LBlack14 I hear what you are saying, but the they already changed the game in many fundamental ways, some of which, in my mind, changed it more than the Elam ending would. For example, the shot clock (which they keep changing, by the way), the three-point shot (completely changed the game; changed it a lot more than the Elam ending would, in my opinion), alternate possession for held balls, not shooting free throws on fouls until the 7th team foul, the restricted arc for charge/block calls, 'Euro-stepping,' and the list goes on.
Basketball today still resembles what it was when I was a kid, but not much. So they have clearly shown that they are not opposed to wholesale, large changes that alter the game in fundamental ways. The main remaining problem with basketball is the incessant fouling to 'extend the game.' A few nights ago I watched a college game in which the last 2 minutes and 30 seconds of playing time took LONGER THAN HALF AN HOUR to finish. It was completely unwatchable. It is ruining the game. Not to mention all the ref replay reviews to see whose hand touched the ball last, and putting one second back on the clock after review, and on and on. The Elam ending spares all that. I knlw it sounds radical, but the again, it is nowhere near as radical as changes that have already been made.