LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Throw enough **** and some of it will stick to the wall.
Should the NBA abolish the 3 point line?
- Thread starter Rubashov
- Start date
They are the only team taking that many and they are incredibly good at shooting them so it ruins the whole point of people disliking them because they are bad shots.
For the record, I don't think teams shooting too many 3's is really a problem. I think the main problem with the NBA is how it's covered and the incentive structures. "Championship or Bust" league is incredibly boring.
Also way too difficult to watch the games when you want to.
Also way too difficult to watch the games when you want to.
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
Let me ask you this:
Does anyone under 30 think the NBA is ruined because it's geared towards 3's and dunks now (due to analytics and because those are the things casual fans tend to like anyway)?
No?
Well, there's your answer. The NBA is sports entertainment and the only demography they really care about these days is young people.
Nobody's going to make any sweeping changes to the game because a bunch of 40 to 60 year olds are nostalgic about the game they watched when THEY were young.
Now, I understand the basic issue of esthetics very well. I too enjoy an NBA game with variety, scoring from all over the floor (as long as it's efficient), different roles for different players and body types. There was a time when the NBA game was more like that. But the thing is – once I remove the nostalgia tinted glasses and put emotion aside, I understand that as much as I liked it, that was an inferior, more inefficient brand of basketball. The game had not been "solved" yet. Now, due to analytics, the genie is out of the bottle, and trying to put it back would destroy the whole bottle.
As I joked above, there's still plenty of inefficient basketball to watch. Plenty of bad midrange jumpers, all 10 guys inside the arc at all times, non-shooting playmakers dribbling around, coaches screaming. The NCAA is still there.
Like it or not, the current form of NBA basketball is the most highly evolved version of the game the world has ever seen. The speed is out of this world, the team defenses suffocating, the level of athleticism insane.
We can always make small adjustments to the rules but that won't really change anything. The basic form of basketball with freethrows, 2 point field goals and 3pt shots has been solved and we can't do anything about it.
Try watching an old game from the era before the 3pt arc. Terrible. Nobody can seriously say that was a better brand of basketball overall. It was simply natural evolution when the arc was added to the game, and from that point on, there was a clear path towards analytics and "solving" the game. It simply had to happen.
Does anyone under 30 think the NBA is ruined because it's geared towards 3's and dunks now (due to analytics and because those are the things casual fans tend to like anyway)?
No?
Well, there's your answer. The NBA is sports entertainment and the only demography they really care about these days is young people.
Nobody's going to make any sweeping changes to the game because a bunch of 40 to 60 year olds are nostalgic about the game they watched when THEY were young.
Now, I understand the basic issue of esthetics very well. I too enjoy an NBA game with variety, scoring from all over the floor (as long as it's efficient), different roles for different players and body types. There was a time when the NBA game was more like that. But the thing is – once I remove the nostalgia tinted glasses and put emotion aside, I understand that as much as I liked it, that was an inferior, more inefficient brand of basketball. The game had not been "solved" yet. Now, due to analytics, the genie is out of the bottle, and trying to put it back would destroy the whole bottle.
As I joked above, there's still plenty of inefficient basketball to watch. Plenty of bad midrange jumpers, all 10 guys inside the arc at all times, non-shooting playmakers dribbling around, coaches screaming. The NCAA is still there.
Like it or not, the current form of NBA basketball is the most highly evolved version of the game the world has ever seen. The speed is out of this world, the team defenses suffocating, the level of athleticism insane.
We can always make small adjustments to the rules but that won't really change anything. The basic form of basketball with freethrows, 2 point field goals and 3pt shots has been solved and we can't do anything about it.
Try watching an old game from the era before the 3pt arc. Terrible. Nobody can seriously say that was a better brand of basketball overall. It was simply natural evolution when the arc was added to the game, and from that point on, there was a clear path towards analytics and "solving" the game. It simply had to happen.
purplegreengold
Active Member
Are you under 30? If not, how would you know what that demographic thinks about the current NBA?
What I know is that NBA viewership has decreased by 48% since 2012, which coincidentally is when the "rise of the 3" really became a thing in the NBA, and has become more prevalent with each passing year.
Also, no is suggesting getting rid of the 3 point shot, just trying to find a way to make the game more enjoyable.
-Allow hand-checking beyond the arc
-Eliminate three foul shots on shooting fouls beyond the arc (except in the last two minutes since teams will just hack shooters when they go up).
Conversely:
-if a defender’s foot plants in the shooters landing area, that’s an automatic shooting foul.
-if the defender’s planting foot makes *any* contact with a shooter’s foot, it’s a technical foul
-if the contact causes any kind of twist it is an automatic flagrant two.
-if the shooter incurs an injury that causes missed games, the defender is suspended for the duration that the shooter misses games due to that injury (maybe this tamps down on some of the Draymond ****, maybe Zaza Pachulia doesn’t go ahead and alter the course of NBA history by being a dirty piece of ****).
-Eliminate three foul shots on shooting fouls beyond the arc (except in the last two minutes since teams will just hack shooters when they go up).
Conversely:
-if a defender’s foot plants in the shooters landing area, that’s an automatic shooting foul.
-if the defender’s planting foot makes *any* contact with a shooter’s foot, it’s a technical foul
-if the contact causes any kind of twist it is an automatic flagrant two.
-if the shooter incurs an injury that causes missed games, the defender is suspended for the duration that the shooter misses games due to that injury (maybe this tamps down on some of the Draymond ****, maybe Zaza Pachulia doesn’t go ahead and alter the course of NBA history by being a dirty piece of ****).
Viewership reflects how entertaining the league is. Value represents the money that is being made by the owners and players. Do we really care about how well off owners/players are more than how entertaining the league is? Just because more money is made does not mean the product has become better.
The league is less entertaining....not because players shoot more 3's but because everyone involved in the NBA (players/teams/media) has basically told you that the games don't matter. There is no excitement on a day to day basis because all that matters is the championship, and once the championship is one it's all about clowning on who didn't win.
I am all for the players in their ongoing labor negotiations with league, but the fact is both the league and players spit in the face of their fans and diminish the product.
Access to games and the way too long and way too injured NBA season is much bigger reason. Also the NBA's failure to market future stars and clinging to guys like KD/Bron/Curry as they age.
purplegreengold
Active Member
I would agree that there are many reasons, like you state, for the decrease in viewership. But the rise in the reliance on the 3 point shot and analytics does have a part to play as well.
I would argue it has almost zero part.