Summer Quandaries 10: Long Overdue Court Change(s)

http://celticsgreen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sq10-long-overdue-court-changes.html




SQ10 Long Overdue Court Change(s)


By Lee Lauderdale








For some years I have posited that the dimensions of the basketball court have failed to keep up with the increasing size, speed, and agility of NBA players. It is always difficult to suggest viable transition ages for stepped increases(most would agree that things like a 12 foot goal is unreasonable for 6-year-old's) since something like shooting is such a muscle-memory type thing. Still, it seems to me that it is past time for some changes to the NBA court.

While I was still playing gym-rat ball I selfishly preferred that the 10 foot goal height remain the same. Now that I've outlived my body's capability to play the sport, I am free to suggest that an 11 or 12 foot goal makes more sense for players that can nearly reach the rim just standing with arms outstretched. Unfortunately there is almost no support for such an increase in height. Part probably has to do with the absurd popularity of ESPN highlights which disproportionately favor dunks. There is a far more convincing argument about shooting form being established early, and the difficulty of changing after childhood habits are ingrained. It is done for 6 and 7 year old's who generally start on an 8' goal and a basketball significantly smaller than regulation, but by the age of 8 the adult standards are in place and I suspect that there would be few who would welcome adjusting to another change say in middle school or high school. Guess we'll just have to let that one slide even though many life-long bad habits are developed by shooting a too-heavy ball at a too-high goal, from too far away.

There is a whole set of issues involving the 3-pt line and the short corners. As a certified old fart and traditionalist, I have come to a grudging acceptance of the positive effects of the 3 vs. 2 point ranges. It is almost impossible to argue against the fact that one effect has been to open the floor up in a game that had threatened to become a sumo contest in the paint. However it eludes me why the shorter corner shot is worth equal value even though it is the same difficulty as a not-all-that-long 2-pointer. If it were the same distance as the rest of the arc, then half the players would have to shoot it with their feet parallel to the sidelines since squaring up would put them either standing on the 3-point line or on the sideline (and hence out of bounds). As it is, there are several silly turnovers each game as players try to fit into the too-small space that qualifies the corner as a shot worth 3 points. For some years I suggested that the court be widened by two feet, allowing another foot of space on each side. This year I would like to see the court broadened enough (maybe 4 or 5 feet) to both make the 3-pt arc continue all the way to the corner (rather than be chopped off to a straight line near the 45 degree angles coming out from the basket) and to provide shooters an additional foot of space to position themselves.

Another issue is the shape of the free throw box. I always thought the trapezoidal shape of the international court made a lot of sense. Sadly, the American sport is the tail that wags the dog and rather than adopt the more reasonable trapezoid, the international ball adopted the American shape with its smaller dimensions creating congestion. Strangely, the NBA recognized the crowding but its “solution” was to limit the rebounders to 3; insanity I say.

Now I will admit that by widening the court, Jack and Snop Dog will be pushed back so far they will have to resort to binoculars for their court-side seats. And the arena will likely lose a few dozen seats for which they have charged exorbitant prices so patrons can get drops of sweat delivered in large doses. Still the owners are considering taking a hit in order to push back the photographers on the end lines. Apparently the money guys have been informed by the bean counters that losing a player to whom they are paying millions so television will pay them billions is a bad deal. It is truly amazing what passes for logic in these big-money circles.

I'd like to throw in a few more ideas like lengthening the court (which these modern athletes cover in about 8 strides) but Sully gets winded just making it from foul line to foul line as it is. Still it would encourage the speed game and make the 24-second clock and the 8-second violation a little more effective. Also it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more space behind the goal so side to side movement might be encouraged.

Another change I would like to see, although not in the size of the court, is to eliminate back-to-back-to-back games and four in five nights. We are already seeing more and more over-use injuries and anyone who has played will recognize the danger of injury when playing tired. These are great athletes but there is no reason to make them battle uphill.

Only 56 more days until camp.



bob
MY NOTE:  There is a famous story about how the then-young David Stern asked Red Auerbach whether he thought it was a good idea to raise the height of the basket, to make it harder.  Red said to him "listen dummy (there's another story behind that "nickname"), if you raise the basket, who are you making it harder on?  The big guys or the little guys?", and that shut Stern up.  In fact, it seems Stern never really revealed his full-blown assholiness until after Red was gone.  Now, however, EVERYBODY is taller and more athletic.  Is it time?  If there's one way to put an end to the endless "who is the greatest of all time" questions would be to change the game so fundamentally that comparisons can't be made.

Adam Silver is trying to eliminate the 4-games-in-5 nights and back-to-back-to-back games this season.  I read recently they are mostly gone.

These are all good, debatable questions.



.

For all the reasons Lee mentioned, I do not think that the basket needs to be higher, but for all of the reasons he mentioned the court size does need to be adjusted. Moving the basket to a higher level would be like moving the pitching rubber back 10 feet-just too much change for the sake of change.

If it is only going to cost a few dollars for a couple of front row seats the NBA game will be better with a longer and wider court as the athletes move so much faster. Two rows of seats on each side of the court will allow the court to be about 10 feet wider and three rows on each end would make it about 15 feet longer. Making both dimensions wider and longer would allow the lane to be bigger as well. The game would be much easier to watch both in person and on TV.

Colleges will quickly follow along if the NBA makes such a move and then high schools will also consider such a move.
And, such a move will not be bad for either of these groups either. Our parks and rec outdoor courts are bigger than regulation and the game is better for high school age kids who are not even top level talented.

no need for back to backs anymore (was there eveer really?).

rim hight- leave it be

court size- he makes some good points, but exatly HOW much wider would have to make it to have the 3 point shot consistant in depth?

I've always been interested in Red's claim that the big guys would still have the advantage since they'd still be closer to the rim than their smaller counterparts. Although I agree in principle, I can't help but think about all the big guys who are rotten free throw shooters. The main reason is that big guys, in particular, seem to have a tendency to shoot without much arc or soft touch. Raising the rim might have some of those big guys trying to shoot freebies up through the rim instead of down through the rim.

I think the entire three point arc should be moved out to 40 feet from the basket so teams will REALLY spread the floor.

Sam