Frans 2 foul rule

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
9,879
9,210
113
Here are the number of times we've had players get 4 fouls or fouled out this year. I can understand the centers having to sit with 2 in the first half but....For comparison Gabe Kalscheur had 9 games with 4 fouls and fouled out 6 times. Brockington had 3 games with 4 fouls and 1 with 5. Hunter had 6 games with 4 fouls.

Player 4 fouls Fouled out

JBo 0 0

JoeT 0 0

Cmac 0 1

Pmac 0 1 24 season fouls 5 in one game

Tony P 0 1

Ahron U 3 0

Ke Murray 3 0

Filip R 6 1

Kr Murray 6 2
 

MWardT

HR All-American
Jul 29, 2005
4,457
4,065
113
Lots of teams playing guys with two fouls in the tournament. Hunter playing in the first half of this ISU game with two fouls.
 

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
9,879
9,210
113
More than anything I’m shocked by thae lack of fouls we have. This isn’t 1960. You have to be aggressive. Being passive doesn’t work when it matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goodbyebobby

mthawkeyes

HR Heisman
Mar 22, 2007
6,857
11,395
113
Fourmile Creek
I think that the two foul rule is just as stupid as not using a timeout to try to break an opponent's run so that you can still have timeouts remaining at the end of the game. If you let the game get out of control, then it won't matter if you have timeouts remaining at the end of a game with a 4 or 5 possession deficit. It's the same for sitting a player with two fouls in the first half. It may make sense to reduce their minutes (allowing them to be fresher to play extra minutes in the second half) and sub them out situationally, especially on defense, in the last couple of minutes of the first half. It doesn't make sense to potentially allow your opponent to build a first half lead while one of your best players sits. If they eventually foul out, they foul out. It doesn't much matter if they do so by playing 10 minutes in the first half and 10 minutes in the second, or 15 minutes in the first and 5 in the second. But if they don't pick up more fouls, they may have ended up playing 15 minutes in both halves. Voluntarily reducing a key player's minutes is counter-productive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chicagoherky71

perryhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Apr 3, 2008
10,415
12,125
113
Perry, Iowa
It seemed to help Keegan in particular as he fought foul trouble earlier in the year but learned as the year went along.
 

HawkRose

HR All-State
Sep 26, 2017
624
1,254
93
Fran's hard rules are some of the biggest knocks against him. He is extremely slow to ease them:

He actually did call a timeout or two to stop a run this year but watching the tournament he doesn't do it far enough. Coaches are pretty quick to whistle one up after a 4-6 pt run.

2 foul rule is just incompetent, I can't be convinced otherwise

Fouling when up 3 under 10 seconds, we continue to not do this and get burned (PSU)

End of half/game plays. We use to not even call timeout, so we have at least improved. Now we call timeout and run a horrible set followed by a Jbo heave. Baby steps I guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chewback

hooper56

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
29,753
11,580
113
You can leave a player in with 2 fouls but they will likely play more tentative. Better to put in a sub who can remain aggressive, in my opinion. Since Fran wins a lot more than he loses I think it is a good rule.
 

HawkRose

HR All-State
Sep 26, 2017
624
1,254
93
You can leave a player in with 2 fouls but they will likely play more tentative. Better to put in a sub who can remain aggressive, in my opinion. Since Fran wins a lot more than he loses I think it is a good rule.
It can't be a hard rule though, i'm fine if you want to sit a player with 2 fouls most of the time in the 1st half. Garza at Indiana last year comes to mind, sitting him that long in the 1st half was ridiculous.
 

jonesy5960

HR All-American
Sep 6, 2012
4,041
6,974
113
You can leave a player in with 2 fouls but they will likely play more tentative. Better to put in a sub who can remain aggressive, in my opinion. Since Fran wins a lot more than he loses I think it is a good rule.
But using that same logic if you know you're going to get yanked for the half after a 2nd foul you're going to play just as tentative after the first foul are you not?
 
Sep 8, 2018
7,540
13,047
113
There are some very successful coaches with a similar strategy, and some not so successful. I haven’t seen analytics/research that shows the “optimal” strategy. I would guess that depends on roster makeup/depth etc
 

Chewback

HR Legend
Feb 14, 2002
21,728
4,602
113
It can't be a hard rule though, i'm fine if you want to sit a player with 2 fouls most of the time in the 1st half. Garza at Indiana last year comes to mind, sitting him that long in the 1st half was ridiculous.
Yep, Fran had a lot of faith in that Jbo heave. That trick never works. Almost never.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,517
14,998
113
You can leave a player in with 2 fouls but they will likely play more tentative. Better to put in a sub who can remain aggressive, in my opinion. Since Fran wins a lot more than he loses I think it is a good rule.

It can't be a hard rule though, i'm fine if you want to sit a player with 2 fouls most of the time in the 1st half. Garza at Indiana last year comes to mind, sitting him that long in the 1st half was ridiculous.

I don’t mind it as a general rule, and most college coaches follow it far more than people here like to admit. Idk that it needs to be as firm as Fran treats it, but to me it depends on circumstances. If the team continues to lead, let the guy sit, it’s not worth the risk. If it’s a game where officials are calling it extremely tight and a third foul is more likely, again, unless the other team is pulling away, save the guy until later.

It’s more of a big deal to me if a guy gets two cheapies in the first four minutes and sits vs the deeper into a half you go.
 

mikesright

HR MVP
Jun 7, 2009
1,422
1,340
113
This is one of those things that Fran could get away with in the MAAC because he is really good at recruiting a bunch of decent depth players and he likes his offense to run the floor. When you’re playing at the highest level, it falls apart because you’re taking your best players off the floor.

Just another mid major coaching move that doesn’t work.
 
Sep 8, 2018
7,540
13,047
113
This is one of those things that Fran could get away with in the MAAC because he is really good at recruiting a bunch of decent depth players and he likes his offense to run the floor. When you’re playing at the highest level, it falls apart because you’re taking your best players off the floor.

Just another mid major coaching move that doesn’t work.
Why does it work for other B1G coaches(past and present)
 

Bulldogs1974

HR Heisman
Oct 16, 2012
9,879
9,210
113
You can leave a player in with 2 fouls but they will likely play more tentative. Better to put in a sub who can remain aggressive, in my opinion. Since Fran wins a lot more than he loses I think it is a good rule.
Lol.
like someone said. You get tentative with one with that thinking. Look at those foul totals. We are never aggressive. Why would you worry about two if we rarely have anyone foul out let alone get 4.
 
Sep 8, 2018
7,540
13,047
113
Someone had better tell Izzo and Belein that their 2 foul rule sucks….Oh and I saw someone wanted Chris Jans for a coach. Better scratch that idea too since he’s a dummy 2 foul rule guy as well.

Like I said earlier, I’ve seen mixed results. Unless someone can provide some research one way or the other that proves something definitive, I’ll continue to think that there’s a negligible difference between what Fran and others do vs those with a looser strategy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher

JMSBFD

HR All-State
Nov 27, 2021
693
598
93
I think that the two foul rule is just as stupid as not using a timeout to try to break an opponent's run so that you can still have timeouts remaining at the end of the game. If you let the game get out of control, then it won't matter if you have timeouts remaining at the end of a game with a 4 or 5 possession deficit. It's the same for sitting a player with two fouls in the first half. It may make sense to reduce their minutes (allowing them to be fresher to play extra minutes in the second half) and sub them out situationally, especially on defense, in the last couple of minutes of the first half. It doesn't make sense to potentially allow your opponent to build a first half lead while one of your best players sits. If they eventually foul out, they foul out. It doesn't much matter if they do so by playing 10 minutes in the first half and 10 minutes in the second, or 15 minutes in the first and 5 in the second. But if they don't pick up more fouls, they may have ended up playing 15 minutes in both halves. Voluntarily reducing a key player's minutes is counter-productive.
In sum...Fran is dumb
 

HawkRugged17

HR Legend
Aug 11, 2015
23,764
28,552
113
Charlie Moore with 2 fouls in the first half for Miami. They are maintaining their lead over Kansas (lead by 4 with one minute left), so he sat.