Reply With Quote
Bienvenue OM fever!
Newcomers...
Hi,
I've readen you during all this long summer, very interesting chat.
However that thread is stupid. How could even NBA think to change that rule?! The play would be awfull, with just inside play (with shoots from outside, and outside what? If the three point line is not effective, why shoot from so far?)
You will have a struggle game, with a lot of people within a small perimeter, with a lot of bad shots. Indeed, team could be more reluctant to let play skilled & small player. You would have plenty big guys waiting to block opponents who want to penetrate into the paint. The space would not allow an increase of the percentage.
And if you allow that stupid rule, you would have a stereotype play, with less freedom to find the own team balance. Inside, Inside.... it's boring as well as too many outside shots. But bad teams which try too much bad 3 pointers lost the game, I find interesting to balance between 2 & 3 pointers, there is more suspence (imagine how hard it would be to come back after being lead by 15 points if you can't hit 3 pointers...) and you can strech the opponent to open easy bucket...
(sorry for the mistakes that I will make in english... (I'm from France)
Bienvenue OM fever!
getting rid of three's is the stupidest idea i ever heard. It will only make the NBA game more phsical and you will end up with NFL like players banging under the baskets with no skill at all. And after 4 years you'll be asking yourself why team USA sucks at Olympics. I support the idea of refs using more whistle. That would put the offensive type of basketball back in the arena.
oh yeah another thing ... if there was no three point line, Steve Kerr would be selling dougnuts and not playing basketball.
I almost believe that article is bogus. Three reasons for my thinking:
#1 The three pointer is a very exciting play or shot. NBA likes excitement.
#2 Steve Kerr lived from the line. Made those exciting shots. Maybe he was under the bright lights too long when they asked him.
#3 Scoring would go DOWN! Why do bad teams take more threes? Because they're bad and can't get closer to the rim! Good teams make threes. You shoot 50% from two and you have 10 points, 40% from three nets you 12.
If they want a crazy way to make scroing easier make the damn rims 3 feet across. That way Antione Walker can shoot baseline to baseline. Or make the values for shots made in the 4th quarter count for more. Like 2s are 3 points, 3s are 4 points in the final 5 minutes of the game.
Eliminating the 3 might make the play more interesting. It would get rid of all those players camping out at the 3-point line and make them work to get an open shot.
Yes but if you decide to eliminate the 3, you would have all those players who used to camp on the 3 line oblige to move inside, so 10 players in the same perimeter would not make the play more excitant! It would make it more confused and just physical. Three pointers permit to strech the game.
Maybe it should be a rule that if you miss a 3 you loose a point! Then Iverson would average around -5 a game.
It's those people that camp out on the 3pt line that open up the floor for your inside people and your slashers. Eliminate the 3, you would also be eliminating the high pick and roll. Like someone here already mentioned, it would cramp up the paint.
Anyhow, if the league wants better shooting, let the coaches stress the importance of good shot selection.
I've heard a few good ideas on this thread... in fact I could think of hundreds of rule changes and tweaks that would help the game... but in the end too much of a change is also a bad thing. The 3pt shot revived the game back in the late 70's/ eary 80's. Without the 3 pointer, Larry Legend would not have been as dominant a player... Wait didn't Larry play in the run'n'gun eighties? My point exactly. High shooting percentages have dwindled, not because the three point line has caused people to shoot in a frenzy, but becuase the "sportscenter" culture has placed more emphasis on sick cross-overs, high flying dunks and flashy style. Thus naturally, kids nowadays have not been placing the proper amount of time developing their fundamentals of the game (i.e. layups and short range jumpers).
Again, the problem is not the 3pt shot. It is the lack of a good coaching staff; it is in their power to pull people out of games if they are making bad decisions on the court -- and this includes an excessive amount of ineffective shots from beyond the arc. The operative word there is ineffective As a coach I probably wouldn't have to tell Peja, R. Allen, or Barry to stop shooting the 3-ball... if they were having an off-night they would know that they instead needed to go inside or to contribute in other ways (by dishing out to others).
Ideas I liked....
1) Making the court a little wider...
2) Having 3's count as 4's in the fourth quarter
(I would probably make a change to this concept by saying 3's count as 4's only in the first half -- This would allow players to get the "long-ball" out of their system before the second half, the scoring would still increase becuase 1st halfs would be high scoring -- the second half would belong to the better team and not just the 3pt specialists. This change in concept would allow good post players like Duncan to be a factor at the end of games instead of being strategically taken out at the end of games by the rule).
2a) So rewritten "2" becomes "2a": 3's count as 4's in the first half.
3) Widen the rim by no more than 2 inches -- that in itself would increase scoring.
At this point in the "game" at this point in time, taking out the 3pt shot would be like instating a rule to lower the rim to 9 feet. RIDICULOUS I SAY!!!!
4) Baskets made from within the paint count as 2, Dunks count as 2 (unless you jump from outside the paint), baskets from the zone between the arc and the paint count as 3, and baskets made from beyond the arc count as 4 points. (I'm not really high on this one, but it would increase scoring none-the-less).
The idea makes sense in a way. At this point, you have bad shooters who are actually encouraged to step out further to shoot, because of the enticement of the extra point. A shot from 23'9" is usually a good shot, but a shot from 22' is generally deemed to be bad shot, only because it's a "long two." I don't know that stepping in a couple of feet would make any of these guys better shooters, but the theory is that they'll shoot better percentages if they're closer to the rim, making the idea of eliminating the 3 (at least for part of a game) makes some logical sense.
My thing is this: I don't buy the idea of changing the way the game is scored depending on varying points of the game. It's way to "Rock n' Jock" for my tastes (I mean, why not put a 25-point spot on the floor while they're at it, to give hopelessly buried teams a chance to quickly catch up?) I can't think of another sport that changes the measure of victory as the game progresses. Think about the same type of rule in other instances: touchdowns could be worth 9 points in the last 5 minutes of an NFL game; 9th inning runs could count as 1.5 runs; goals scored in the last 5 minutes of a hockey game . . . oh, right, there won't be any hockey for a while. I can see changing minor rules based on the time of the game: changing the timing rules, the way that penalties are assessed, things like that -- those things don't alter the game's fundamental nature, they just provide disincentives for teams that wish to eliminate the compe ive aspect of play. But, to me, changing the scoring rules based on the time left on the clock does change the fundamental nature of the game, which I don't think is a good thing.
getting rid of the 3 is ridiculous....all of sterns ballas can't shoot for otherwise it would not be an issue....
i'm sorry, but damn....we get the twin towers, and here comes the zone d rule change....we finally get a gotdam shooter, and here comes a get rid of the 3 pointer rule....BUUUUULLLL !
This all is getting more and more ridiculous !
Come on , you don't have 3 point line--you don't have many interesting playes. Stupidity- they want higher scores? Count 2 as 10 and 3 as 15. You have got solutionThe hole is to small, how about double the size hmm
That all 3pt 5min won't change $hit if they want higher scores.
Live with that Stu and David, NBA changed. Sports are changing.
There will always be a way to stop the others team offense, that is what this game is about. Be effective in defense and offense. Want high scores do what I proposed!
Ps. Mario Elie said one time to wide the court it was about 6 years ago.
That would be an idea. Cause basketball players, once again, will be forced to get their game to another , different level.
Move the 3-point-line back and widen the floor. Actually call lane violations so there's more fluid motion. Call less charges. On possession fouls, let the team choose where to take the ball out from.
Those are just ideas, but everything in sports is cyclical. The best approach is to just wait for the next offensive fad to roll around.
uuuuuhhhhhhhh..................................... .......ooookkkkkk!!!!
If they banning 3-Pointers then the game wont be interesting!
banning 3-Pointers ??? Are you kidding???
When did Ron Mercer become chairman of the NBA Rules Committee?
jr
Actually, there would still be plenty of outside shots because they are more likely to be open. Having said that, I don't like the idea of eliminating the three. That would probably be the dumbest rule change since the introduction of the three. But eliminating the three EXCEPT for the last few minutes of the game is just ludicrous.
I know I'm not the only one that remembers NBA games played in the 70's and 80's. The game got along just fine without the 3. The 3pt shot was and still is a good idea, but it's just that now every 20% fg shooter is shooting them, thus causing more missed shots! Without the 3, we would still see long range shots being taken, but by the ones who could make them. Eliminating the 3 wouldn't clog up the lane b/c there would still be outside threats on each team. Besides, eliminating the 3 might bring an end to the zone defense, thus clearing more room. It just goes to show you that alot of people see games just for the glamor stuff like dunks, 25-30 ft shots, instead of enjoying the intricacies of the game.
NO. Don't abolish the three point line. I'm sure everyone wants to see:
Down by 2(or 3), 2 seconds left in the 4th shoot a three it goes in.
Let the three stay! I'm glad they're only consider banning it for the NBDL only.
Just a thought, but if the US ever wants to be player on the world stage and win that gold medal back again.... (Do you?)
How is removing the three gonna help. In FIBA it had even more significance. Although european countries have adapted to having better skills as they cannot hope to have the same athletism as the US players. Manu is an exception.
If the US removes the three, i guess midrangers will have more influence but it would be fair to expect that accuracy from 3 point range would decrease. This obviously proves benificial in one area whilst taking away from the game in another, its pointless.
Give special certificate to the players who will be allowed the threepointer
@ polandprzem
Like a pen liscence, only for threeball
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
