quote:
If I'm a coach who is up 2 with a minute left, and my guy who is an 85% free throw shooter gets fouled, there's a damn good chance I have him shoot those and try to stretch to a two possession lead, than risk having to inbound the ball with that slim a lead (remember, if team that's down doesn't foul, and I don't convert, they now have the ball down two...so coaches would not foul on purpose in this situation).

No shite, especially since players have made about 69% of their free throws for the past 50 years. The 16% difference between the decades-long mean and your hypothetical is, I'd say, pretty significant.

So let's replay your scenario with a 69% ft shooter. Every coach on earth in-bounds it here.

It just isn't a good idea. I know it sounds good, but it's really, really terrible.

quote:

Also, as to your point about "a lot of goons on the bench with zero fouls", that also doesn't make sense...a foul resets the shot clock, so if your strategy is just "foul relentlessly with my bench guys", you will either have all your bench guys foul out without ever gaining possession, or those guys will get torched by the opposition before they can foul

I have a better chance of winning by playing the style that will foul all my players out than by playing the "orthodox" style in this case. My point makes complete sense.

quote:

You have yet to post one thought in this thread where I go "that's actually a good point."

Then do more thinking. The idea presented in the op is one I respect because of its initial line of thinking, but the proposed rule is so much worse than what we have now that we currently have a situation where no governing body has ever considered it.