NYT Debate: Should the Basketball Rim Be Raised?

Round table sort of debate with Earl Monroe, a former NBA coach, Colo St's HC, a WNBA'er, a college player and a Nasmith historian.

So, should the rim be raised to 11'?

I suppose it's arguable that over time this would improve the pro game. But college already has a shortage of skill, what with the most talented players staying for only a year. Are you excited about watching games where the winner scores 30 points? And don't even get me started on what it would do to women's basketball.

So I vote no. Ask again in 20 years.

Rene Herrerias had his team play a scrimage with the basket 12 feet high in 1960 or 61. I don't remember the reason why or the outcome.

No, they should make the rim 9' for a new sub-6' league. If a little guy is good enough to play with the big boys, then we didn't want him dominating our league anyways. I'd have been dunk city.

Short guys have rights, too.

Changing something this fundamental will be very difficult. That said, I do buy that there would be way more shooting...and slam dunks could become a real show stopper. Maybe when there are 8' players on a regular basis.

That said, if you change the height you might as well change a bunch of things, like having different points for different zones, from 1 pt to 4 pt and perhaps a rally killing 5 pts from a 3' circle near the half court and side line.

beelzebear;842124698 said:

---

Changing something this fundamental will be very difficult. That said, I do buy that there would be way more shooting...and slam dunks could become a real show stopper. Maybe when there are 8' players on a regular basis.

That said, if you change the height you might as well change a bunch of things, like having different points for different zones, from 1 pt to 4 pt and perhaps a rally killing 5 pts from a 3' circle near the half court and side line.

---

May as well play in North Korea if you're going to do all that:

Quote:

---

Chinese media report that North Korea has developed its own scoring system for the game: three points for a dunk, four points for a three pointer that doesn't touch the rim, and eight points for a basket scored in the final three seconds. (This rule is ... intriguing? The endings of North Korean basketball games must be cutthroat!) A missed free throw means minus-one point.

---

source

antipattern;842124708 said:

---

May as well play in North Korea if you're going to do all that:



source

---

So that's why the Dennis The Worm Rodman was there!

Raise it to 12' and have the rim hooked up to a decibel meter that makes it oscillate in rhythm with the varying decibel level. In other words, no team would want to play at Oracle.

RichyBear;842124685 said:

---

Rene Herrerias had his team play a scrimage with the basket 12 feet high in 1960 or 61. I don't remember the reason why or the outcome.

---

I did not attend the game, but remember reading about it. I think Cal played another team. I have a vague recollection that we had a good shooter who didn't play much and he was also the most accurate shooter in that game.

Maybe Jim Ashcraft? But that would mean it was in the mid-sixties.

3 pointers are harder to make so they are rewarded with an extra point. Dunks are automatic for the taller players and should earn only one point. I remember dunks were actually outlawed when Kareem was in the NBA. When and why was that rule rescinded? I still want dunks to be allowed but rewarded with only one point. It would make for interesting shot choices in close games.

I don't think dunks were ever outlawed in the NBA, but were in college in the late 60's - 70's. That rule was rescinded for 2 reasons: dunks are crowd pleasers, and it turned out that judging what was a dunk became difficult for officials. Players like Kareem or Nate Thurmond would go way above the rim, and then sort of let the ball go. Is it a dunk or a shot?

I don't see any reason to change the rules about dunks, just as I don't see reasons to monkey with scoring (you could have lights go off that would double the score of the next basket, or small circles that gave triple score for a basket, kind of like the Scrabble board, but then basketball becomes a gimmick instead of a sport).

One rule I would like to see changed is goal tending and back board interference, like in international comp. Once the ball goes up, it's far game. It can be hit/touched at any time; downward arc, against the backboard, any time. If you're going to feature super bigs might as well let them really mix it up down low.

beelzebear;842124856 said:

---

One rule I would like to see changed is goal tending and back board interference, like in international comp. Once the ball goes up, it's far game. It can be hit/touched at any time; downward arc, against the backboard, any time. If you're going to feature super bigs might as well let them really mix it up down low.

---

I like this idea. It is somewhat like allowing a goalie, which I have always thought would make for some magnificent tic-tac-toe passing to get the goalie out of position.

antipattern;842124680 said:

---

I suppose it's arguable that over time this would improve the pro game. But college already has a shortage of skill, what with the most talented players staying for only a year. Are you excited about watching games where the winner scores 30 points? And don't even get me started on what it would do to women's basketball.

So I vote no. Ask again in 20 years.

---

I hate to tell you this, but the Cal team of last season averaged the same amount of points with a few dunks every game, as the Cal NCAA champs of '59 averaged, with perhaps no dunks at all. Dunking has little to do with how many points you can score on average. Good defense can stop a dunk, just like it can stop any other shot.

I am with Earl Monroe on this. Pete Newell argued for many years that the basket should be raised to 12 feet, to put shooting skill back in to the game. There is no skill required to make a dunk, unless you are Clifford Ray or Devon Hardin. Only leaping ability. Yes, there is great athleticism required to make the crowd-pleasing acrobatic dunks, but no shooting skill whatsoever. If we can't raise the basket, then I'd like to see the dunk be made worth one point, because it takes more shooting skill to make any other type of basket.

Basketball rules seem to change more than the rules of any other sport, to make the game more interesting to fans, or to prevent certain players from taking control of the game, or to allow players more freedom to make fancier or more successful moves, and to control the speed or tempo of the game. Mostly all artificial rules, in my opinion.

The three point shot is another rule that should never have been installed. For example, why should a player making an unguarded shot from beyond an artificial circle be given three points, while a shorter player making a very difficult shot in the paint against a 7-footer trying to block his shot, is given only two points?

When I played basketball, I was a long range shooter. It was my only skill. If they had a 3-point line in '59, I might have made that Cal freshman team. I might have played a few more years. Still, I argue against the three point line. The most boring basketball I ever witnessed was in the NBA years ago, when the offenses consisted of the point guard driving into the lane. If he drew one defender, he shot the ball. If he drew two or three defenders, he kicked the ball out to a teammate for a three. And they still have this play today. They actually had the nerve to call it an assist. And one of the most comical things I see is some players getting a pass, and looking down to see if their foot is on the line, before they shoot, which invariably throws the shot off. I say get rid of the three, and raise the basket.

:headbang

beelzebear;842124856 said:

---

One rule I would like to see changed is goal tending and back board interference, like in international comp. Once the ball goes up, it's far game. It can be hit/touched at any time; downward arc, against the backboard, any time. If you're going to feature super bigs might as well let them really mix it up down low.

---

No. That would mess up the long range shooting factor of the game.
But I've played that way in a 6' under league with 9' rims. Anything shot inside the key is open to goaltending at any time, so you if you go, you go strong and dunk the hell out of it. If not, shoot the J and you're okay. Though, outside jumpers could be cleared after they hit the rim. I think that's what you're saying. But you can't allow a goal tend if someone puts up a 15' J and it's going to be a swish.
(and no coming up thru the rim to goal tend.)

Anyways, it was hell of fun, and after that summer, I became a MUCH more aggressive and capable penetrator. I thought that if I coached kids, I would instill this into their training, to get them to be better when going to the rack, drawing contact and still getting off a shot. Yeah, it messes up your J for a while, but that comes back! Plus, it's just plain fun and adds an element of excitement to the game that keeps everyone interested. Not the same old drills...

About 10 years ago, there was a show on some obscure cable channel that was 3 on 3 basketball. However, it was in a small size gym with padded walls, trampoline floors and 15 foot hoops. It was a spectacle to say the least. Sort of like a half-time trampoline dunk show on steroids.

beelzebear;842124856 said:

---

One rule I would like to see changed is goal tending and back board interference, like in international comp. Once the ball goes up, it's far game. It can be hit/touched at any time; downward arc, against the backboard, any time. If you're going to feature super bigs might as well let them really mix it up down low.

---

This isn't quite correct. The international rule is that once it hits the rim it is fair game. There is still a standard goaltending rule in international competition.

That'd be a disaster. Before the goaltending rule, some teams (think: USF w/ Russell) would park a center under the basket. He would guard nobody, he would just stick his hand over the cylinder anytime anyone took a shot and swat it away. If you like 25-18 games, by all means go for it.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, hoping it would go away, but...

Why would you want to take away one of the most exciting, fun, powerful plays of the game?

And if you think it would force players to improve their skills and fundamentals, think about all the most highly skilled shooters who would immediately have to re-calibrate their shot to the higher basket

Dumb idea

UrsaMajor;842125157 said:

---

That'd be a disaster. Before the goaltending rule, some teams (think: USF w/ Russell) would park a center under the basket. He would guard nobody, he would just stick his hand over the cylinder anytime anyone took a shot and swat it away. If you like 25-18 games, by all means go for it.

---

Well, the scores might be a little lower, but your prediction is a little ridiculous. Russell's USF teams average score for a game was 71-51. And with today's wonderful athletes, I'd guess that they could probably score more than that.

HoopDreams;842125182 said:

---

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, hoping it would go away, but...

Why would you want to take away one of the most exciting, fun, powerful plays of the game?

And if you think it would force players to improve their skills and fundamentals, think about all the most highly skilled shooters who would immediately have to re-calibrate their shot to the higher basket

Dumb idea

---

Tell Pete Newell when/if you see him.

12 1/2 feet seems about right

HoopDreams;842125182 said:

---

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, hoping it would go away, but...

Why would you want to take away one of the most exciting, fun, powerful plays of the game?

And if you think it would force players to improve their skills and fundamentals, think about all the most highly skilled shooters who would immediately have to re-calibrate their shot to the higher basket

Dumb idea

---

I think Earl "the Pearl" Monroe made the case pretty well. There have been many changes in the game over time to improve it. I am reasonably sure you like the imposition of the shot clock, to eliminate stalls and speed up the game, because the game was slowing down. I am also reasonably sure you like the three-point line, which was done to increase the number of long range shots, and players began to practice them and improved their accuracy from there.

I'll be picky, but a dunk is not a play, it's a shot. It can be part of a play if two or more players contribute to the result, but usually it is one guy by himself taking the shot. And raising the basket to 11 feet will not get rid of the dunk, it will only reduce the number of attempts. Plenty of players will still be able to dunk.

If I wanted something that was fun, exciting and powerful, I'd have sex, rather than watch someone dunk a basketball. One fun, exciting, and powerful play that has been all but removed from basketball is the jump ball. As players got taller and could leap higher, the referees could seldom throw the ball straight up without giving an advantage to one of the jumpers.

Your argument about players having to re-calibrate their shot seems specious to me. First they have to calibrate with every shot they take, because their shots are all taken from different distances and angles to the hoop. Second, they re-calibrated every year of their young lives as they learned to play basketball in the first grade through the 12th grade and beyond, and they grew in height closer to the basket year after year. From a height of 4 feet to an average height of 6'-6", let's say. An 11 foot basket will look just as high to a college player as a 10 foot basket looked to him when he was in the 6th or 7th grade. No big deal to recalibrate.

I have played on a court with an 8 foot basket and another with a 12 foot basket. The 8 foot basket was easy to dunk on, but on longer shots, it was actually harder to calibrate for, because it is not natural to shoot at one with much arch. It gave me a feeling for the difficulty that most 7-footers face when shooting a free throw, as most of them shoot with too flat an arch.

Another point about dunks is that when a player jumps up that high, intent on slamming the ball through the hoop, with no thought to where or how he will land, he opens himself up to the possibility of serious injury, and there are many of them. Alex Rossi had one of the purest strokes I've seen, and when he was rehabbing, he spoke of how great he felt, and how he was able to dunk again. Here is a kid who should have been practicing his drives, his floaters, his shots in the lane, and his long range shots, and he is practicing dunks. One of the most exciting things for me last season was Alan Crabbe developing an array of shots in the lane with either hand, skills which he did not have in earlier years.

I think it is time to reduce the number of dunks, either by raising the basket or rewarding dunks with only one point, instead of two, because there is little or no skill involved.

many good thoughts

I agree that the shot clock and adding the 3 pt line were very good changes

I agree that dunking the ball is a dangerous thing to do. in another discussion a while back, I said the same, and some posters disagreed (one saying that with breakaway rims it's not an issue)

but sorry, I don't think changing the hoop height would be a good change but please continue to fight the good fight

SFCityBear;842125298 said:

---

I think Earl "the Pearl" Monroe made the case pretty well. There have been many changes in the game over time to improve it. I am reasonably sure you like the imposition of the shot clock, to eliminate stalls and speed up the game, because the game was slowing down. I am also reasonably sure you like the three-point line, which was done to increase the number of long range shots, and players began to practice them and improved their accuracy from there.

I'll be picky, but a dunk is not a play, it's a shot. It can be part of a play if two or more players contribute to the result, but usually it is one guy by himself taking the shot. And raising the basket to 11 feet will not get rid of the dunk, it will only reduce the number of attempts. Plenty of players will still be able to dunk.

If I wanted something that was fun, exciting and powerful, I'd have sex, rather than watch someone dunk a basketball. One fun, exciting, and powerful play that has been all but removed from basketball is the jump ball. As players got taller and could leap higher, the referees could seldom throw the ball straight up without giving an advantage to one of the jumpers.

Your argument about players having to re-calibrate their shot seems specious to me. First they have to calibrate with every shot they take, because their shots are all taken from different distances and angles to the hoop. Second, they re-calibrated every year of their young lives as they learned to play basketball in the first grade through the 12th grade and beyond, and they grew in height closer to the basket year after year. From a height of 4 feet to an average height of 6'-6", let's say. An 11 foot basket will look just as high to a college player as a 10 foot basket looked to him when he was in the 6th or 7th grade. No big deal to recalibrate.

I have played on a court with an 8 foot basket and another with a 12 foot basket. The 8 foot basket was easy to dunk on, but on longer shots, it was actually harder to calibrate for, because it is not natural to shoot at one with much arch. It gave me a feeling for the difficulty that most 7-footers face when shooting a free throw, as most of them shoot with too flat an arch.

Another point about dunks is that when a player jumps up that high, intent on slamming the ball through the hoop, with no thought to where or how he will land, he opens himself up to the possibility of serious injury, and there are many of them. Alex Rossi had one of the purest strokes I've seen, and when he was rehabbing, he spoke of how great he felt, and how he was able to dunk again. Here is a kid who should have been practicing his drives, his floaters, his shots in the lane, and his long range shots, and he is practicing dunks. One of the most exciting things for me last season was Alan Crabbe developing an array of shots in the lane with either hand, skills which he did not have in earlier years.

I think it is time to reduce the number of dunks, either by raising the basket or rewarding dunks with only one point, instead of two, because there is little or no skill involved.

---

There were in fact several games in the 20's (USF v. Cal among them).

Lower for chick hoop

SFCityBear;842124879 said:

---

I hate to tell you this, but the Cal team of last season averaged the same amount of points with a few dunks every game, as the Cal NCAA champs of '59 averaged, with perhaps no dunks at all. Dunking has little to do with how many points you can score on average. Good defense can stop a dunk, just like it can stop any other shot.

---

If you can't stop a guy from dunking, you can't stop him from making an easy layup either.

UrsaMajor;842125446 said:

---

There were in fact several games in the 20's (USF v. Cal among them).

---

With all due respect, you may need to look this up again.

First of all, the NCAA instituted the rule against defensive goal tending in 1944-45. Bill Russell did not arrive at USF until 1952. He was not allowed by the rules to interfere defensively with a ball within the cylinder. The problem was that the free throw lane was so narrow, he could park in there and block shots easily. After Russell and USF won their NCAA championships, the NCAA in 1956-57 widened the free throw lane from 6 to 12 feet, which prevented Russell from staying in the lane too long, as 3 seconds was the allowable limit. Another problem Russell created was when one of his teammates took a shot, he would go above the cylinder, and if it looked like the shot was a miss, Russell would guide it into the basket or stuff it in. He made K.C. Jones and others look like better shooters than they were. So in 1957-58, the NCAA made a rule against offensive goal-tending.

The two great shot-blockers of the ‘50s were Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, as you know. Bill Russell’s USF teams played a total of 79 games, and there was only one USF game, the USF-Cal game of 1956, where USF and Russell were able to hold an opponent to a score in the 20’s, as USF defeated Cal, 33-24. That game was an aberration, because Newell, in an attempt to draw Russell away from the basket had Joe Hagler hold the ball for 8 minutes, which is what kept the score down. Newell, who was trying to win the game, also wanted to change the game for the better as well. By stalling like that, it gave more notice to the NCAA to institute some changes to keep players like Russell and Chamberlain from having an unfair advantage.

Russell’s teams at USF, in that 79 game period, held teams in 5 games to scores in the 30’s, but that game against Cal in 1960 was the only time Russell and USF ever held a team to a score in the 20’s.

Wilt Chamberlain played 50 games for Kansas, and the average score in those games had Kansas winning 68-56. In only one game was Kansas able to hold a team to a score in the 30’s, and never did they hold a team to a score in the 20’s.

You’d have to go back a long, long way to find a period when college basketball games had scores in the 20’s. The only time in the ‘50s that I ever saw games with scores in the 20’s, other than in junior high school, was in the Cal Berkeley intramural league, where they had us play two ten minute halves, with the clock running during all free throw attempts and timeouts. The total of minutes played was about 15 minutes, I'd guess. I led the league in scoring as a freshman at a whopping 12 ppg, and the team scores were often in the 20’s.

Thanks for the clarification. It was back in the 40's that you had the very low scores. However, as for a 50's game: how about Cal-USF in 1956? Final: 33-24.

A better idea would be changing the 24 second clock to 30 seconds. The NBA is too rushed at the offensive end where players loft three-pointers because that is basically all they can do with the time remaining after crossing midcourt.

OneTopOneChickenApple;842125669 said:

---

A better idea would be changing the 24 second clock to 30 seconds. The NBA is too rushed at the offensive end where players loft three-pointers because that is basically all they can do with the time remaining after crossing midcourt.

---

Your idea is a sound one. Maybe even increase it to 35 seconds.

Pete Newell coached in a era before the shot clock was introduced, but he actually really liked the idea of a shot clock. He felt it would give him a big advantage over his opponents. He said his teams nearly always got off a good shot within 35 seconds, but because of his defense, the opponent often had a real tough time getting a good shot off within the clock time limit.

:beer:

The NCAA occasionally experiments with rules changes. For example, the Big East tried a six foul rule during conference play in the late 80s or 90s. Similarly, I recall some experimenting with a 35 second shot clock during the same time, but it was only for a number of early season tournaments, not a conference season.

the short shot clock in the NBA gives teams little time to run much of an offense, except run and gun. Typically they try to run one set, but when it breaks down, it's either give it to one player to go one-on-one, or jack up a rushed long range shot.

I was particularly shocked at how the Pacers seemed to have no apparent offense besides forcing it inside to one of their (covered) bigs. Seems their offense was mostly jacking up some forced shot, rebound, and put back

OneTopOneChickenApple;842125669 said:

---

A better idea would be changing the 24 second clock to 30 seconds. The NBA is too rushed at the offensive end where players loft three-pointers because that is basically all they can do with the time remaining after crossing midcourt.

---