Saturday, June 16, 2007

Keegan

Keegan: Raised hoop just a novelty

By Tom Keegan

Advertisement

Imagine Muggsy Bogues having played a lengthy NBA career at 4-foot-3, Yao Ming towering way above the competition at 6-foot-6. That in essence is what it would be like if former NBA assistant coach Tom Newell had his way.

Newell is trying to organize exhibition games played on 11-foot rims across the country. The first of what he hopes will be several such exhibitions will take place tonight on the campus of the University of Washington.

Kansas University associate athletic director Larry Keating, chairman of the NCAA basketball rules committee, said he would like to view a tape of the exhibition. Doing so would be something of a jog down memory lane. Keating said he watched an exhibition on an 11-foot hoop at Cal State-Los Angeles.

"Long, long time ago," Keating said. "It was when the Final Four was in L.A. It was either (Bill) Walton's sophomore year or before him."

There is a no-dunking rule for tonight's game, not that it's a given anybody could have slammed one on an 11-foot hoop in game conditions. Former NCAA Division I and Division II players will play in the exhibition.

Newell's thinking is that if the dunk were taken out of the game, it would promote more team play, better passing, a more pleasing product to watch.

It's an intriguing fantasy, but it doesn't stand a chance of leading to anything of substance any time soon.

"He's not going to get too far," Keating said. "Too much of an expense to change equipment. Plus, the women wouldn't use it. You would have to come up with an adjustable basket. Everyone would need to get one. Finances would play a part in any major change like that."

So would emotions. Children's bedroom walls aren't covered with posters of Tim Duncan making a nifty interior pass. The posters feature jams, jams and more jams.

"It takes the dunk out of the game, and they aren't going to do that," Keating said. "Purists would say that's not such a big deal, but in today's game, that would be almost like doing away with the three-point shot."

The raised rim would squeeze scoring near and far from the hoop. Obviously, it would be much tougher to hit three-pointers on an 11-foot rim. Still, the shooting wouldn't be as bad as one might suspect, Keating said.

"They shot poorly early in the game," Keating said of the game he witnessed. "By the second half they shot pretty well, a very reasonable percentage. They weren't shooting many bombs, but layups and short jumpers."

Newell is far from a trail-blazer here. Phog Allen reportedly called for 12-foot hoops more than 70 years ago, and one of his former KU players, John Bunn, had his Stanford team hold scrimmages with the basket raised to 11 feet and 12 feet.

In light of the low-scoring NBA Finals in which the San Antonio Spurs swept the Cleveland Cavaliers, perhaps a compromise solution is in order.

Lower the hoops to nine feet, ban dunking, and do away with the three-point shot. Shooting percentages would soar, and high-scoring games would return.

Better yet, just leave it alone and revisit the topic in another 70 years, when gene doping is all the rage and 7-footers will be in the backcourt.

Comments

jackhawk (anonymous) says...

Just do away with the 3 point shot. That is all that's needed.

June 16, 2007 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KURUSH1530 (anonymous) says...

That's even crazier than raising the goal. What is the point of this? Didn't the NBA finals have the lowest rating in a long time because the Spurs are such a fundamentally team? Never will happen, shouldn't even be brought up. The only thing worth contemplating is making the hoop bigger. Go from 18 inches wide to 19.5 or 20.

June 16, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kirk (anonymous) says...

The low NBA ratings were more likely due to the absence of a huge market team like the Fakers.

That, and the NBA really sucks. The whole vibe is just garbage.

I have never understood the 3 pt. shot. By the same reasoning, a field goal in football should be worth more if it's kicked from further out. A touchdown should be worth more if it resulted from a long bomb pass rather than a first-and-goal running play.

June 17, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

I am an old white guy so I can say this. The 3 pt shot was invented because other old white guys didn't like the way athleticism was taking over the game. They tried to outlaw the dunk but then when they couldn't do that, they brought in the three point shot because they had fond memories of short white guys with big butts shooting set shots from 35 feet way back in the 50's. Some were probably friends of Bill Mayer

June 17, 2007 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanotherfan (anonymous) says...

The game of basketball's dimensions have remained relatively unchanged (save the 3point shot) since the early days. The only way to bring back fundamental basketball is to make high school players play fundamentals. Unfortunately, teams with exceptionally gifted players benefit by letting their one or two stars demolish the other team. It's winning basketball, but it sacrifices fundamentals. As those exceptional players advance to college the ones that stand out are the ones that can dominate individually. Those players advance to the NBA.

The players that advance in basketball are typically players that are individually exceptional. The guys that just make nice, fundamentally sound bounce passes fall by the wayside as the more individually skilled players move on.

June 17, 2007 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bmcmich1 (anonymous) says...

"That, and the NBA really sucks. The whole vibe is just garbage."

HILARIOUS!! Couldn't agree more, Kirk.

Great points, justanotherfan, and I agree with you too.

By and large, when you think of the 'Big Three' sports you see Basketball and Baseball as the 'team' sports that seem to be featuring the individual more and more.

Baseball isn't as grossly catering to the individual player as much as basketball, but one superstar pitcher can dominate the game on his own, only needing one measly run scored by his teammates to win. In basketball, especially in the NBA but seen at the college level (Durant), one player can chuck it up 8000 times, score anywhere from 50-80 points, and his team will win. Although these are some incredible athletes doing incredible things, it's not that fun to watch in my opinion.

Football, on the other hand, is the only one out of the three that reqires 11 guys all on the same page working as a team to succeed. Just listen to any football player at any level and he'll tell you that is true. If all 11 guys on either side of the ball don't do their job, the play doesn't work. Look at an example of one of the the 'me, me, me' players in football: How did Randy Moss fare when he was the star of the show in Oakland? Now part of a first class TEAM in the Pats, just you watch how much better he will be.

I'm not saying this is true in all cases across the board, but the difference is pretty glaring--both in the on-the-field/court products and most notably the attendance/TV ratings. The 'me, me, me' attitude and the marketing of the individual rather than the team in Basketball and somewhat Baseball is why more people don't travel to and tune in to their games.

If I want to see an individual sport, I watch golf.

June 18, 2007 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

I also agree with justanotherfan's comments about the growing lack of teamwork in todays game but I believe the problem goes beyond the players themselves or even the marketing by the NBA. There is a concensus among sports media that fans find fundamentally sound teams boring and that is why nobody cares about teams like the San Antonio Spurs. Are those of us who actually prefer fundamentally sound basketball that small of a minority?

June 18, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

CreightonBlujayhawk (anonymous) says...

I don't know if the San Antonio Spurs fundamental play caused the bad ratings. Considering that the other team in the series has a very exciting individual (LeBron James... and Drew Gooden), I think it had more to do with the fact that the series was lob-sided. No one picked the Cavs to win. That really drains the excitement out of the series, more so than fundamental basketball.

As someone else mentioned, the lack of a big-market team also could have had an effect on ratings.

June 18, 2007 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

bmcmich1 (anonymous) says...

Phil and Creighton,

I think the truth lies somewhere in between both of your theories.

Phil-
I don't think it's so much that those of us that prefer fundamentally sound TEAM basketball are in the minority, but the media has decided for everyone that we are. They have clearly focused all their efforts into promoting the individual and the glamor that comes with it. Since the media does that, it is merely PERCIEVED that we are the minority, and, truth be told, not many of us care enough about the NBA to make a ruckus about it.

Creighton (and Kirk),
You are right too. The problem with this finals was that NOBODY outside of San Antonio or Cleveland even remotely cared!! If you'll recall the Lakers with showtime and the Celtics of the 80s, those were really great TEAMS with many superstars on them, not just one, like the Cleveland LeBrons this year. I truly think that the Lakers and Celtics benefited, though, by both being in the top ten media markets nationally. It makes one wonder if the whole Celtics-Lakers rivalry would have ever been as big had it been a San Antonio-Milwaukee series with the same players.

Plus, as was also alluded to, this was such a lopsided finals. Cleveland offered up ZERO competition, and who, outside of San Antonio, wants to watch that garbage? Average Joe fan wants to see Lakers-Celtics or Bulls-Jazz or Bulls-Pistons, etc...you see what I'm getting at.

The combination of the whole hoopla around an individual for what's supposed to be a team sport combined with nobody caring about small-market teams combined with a completely lopsided finals matchup led to awful ratings.

Clearly the NBA has a lot of stuff to work out, 'cause I don't see anyone out of the east coming close to beating the best from the west in the near future.

June 18, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

You guys make good points. I hope you are right I am not sure how we ever get back to a more team oriented game but I certainly don't think raising the rims or outlawing the dunk is the answer. I don't like tinkering with the rules but I think widening the lane might be a good idea. Calling traveling a lot more often on drives to the basket might also bring back some integrity to the game.
It is a long shot but maybe if San Antonio keeps winning championships with their fundamental brand of ball maybe the big market teams will start playing that way and start winning also. I know, I said it was a long shot.

June 18, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

deckbd (anonymous) says...

Yao is 7'6", not 6'6"

June 19, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bmcmich1 (anonymous) says...

And Muggsy was 5'3'' not 4'3'' -- think the point he was making was that raising the goal a foot would make those guys seem a foot shorter

June 20, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )