, they have six). So, I’m saying, a player drives for a layup and the defender is allowed to lean into him or touch his arm and try to prevent that shot from going in, but the trade off is that now that defender only has two fouls left for the game. Now, if it’s something really egregious, like totally wrapping your arms around a player, the referee should just give the points or penalize that in some way. But, if we can find the balance, it could be interesting in that a player has a right to get a little more physical in a game, but also, they’d have to be much smarter and selective in that physicality.

Let’s play it out: We’re in the last minute of a game. Player A’s team is down two points. Player A is bringing the ball up the court. Every player on the defending team has two fouls and so one to give. Player A knows this. Player A drives to the basket and Player B, his defender, follows him. Player B knows he has one foul left, and so, he is allowed to lean into Player A, or deflect his elbow or shooting arm. However, if Player B does this, he’s fouled out and can’t play for over time if it gets there. For Player A, he knows that a foul on his attempt will be allowed, so he must plan the move and shot accordingly. What happens? Player A goes in ready for the foul and Player B indeed fouls him. But, Player A adjusts his strength and movement accordingly and makes a tough shot. Player B still fouls out for his foul attempt. Player A is praised for scoring in a “known-foul” situation.

Shit, there’s a lot to smooth out there. First and foremost being what is an “allowable” foul versus an egregious one. Also, in the scenario above, what if Player A also had two fouls and so one to give and what if, in his game-tying shot, he shouldered (an allowable foul) Player B. Perhaps the made basket counts (since they both fouled) but now both players are fouled out. — In then end, I just like the idea of bringing both a little more muscle and intelligence to the game with allowed and fewer fouls. And most of all, I just want to eliminate stopping the flow every 5 minutes for free-throws.

Cap the three.

This is me on notice. I see these three-point attempts going up every year and I’m wondering, if at some point, we need a little regulation. We don’t want one thing to monopolize everything else, and then one day you look up and the middle class— I mean middle game is gone. The rise of teams/players wanting more threes means fewer drives, pull-ups, floaters and hook shots (which are actually already extinct). All of those moves are, in my opinion, more artful than the three. I mean, damn, anybody can just run up the court, side-step and jack up a three. There’s not as much skill or strategy in that shot. — I still want to see a three-pointer, but I don’t want to see teams trotting up and down the floor, trading jacked up shots from long range for two hours.

So, how about a cap on threes? Meaning - straight up - a team or a player only gets a certain amount of attempts per game. Otherwise, you’ve got to work on your drives, your mid-range, your finishing. The cap can be reasonable. How about 25 or 30 attempts? Right now, it’s almost 40 (37.6); hell, in the late 90s it was under 15. So, let’s meet somewhere in the middle, where we embrace it, but don’t let it get too carried away.

— Other options could be that a player only gets a certain amount of made threes per game and then they must use other tools. However, this doesn’t do as much to mitigate too many attempts. … Another idea I like is making the three even more scarce, but upping its value to four points. So, a few times per game, teams have this option to more greatly make up or create distance, but they have to be more strategic about it.

FOOTBALL

Drop the kicking.

No disrespect to kickers and punters, but when they come on I feel like, for a moment, I’m transporting into a completely different sport. Amongst the passes and the hand-offs and the pushing and tackling … a kick? There’s nothing in sport I dislike more than seeing the battle that is a football game end on a game-winning field goal. All that effort from 22+ offensive and defensive players comes down to this guy’s kick? Drop it. A field goal is like, if there was a tie game in baseball, and they said, okay, you only have to get to second base, instead of home plate, to win.

In football, I want you to have to score a touchdown, or get nothing at all. This could elevate the urgency for the players, spice up the play-calling and leave the outcome of a game up to true, football plays. … And, if you want to add some variety in how a team gets points, then make a sack or an interception worth a point or two - those are football plays. Let’s say a team is driving down the field for a six point touchdown, but along the way they gave up two sacks, and so, two points to the other team. Or, someone gets an interception and their team gets a point and the ball. Maybe they don’t score after that interception, but they were still rewarded in some way for that football play. Finally, and obviously, if a team does score a touchdown, extra point field goals are no more.

ON PUNTING — I’m a little more sympathetic to punting. I get the field position element, and every now and then you get a little magic on a return. But, I like the option of eliminating it a little more, meaning a team has to go for it on fourth downs. So, let’s say it’s 3rd and 8 and a team is on their own 25 yard line. The 3rd down play is an incomplete pass. Well, you better cook up something good for 4th down, because in this scenario, there is no punting and if you don’t make it, the other team gets great field position. — Anything that puts a team more on the ropes is better for the sport and the spectator.

Evaluate the quarterback.

This one is my most abstract and also disruptive. … Man, the quarterback has a really outsized role in the sport. It is by far the most important position in team sports, and so, it really sucks that when a quarterback goes down all the other players on the team can be just sort of screwed. Sure, in basketball or soccer, if a key player goes down, it hurts. But, there’s more possibility that the group as a whole can adjust and somewhat make up for it, and that they can still play in their desired style. If you don’t have a sufficient backup quarterback, though, things really change for the team and there’s not as much the wide receiver or the tight end or even the superstar linebacker can do because the quarterback controls so much.

I don’t know the answer here, just that it’s worth considering. Maybe it’s a world where there’s more formats in an offense, like more direct snaps to running backs or direct tosses to receivers, and just more fluidity, so that one person doesn’t dictate so much. There’s got to be an idea out there that doesn’t effect the game too much. … And some could counter that it’s cool that the quarterback is so important. It makes a great one that much more special of a player and fun to watch. Agreed. But, again, if that special player goes down, too often the fall off from starter to backup is such that - on the whole - it changes too much for too many, from players to staff.

BASEBALL

Start the timer.

First, shout out to baseball for installing one kind of timer: the pitch clock. It was needed and I’m happy they overcame the old “but it’s always been this way” and made a good change. Cheers to them. … But now, I’m back for more. It’s time to join the other major sports and institute a game clock. It could go like this:

Each baseball game has a 90-minute game clock that just straight up runs backwards from 90 minutes to 0. The clock stops for inning switches (which are also timed) and resumes once the field is re-set. Then, after the clock strikes zero, each team gets one more, un-timed at-bat. Or, if say the 90 minutes runs out during an inning, you finish up that inning, un-timed, then go into the final, un-timed inning.

For example, let’s say it’s the top of the sixth inning, there’s two outs and the 90 minute game clock runs out. You would then run the rest of the sixth inning, un-timed, and then, each team would get a final at-bat, if needed. The 90 minutes could go off in the fourth inning or the eighth; it doesn’t matter. You just play for 90 minutes, then in the end, you square everything up - as far as at-bats - to finish off the game. Ideally, this will add a little propulsion to the games and see them likely wrap up in 2.00 or 2.25 hours.

Limit the foul ball.

First, I do not believe a foul ball should count as a strike. Good hitting and pitching is hard, and the dance between a pitcher and a hitter is intricate. We shouldn’t have these two, cheapened strikes on the count of a foul ball (the first, two foul balls count as a strike but you cannot get a third and final strike on a foul ball). A strike should just be a strike. … However, I understand you gotta keep the game going and you can’t just have foul ball after foul ball with nothing happening. So, maybe their should be a limit to the number of foul balls allowed in an at-bat. I’m gonna start at five allowed per at-bat and if you hit five, the at-bat is over. It’s time to move on.

In fact, the average number of foul balls per game is about 55, which would be about 6 per inning total, across both teams, so 5 might even be too many chances. On the other hand, though, if an at-bat ends because of 5 foul balls, and not a pure strikeout or walk, it feels more unjust toward the hitter than the pitcher, no? Even if it would be a more rare occurrence. — Eh, I didn’t have my chest behind this one. The point is, as foul balls are trending upward in the sport, it’s time to consider how to manage them, however, randomly marking two of them as strikes is not the answer.