MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889622353 · doi:10.25777/sq51-z361

Proposed Rule Changes in College Basketball

2025· article· en· W6889622353 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballOvertimeShot (pellet)PopulationTest (biology)Head (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to survey the opinions of head basketball coaches of colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada relative to proposed rule changes in college basketball. Methodology involved construction of a ten item questionnaire dealing with proposed rule changes; a five item Liekert Scale was utilized for measure­ment of responses. The college classifications included divisions I, II, and III of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and the Canadian College Athletic Association. The total population of college head coaches surveyed was 1,222; there were 842 returns. The overall response was 69 percent. Frequency distributions and histograms were developed for each of the ten proposed rule changes. The coaches responding seemed to feel that none of the following proposed rule changes were needed: l) extension of the free throw lane from 12 feet to 14 feet, 2) use of three officials, 3) utilization of a thirty second shot clock, 4) use of a thirty second shot clock up until the last five minutes of the second half and up until the last two minutes of any overtime period, 5) elimination of all one and one bonus situations with two shots awarded after the tenth team foul in each half, 6) no automatic disqualifications after five fouls, 7) awarding of three foul shots to make two if fouled in the act of shooting, 8) extension of the personal foul limit from five to six, 9) elimination of the center jump and all other jumps with teams gaining alternate possession, 10) disallowing offensive tip in baskets. Crosstabulation analyses were compiled to determine if a statistically significant relationship existed between college classification and expressed opinions of head coaches. All contingency coefficients among classifications of colleges surveyed proved to be no greater than r = .39, which indicated little shared variance. This research seemed to indicate, based on the questionnaire developed for the study, that the majority of coaches were not in favor of the proposed rule changes in college basketball. Also, the classification or status of the colleges had little impact on the opinions or responses of the coaches. Ultimately, as supported by the analysis of the data from the questions asked, the coaches seemed to like the collegiate game of basketball the way it is presently played. However, a variety of free responses revealed that coaches favor some rule changes. These changes may come about following more input, open discussion and game-like experimentation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University)Same topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207