Raising the official NBA rim height to 11 feet?

[Skinnyman23]

The following article got me thinking about the possible implications of raising the NBA rims up a little bit.
http://www.hoop-hype.net/11-foot-basketball-hoops.html[/url]
Just been wondering if you guys here think it's feasible for the rims to be raised up to 11 feet? I can see some pros and cons for that change, but for now, I think the 10 foot rims are just fine (although it does seem rather easy for seven foot tall professional atheletes to dunk on a 10 foot rim).

[grusom]

Bah - I'm still dreaming about getting to dunk on a 10 foot rim again, I would get so pissed off if someone raised it to 11 feet.

[cyanide]

What pros are there to raise it to 11 feet?

[Fitzy]

theyve been talking about this for ages havent they? I dont see much point in making the rim any higher at all

[Patr1ck]

We already have the WNBA.

[Sauru]

only an idiot would want it raised to 11 feet. this is another example of wanting to change rules that need not be changed. maybe they should raise it to 12 feet and bump the 3 point line 6 feet back, really screw up the game ya know?

[shadowgrin]

Pro of raising the rim: Only a few people can dunk and NBA players that can't even hit a midrange jumper will now settle for jumpers thereby the need to enforce upon them the fundamentals of shooting.

[puttincomputers]

i agree shadow! i wouldn't mind having a 12 foot rim to shoot at! it would be easier for me to hit threes!

[Andrew]

Until genetic mutations result in the human race boasting an average height of 7'5", I don't think there's any need to raise the hoops to eleven feet. It's been raised in the past and accomplished very little, if anything at all.

[J@3]

It's an interesting concept. In the three page review of the game (which is on that site) the guy said in the 4th, when three's were counted, the game descended into guys going one on five and launching bricks... much like the real NBA at times. Makes me wonder if raising the rim is the reason the team play and such was so much more improved, or if it was the fact that there were no longer any threes for the first three quarters.

[Andrew]

The review is interesting but I still have to wonder, even if raising the rim to eleven feet didn't have any negative effects, is it really going to have any positive effects? Are the positive aspects mentioned in the review actually the result of raising the rim or just coincidence? And if they are a result of the change, will they endure when players become used to the new height?

It's noted that players were forced to play more of a team game than resorting to one-on-one play. That might of held true during the trial game but given time to adjust to the altered playing field, a more selfish style of basketball would likely re-emerge here and there. That kind of approach to the game seems more the product of a player's personality and the way they are coached more than the height of the basket. Ball hogs will be ball hogs.

This also seems like a generalisation to me:

Without exceptions, players liked playing on higher basket since it was more of a challenge to make shots. (Note: if you place to baskets next to each
other, one at ten feet and the other at eleven feet, almost players, on all levels, will shoot at the eleven foot basket.)

It may have been true of the players who were taking part in the game but that doesn't necessarily reflect widespread opinion. Their preference to shoot at the eleven foot basket isn't proof that it's "better". I assume those players would be intrigued by the challenge of the higher rim and experiment accordingly, they'd already be familiar with how they perform on a standard ten foot basket.

It's interesting, yes, but the results one game can't be conclusive enough to merit raising the hoop another foot, there wasn't really a control to that experiment. As Jae said, simply eliminating the three point field goal could have had an impact on how the game was played so it would be worth taking the same approach in a game on standard rims and comparing the results.

[grusom]

If the NBA really wanted more team oriented basketball, they would enforce rules like carrying the ball (which would take 10 points of Allen Iverson´s career scoring average), traveling (players like D-Wade and Lebron are often allowed to travel on their way to the baskert. especially if the ref smells a dunk coming up) and they would go back to allowing the defender to keep a hand on a player dribbling the ball.

Try taking a look at some footage of players like Bob Cousy and Pete Maverich, and see how much the carrying rules have changed - they are both considered the premier ball handlers of their times, and certainly wouldn't have chosen to dribble so flat-palmed if it wasn't because the rules of their time forced them to do it.

My point is, the NBA will never raise the rim to 11 feet, it WANTS flashy dunks and superstars dominating the game.

[Leander]

Why not replace rims by soccer goals and add a goalie?
No, leave the game as it is.

[Andrew]

My point is, the NBA will never raise the rim to 11 feet, it WANTS flashy dunks and superstars dominating the game.

But would raising the rims to eleven feet eliminate elements of the game that could be perceived as undesirable, such as selfish play? If a player is inclined to shoot the ball whenever he touches it, he'll do that regardless of whether they make the rim higher or not.

[grusom]

But would raising the rims to eleven feet eliminate elements of the game that could be perceived as undesirable, such as selfish play?

Like I said in my previous post:

If the NBA really wanted more team oriented basketball, they would enforce rules like carrying the ball (which would take 10 points of Allen Iverson´s career scoring average), traveling (players like D-Wade and Lebron are often allowed to travel on their way to the baskert. especially if the ref smells a dunk coming up) and they would go back to allowing the defender to keep a hand on a player dribbling the ball.

Raising the rim would only take away some of the advantages of taller guys.
Another thing I think the NBA could do, was to adopt the European three point line. In the Euroleague you don't see the same positional specialization as in the NBA, and I think the three point line's position is a big reason for that: Almost Everybody can shoot from that distance (or would be inclined to practice to do so), which make for more player- and ball movement.

[Sauru]

i gotta agree with grusom, you want better team play then enforce rules that will push teams into doing that. for instance, stop blowing the whistle and sending guys to the free throw line when they run blindly into the paint and throw up some insanely stupid shot just to get to the line. if these kind of plays stop being rewarded with 2 free shots you wont see it happen nearly as much.

[grusom]

One of the things i have always liked about basketball is how the rules always favor the offensive- rather than the defensive player (I used to play handball which is the exact opposite), but I think the NBA has taken it to far the past few years - Sauru's example is another good one of this trend.

Watching an offensive player trying to make contact for a cheap foul rather than just throwing the ball in the basket makes my eyes bleed - especially if the defensive player tries to flop his way to an offensive foul on the same play (which seems to be the only thing you can do as a defensive player in today's NBA - I wish people would stop bitching about so called floppers and direct their criticism toward the people who forces them to flop because they aren't allowed to play defense). Bring back the No Call!!!!

[cyanide]

I agree it's more about rule changes or putting emphasis on coaches to do more shooting sessions or have some sort of mandatory off-season shooting camps. Raising the rim changes the game, and it feels wrong. It's like changing the hockey/football goalie's net, or the American football goal post, or changing the size of the baseball diamonds.

[benji]

It's like changing the hockey/football goalie's net

Didn't the NHL recently do that? Or did they change the box around it...

Another thing I think the NBA could do, was to adopt the European three point line. In the Euroleague you don't see the same positional specialization as in the NBA, and I think the three point line's position is a big reason for that: Almost Everybody can shoot from that distance (or would be inclined to practice to do so), which make for more player- and ball movement.

Oh, Darko no. We can't have that line moved back in. I had enough watching Barkley, Rodman and every other 25% shooter bomb away. It didn't increase ball movement either, it led to all the isolation plays because the defense was packed in closer to the hoop.

What needs to change is coaches mentality that they need to control every single possession.

[BigKaboom2]

What needs to change is coaches mentality that they need to control every single possession.

How could they possibly control every single possession...short of missing and offensive rebounding for the entire length of the game?

I think it's legitimate to want to have more time of possession than the other team - that often can be correlated to victory in most ball-related sports.

And I think the 3-point line has outlived its usefulness. Basketball from before that era is much more entertaining to watch in my opinion, though difficult to find unfortunately.

[benji]

I think it's legitimate to want to have more time of possession than the other team - that often can be correlated to victory in most ball-related sports.

Difficult in a sport where there's a possession clock, and you get the ball after the other team uses a possession. In football, it means you're making the other team turn it over, and your offense is continuing steadily. In baseball, it means you're getting them out early while staying at the plate longer. In basketball, it may just mean you hold the ball longer before shooting.

But that is not what I meant. I meant, the coaches that want to control each and every possession. They want to call a play every time, order each player to where they want and have it executed as they desire. Instead of simply letting it flow and overseeing a known rotation, drawing up plays to execute at the end of the game or making suggestions. None of the players have grown up with that, they've come up with coaches who control everything.

[BigKaboom2]

I really have no idea what you mean by "letting it flow"....that sounds like jargon for one-on-one isolation plays - what would it like in practice?

The Spurs for example almost always seem to be running set plays, and it's hard to argue with their success.

[benji]

1980s Teams. Watch the games. That "natural flow" to games, not micromanaging every possession.

Some would argue that Popavich doesn't really call them from the bench though, the Spurs are disciplined and know what to run on their own. And people might point out that their plays are setup to allow Parker and Ginobili to freelance. I'm sure that a few may note that if Popavich was one of the micromanagers he would've murdered Stephen Jackson instead of encouraging him to keep dribbling the ball off his foot and bombing three pointers randomly.

[BigKaboom2]

Watch the games.

WATCH THE GAMES??!?!?!? How dare you?

Are we talking about like Celtics/Lakers who tried to fast break at every opportunity?

In the half-court game they certainly ran quite a few plays. I don't think there were guys just randomly deciding to go set a down screen for somebody to flash up to the high post, etc. It's possible, but seems a little fantastical.

I'd say their "intuition" is overrated due to the fact that most people have seen the looooong highlight reels more often than or in place of actual games. You'd never know Bird ever turned it over or missed a shot going by the vast array of great plays he's known for, and a lot of them do make it look like they're just pulling stuff out of a hat (Bird no-look over the shoulder passes for example). But they hardly did this kind of stuff for 48 minutes at a time.

I'm sure that a few may note that if Popavich was one of the micromanagers he would've murdered Stephen Jackson instead of encouraging him to keep dribbling the ball off his foot and bombing three pointers randomly.

Are you one of those few?

[benji]

I didn't mean not running plays. I meant not having the coach call every play from the bench. The Lakers and Celtics, of course, were not running up and firing shots randomly like the Warriors, but Bird, Magic, etc. were calling "plays" by their own decision and through subtle signals. They were not stopping, and setting up a specific play waiting for everyone to set up properly.

Obviously, modern NBA players also do this, but they didn't come up through such freewheeling systems. Bird, Maravich, etc. had completely different college experiences than anyone coming out today because of this change in coaching.

It's clear by your desire to engage in a nature vs. nuture argument, that you are not a real fan. If you just watched the games, you'd realize. Plus, like Bill Walton, Tim Legler, and Steve "Snapper" Jones would totally agree with me, and they're NBA experts, while you've never even played in the NBA.