Making basketball better
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:48 pmOK, I'm not talking about SMU basketball, specifically -- I'm talking about the game itself. I think the NCAAs were good in the latter rounds (Final Four), but overall, I agree with those who have posted here about how the quality of the game has decreased as more and more kids go pro early (or instead of college altogether). And as much as I like watching the Mavs (and the Suns) play, the NBA overall has been garbage since Magic and Bird retired.
It's very simple: players are bigger and faster than in years past. Deep insight, I realize, but it's true. In the league's glory years, players' roles were more clearly defined by size. Whereas now you have 7-footers drilling 3s (Dirk Nowitzki) and running like guards (Kevin Garnett) -- back in the day, 7-footers were unathletic sticks like Caldwell Jones who could rebound (and actually did), block a couple of shots and score on short turnaround jumpers. Had Caldwell Jones or Bill Laimbeer cranked up a 3, they would have been benched. Likewise, point guards back then were short guys (a lot under 6 feet) who sipped around the court, shot occasionally, but basically were there to get the ball to others. Even little shooters like Tiny Archibald or (later) Mike Adams were rarities. Now you have track stars well over 6 feet who have the ability to run the point (for this argument, leave LeBron James out of the discussion .... that dude's just not normal) -- the big guards aren't always running the point, but you have folks like Marquis Daniels, Tracy McGrady, etc., out there who have skills a guy with their height never would have even practiced 20 years ago.
The problem with this evolution of talent by guys of the "wrong" size is that every 6'7" teenager who can dunk thinks he's a lottery pick, or at least goes to college for a year and then heads for the big bucks. Therefore, the talent level in college is down. The physical ability is at an all-time high, but the fundamentals and knowledge of the game is not what it once was. Subsequently, fewer and fewer guys enter the league knowing what they're doing. They can jump out of the building, so their dunks land them a shoe contract. Or they stand around and jack up 3s (which is why Richard Hamilton and Tim Duncan seem to be the only guys out there capable of hitting a 12-foot bank shot), eschewing accuracy for eventual point totals.
So here's the solution: change the playing arena.
1. At the college level, move the rim up to 11 feet, or maybe even 12 (probably 11). How many guys will think they're going to be the next slam-dunk champion, and therefore Gatorade posterboy, if they suddenly have to get another foot (or more) off the ground? Sure, the Kevin Garnetts and LeBrons and Kobes (or, on the college level, the Justin Ishams, Derrick Robertses, Eiron Harrises, Bamba Falls -- I think) still will be able to dunk, but the guys who can't do anything but dunk aren't as likely to stay employed, eventually getting replaced by guys who know how to pass and shoot and defend. Also, the shooters will be less likely to jump early, because chances are they'll struggle early in college as they adjust to the new height.
2. Move the 3-point line back from 19 feet, 9 inches in college to at least 21 feet -- maybe 22. In the NBA, where the line is 23 feet, 6 inches (I think) away to maybe 25 feet away. Too many guys are coming out of high school looking like stretched-out defensive ends, and the current lengths on the shot just aren't a challenge, at least from a strength standpoint. If these guys have any aim, the shot can be made. MAKE THE 3-POINT SHOT WORTH SOMETHING. You'll always have guys with ridiculous range -- the Reggie Millers, the Ray Allens -- and that's fine. But when you have average shooters jerking up 10 3s a game because it's not much harder than a layup, that's a problem. The 3 was not added to the game to have teams shooting more than 50 percent of their shots from behind the arc. Very few teams pound the ball inside any more. Did anyone see the Chicago-Washington game last night? There was no reason to have anyone over 6'8" on the floor -- the big guys on both teams were terrible. Entertaining game, I guess, but crappy basketball. The athletes are so big and so fast that they force each other into a halfcourt game WAY too often. Which leads us to solution #3:
3. Make the floor itself bigger. Back in the '80s, the Lakers were Showtime because they were faster than everyone, both in terms of raw speed and of course with their passing and teamwork. Doesn't work any more, because EVERYONE is tall and strong and fast, so they lock each other down too easily. Going to a bigger court -- 20 feet longer, 10 feet wider (or so) will separate the truly special/athletic teams and players (LeBron, Kevin Garrett, etc.) from the wannabes who might have been extraordinary 25 years ago but today are "just another guy." Teams like the Sacramento Kings of a few years ago, or today's Mavs or Suns, would thrive. Teams wouldn't look for big thick players with zero athletic ability (hello, Tractor Traylor) .... unless they could learn some actual skills.
From SMU's standpoint, Eric Castro still would have a role. Let's face it, he's not going to make anyone forget Justin Isham when it comes to athleticism and leaping ability. He'd never dunk again (I'm not sure he can dunk now), but that's OK. He's a guy who understands the game. He finds makes the timely bounce pass to the backdoor cutter (for which there would be a great deal more room as offenses -- and therefore defenses -- spread out more. He could still hit his jump shots, and he still could shed would-be defenders with his array of low-post moves.
Basically, the idea would be to (A) discourage guys from skipping college or leaving early, and (B) subsequently reward both athletic guys and smart players, and make the game more entertaining at both the college and professional levels.
Thoughts?
It's very simple: players are bigger and faster than in years past. Deep insight, I realize, but it's true. In the league's glory years, players' roles were more clearly defined by size. Whereas now you have 7-footers drilling 3s (Dirk Nowitzki) and running like guards (Kevin Garnett) -- back in the day, 7-footers were unathletic sticks like Caldwell Jones who could rebound (and actually did), block a couple of shots and score on short turnaround jumpers. Had Caldwell Jones or Bill Laimbeer cranked up a 3, they would have been benched. Likewise, point guards back then were short guys (a lot under 6 feet) who sipped around the court, shot occasionally, but basically were there to get the ball to others. Even little shooters like Tiny Archibald or (later) Mike Adams were rarities. Now you have track stars well over 6 feet who have the ability to run the point (for this argument, leave LeBron James out of the discussion .... that dude's just not normal) -- the big guards aren't always running the point, but you have folks like Marquis Daniels, Tracy McGrady, etc., out there who have skills a guy with their height never would have even practiced 20 years ago.
The problem with this evolution of talent by guys of the "wrong" size is that every 6'7" teenager who can dunk thinks he's a lottery pick, or at least goes to college for a year and then heads for the big bucks. Therefore, the talent level in college is down. The physical ability is at an all-time high, but the fundamentals and knowledge of the game is not what it once was. Subsequently, fewer and fewer guys enter the league knowing what they're doing. They can jump out of the building, so their dunks land them a shoe contract. Or they stand around and jack up 3s (which is why Richard Hamilton and Tim Duncan seem to be the only guys out there capable of hitting a 12-foot bank shot), eschewing accuracy for eventual point totals.
So here's the solution: change the playing arena.
1. At the college level, move the rim up to 11 feet, or maybe even 12 (probably 11). How many guys will think they're going to be the next slam-dunk champion, and therefore Gatorade posterboy, if they suddenly have to get another foot (or more) off the ground? Sure, the Kevin Garnetts and LeBrons and Kobes (or, on the college level, the Justin Ishams, Derrick Robertses, Eiron Harrises, Bamba Falls -- I think) still will be able to dunk, but the guys who can't do anything but dunk aren't as likely to stay employed, eventually getting replaced by guys who know how to pass and shoot and defend. Also, the shooters will be less likely to jump early, because chances are they'll struggle early in college as they adjust to the new height.
2. Move the 3-point line back from 19 feet, 9 inches in college to at least 21 feet -- maybe 22. In the NBA, where the line is 23 feet, 6 inches (I think) away to maybe 25 feet away. Too many guys are coming out of high school looking like stretched-out defensive ends, and the current lengths on the shot just aren't a challenge, at least from a strength standpoint. If these guys have any aim, the shot can be made. MAKE THE 3-POINT SHOT WORTH SOMETHING. You'll always have guys with ridiculous range -- the Reggie Millers, the Ray Allens -- and that's fine. But when you have average shooters jerking up 10 3s a game because it's not much harder than a layup, that's a problem. The 3 was not added to the game to have teams shooting more than 50 percent of their shots from behind the arc. Very few teams pound the ball inside any more. Did anyone see the Chicago-Washington game last night? There was no reason to have anyone over 6'8" on the floor -- the big guys on both teams were terrible. Entertaining game, I guess, but crappy basketball. The athletes are so big and so fast that they force each other into a halfcourt game WAY too often. Which leads us to solution #3:
3. Make the floor itself bigger. Back in the '80s, the Lakers were Showtime because they were faster than everyone, both in terms of raw speed and of course with their passing and teamwork. Doesn't work any more, because EVERYONE is tall and strong and fast, so they lock each other down too easily. Going to a bigger court -- 20 feet longer, 10 feet wider (or so) will separate the truly special/athletic teams and players (LeBron, Kevin Garrett, etc.) from the wannabes who might have been extraordinary 25 years ago but today are "just another guy." Teams like the Sacramento Kings of a few years ago, or today's Mavs or Suns, would thrive. Teams wouldn't look for big thick players with zero athletic ability (hello, Tractor Traylor) .... unless they could learn some actual skills.
From SMU's standpoint, Eric Castro still would have a role. Let's face it, he's not going to make anyone forget Justin Isham when it comes to athleticism and leaping ability. He'd never dunk again (I'm not sure he can dunk now), but that's OK. He's a guy who understands the game. He finds makes the timely bounce pass to the backdoor cutter (for which there would be a great deal more room as offenses -- and therefore defenses -- spread out more. He could still hit his jump shots, and he still could shed would-be defenders with his array of low-post moves.
Basically, the idea would be to (A) discourage guys from skipping college or leaving early, and (B) subsequently reward both athletic guys and smart players, and make the game more entertaining at both the college and professional levels.
Thoughts?