[Azcentral.com] NBA thinking of banning 3-Pointers until end of game

This is the worst idea ever! My main problem with the rule is that it seems like this is something a gimmick league would come up with ala the XFL. It just sounds too hokey.

 

Sure, after the NBA done that, the Team USA will have even less chance to compete with the Europ teams.

 

Then they should move the 3pt shot in.. aligned with international standards.

It would make it easier to shoot.

J

 

Is it just me, or does this seem like yet another concession to "stars" with no jumpshot?

 

I think they should also have a 10 pt basket that is 10' higher than the regular goal.

Also, wouldn't it be cool if teams could trade players in the middle of a game?

 

Terrible idea. They should remove zone defense before they even consider this.

As far as Kerr's comment, it's like Mark Eaton coming out now and saying Block shots should not be allowed until the last minutes of the game.

 

Man, they really need to come up w/ better ideas.

 

This is one of the stupidest ideas ever. Stu Jackson is a moron.

 

Very stupid, it's not a sport if the rules can drastically change during the game. What is this, Rock & Jock Basketball?

 

If they want to increase scoring percentage, why don't they abolish the zone defense. Everyone had higher shooting percentages before this was instituted.

 

Banning the 3-point shot until late in the game might lead to a more up-tempo style and higher shooting percentages because players would be encouraged to take shots closer to the basket.

Except you can't get close to the basket due to the zone. LOL. Imagine how low the scores would be with no 3-pointers.

This league is on LIFE SUPPORT.

 

I think you guys are being way to hars... no, on this, even I can't contradict the prevailing opinion. This is a terrible idea. Besides being hokey, why would they think taking a scoring option away would increase performance? I'm not sure they realize but teams are also trying to maximize their scoring efficiency. If 3-pointers didn't improve their offensive attack, they wouldn't be shooting so many. 3-point threats open the interior allowing a better shooting percentage close to the basket. Removing 3-pointers would cause shooting percentages to drop.

 

horrible idea.

i don't think this would even raise scores, i imagine the opposite possibly happening. ending the zone or limiting its use i think would be better.

 

This isn't really related but it's another thing I find stupid about the NBA. Watching the baseball playoffs, I notice how they don't even care that you can't watch every game, even in the championship series. You're pretty much forced to choose which game you want to watch. The NBA on the other hand, drags their first round out for like a month (they even extended to best of 7) just so every game gets its own spot on tv. Even then, the ratings aren't good. Stupid! You suck Stern.

 

It'll never happen

 

3-point shot, zone defense, and the shot clock, these are all related. You can't just change one without considering how the others are gonna be exploited.

For example, allowing zone defense is a good thing, imo. But with the shot clock unchanged, the offense doesn't have enough time to develop plays to beat the zone. That results in too many forced shots.

I've always thought the 3-pointer somehow has a bad effect on the game. But as many here already pointed out, banning the 3 without also adjusting the zone rule and/or the shot clock is going to be bad.

Ultimately, the reason why players don't shoot midrange shots is because they can't. They can't because they don't hone the skill enough. Shooters in the old days used the pick so effectively to get off their midrange shots. Nowadays you hardly see that. Watching my kids play basketball, I suspect that the lure of the 3-pointer does have some effect on what young players aspire to.