Comments on: Discover Your Inner Economist

By: Max

Max — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:25:08 +0000

Very simple. Just call the rules in the book. Believe it or not, superstars occasionally commit fouls.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:47:15 +0000

ADD a 4-point play from anywhere past the half-court line. This would stretch out both the defense and offense, especially at critical times during the last minutes of the game. Actually, one might only implement a 4-point play in the final 2 minutes of each half (2nd quarter, 4th quarter).

By: Hobbes

Hobbes — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:19:26 +0000

Most of the changes suggested are fairly minor, merely refinements of what we already have.

How about changing the game entirely?
Four teams; a square court; goals on each side; 2 balls; 3 points for a goal, 2 for a goal at the side (relative to your goal), minus one or two points for another team scoring at your end; all teams required to have at least 2 players out of the five on court be female.

By: Brent

Brent — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:06:03 +0000

I’ve always thought widening the court would do wonders for the NBA game. It would be relatively easy to do as most NBA arenas can also double as Hockey arenas — which has a significantly wider playing surface. Widening the court would indeed spread out the players and pick and roll scenerios could take place from the wings and not just from the top of the key.

This would be similar to the same reason Olympic and International Hockey is a faster paced game and less physical than the NHL version…which is played on a smaller surface.

By: Kid Capri

Kid Capri — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:11:06 +0000

Lose the three pointer! It will result in more fastbreaks, more emphasis on the post game, and more creative passing. You want the game the way itused to be, then create the same environment.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:08:52 +0000

I meant 12 ft or about 4 m, sorry about that.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:59:12 +0000

Raise the hoop to 12 feet (or 2 meters). The game was invented to give adolescent boys something to do in the winter, and the intent was not for 10 giant men to monotonously volley back and forth stuffing the ball in the hoop. A higher hoop means no dunking, points have more value, takes more muscular effort to shoot (players would have to pick their shots carefully). A 12-ft/2-m hoop would bring back strategy and teamwork that Naismith had in mind.
The creation of the 3-point shot was an open admission by the NBA that it had become boring.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:38:35 +0000

As someone who regularly plays pick-up basketball I can say that there is nothing I loathe more than a 4-on-4 game. Too many people for half court and too few for full. Full court always degenerates in to a game of meaningless fast breaks.

By: yougman

yougman — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:07 +0000

As a basketball outsider I’d say there is too much scoring in B-ball!

Rules against charging and travel aren’t enforced. If they were scoring might decline but there would be more perimeter jump shots which are only really attractive to the purists.

By: Neema

Neema — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:39:58 +0000

Do any of you actually watch the NBA? Have you played 4-on-4 basketball? That game is nothing like basketball as we know it. Dominant post players would benefit hugely from fewer double teams (Tim Duncan would average 40 and 18) and some teams would be like Phoenix on meth, three guards and a post player running, running, running. Very different.

Oh, and as for banning the dunk, the folks who have advocated that over the years tended to have some ulterior motives (e.g. Rupp).

As for some suggestions, I do think expanding the court by just a few feet would be possible, which would allow the three point line to be at its full radius in the corners and open up the game a little.

Another change, similar to soccer, would be to call an obvious flop as a technical foul. That should limit the game of a certain floppy-haired Cavalier…