Would college basketball be better if they banned the dunk?

[HuskyCLT]

And the "look at me" mentality? So what, young athletes want to be noticed for their cool and exciting plays? Of course they do, everyone wants recognition when their hard work pays off and they're able to do something cool. Not to mention, you should get used to it because everyone can watch clips of people doing cool dunks, Steph Curry making cool plays, people showing off their skill in all kinds of ways all over the internet now. It's a way to build a name for yourself; executives in basketball notice, basketball fans who could buy your jersey notice, and so do women. Boom.

 

[intlzncster]

Chicks dig a big throw down. Layups, while fine and dandy, get you nothing. /end thread

 

[Dogdeacon]

Its amazing that this discussion mostly devolved into a polarizing name-calling fest. It is a theoretical basketball question, not pending NCAA legislation you need to campaign against.

Because NDakotaHusky asked; The dunk was banned (after Alcindor's 1st yr on 'varsity') literally because Lew Alcindor was so good that IF he had been allowed to dunk in college UCLA would have won 3/3 championships with him MORE easily. There is almost no modern equivalent in the men's game unless we retroactively banned Christian Laettner for being a dick. I guess Breanna Stewart is on the verge of accomplishing dominance in the women's game, however I think it is more of a team thing than solely her dominance (Taurasi was probably more individually dominant, but I digress).

I like Devland's point about Bird and I think that's the best combo answer. Banning the dunk for all players would definitely make the game less fun and likely decrease scoring due to the missed bunnies like Mano said. That's the last thing the game needs right now. However, for any one individual with NBA aspirations it could be a skill-increasing move to not dunk and work on perfecting other moves around the basket. Brimah might not be the best example as a borderline NBA player, but if a very-skilled sure-fire NBA bound yet earth-bound (think Zach Randolph) college player decided not to dunk this could absolutely help that player better develop
Hard to do this though as you can't just play 90% and be effective at basketball, it requires full effort all the time. Still anyone who's played has likely tried shooting with their off-hand more in non-critical games, worked on driving to their weak side etc...

So I think conceptually it can be productive for an individual, but because it'd bring down entertainment and quality of play for 3,000 players to help maybe 6 of them at the NBA level it is nowhere near worth considering.

 

[mauconnfan]

Chicks dig a big throw down. Layups, while fine and dandy, get you nothing. /end thread

Yeah things have changes. Floppy hair and 6 straight jump shots from 22 get you nothing anymore. Game blows now!

 

[August_West]

How about banning Women's Basketball and other non-athletic sports such as NASCAR and baseball? Then there would be a lot more room on TV for real sports like NCAA football, NFL , NBA. NCAA men's basketball and some hunting shows sprinkled in. That would be a utopia.

Women's Basketball is a hobby, like Golf.

 

[mauconnfan]

Women's Basketball is a hobby, like Golf.

Nah golf is competitive for me. $$$$$$$$

 

[Onions]

Its amazing that this discussion mostly devolved into a polarizing name-calling fest. It is a theoretical basketball question, not pending NCAA legislation you need to campaign against.

Because NDakotaHusky asked; The dunk was banned (after Alcindor's 1st yr on 'varsity') literally because Lew Alcindor was so good that IF he had been allowed to dunk in college UCLA would have won 3/3 championships with him MORE easily. There is almost no modern equivalent in the men's game unless we retroactively banned Christian Laettner for being a dick. I guess Breanna Stewart is on the verge of accomplishing dominance in the women's game, however I think it is more of a team thing than solely her dominance (Taurasi was probably more individually dominant, but I digress).

I like Devland's point about Bird and I think that's the best combo answer. Banning the dunk for all players would definitely make the game less fun and likely decrease scoring due to the missed bunnies like Mano said. That's the last thing the game needs right now. However, for any one individual with NBA aspirations it could be a skill-increasing move to not dunk and work on perfecting other moves around the basket. Brimah might not be the best example as a borderline NBA player, but if a very-skilled sure-fire NBA bound yet earth-bound (think Zach Randolph) college player decided not to dunk this could absolutely help that player better develop
Hard to do this though as you can't just play 90% and be effective at basketball, it requires full effort all the time. Still anyone who's played has likely tried shooting with their off-hand more in non-critical games, worked on driving to their weak side etc...

So I think conceptually it can be productive for an individual, but because it'd bring down entertainment and quality of play for 3,000 players to help maybe 6 of them at the NBA level it is nowhere near worth considering.

Have you ever actually watched Zach Randolph play? He's incredibly skilled around the basket, most of his shots are not dunks. Could you have picked a worse example to make your point - I don't think so. Let talk about Jahlil Okafor - he has incredible low post moves and skills - if he can do it, then what does dunking have to do with player development?

 

[Dogdeacon]

Have you ever actually watched Zach Randolph play? He's incredibly skilled around the basket, most of his shots are not dunks. Could you have picked a worse example to make your point - I don't think so. Let talk about Jahlil Okafor - he has incredible low post moves and skills - if he can do it, then what does dunking have to do with player development?

That is exactly why I picked Zach Randolph !?

Is this him

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Its amazing that this discussion mostly devolved into a polarizing name-calling fest. It is a theoretical basketball question, not pending NCAA legislation you need to campaign against.

Because NDakotaHusky asked; The dunk was banned (after Alcindor's 1st yr on 'varsity') literally because Lew Alcindor was so good that IF he had been allowed to dunk in college UCLA would have won 3/3 championships with him MORE easily. There is almost no modern equivalent in the men's game unless we retroactively banned Christian Laettner for being a dick. I guess Breanna Stewart is on the verge of accomplishing dominance in the women's game, however I think it is more of a team thing than solely her dominance (Taurasi was probably more individually dominant, but I digress).

I like Devland's point about Bird and I think that's the best combo answer. Banning the dunk for all players would definitely make the game less fun and likely decrease scoring due to the missed bunnies like Mano said. That's the last thing the game needs right now. However, for any one individual with NBA aspirations it could be a skill-increasing move to not dunk and work on perfecting other moves around the basket. Brimah might not be the best example as a borderline NBA player, but if a very-skilled sure-fire NBA bound yet earth-bound (think Zach Randolph) college player decided not to dunk this could absolutely help that player better develop
Hard to do this though as you can't just play 90% and be effective at basketball, it requires full effort all the time. Still anyone who's played has likely tried shooting with their off-hand more in non-critical games, worked on driving to their weak side etc...

So I think conceptually it can be productive for an individual, but because it'd bring down entertainment and quality of play for 3,000 players to help maybe 6 of them at the NBA level it is nowhere near worth considering.

Banning the dunk didn't make Bird a better player in the paint. Being a basketball savant, a 15 inch vertical, and the foot speed of a 3 legged turtle all but eliminated his need to dunk a lot.

I think the growth in importance of the 3-point shot had a bigger impact on the development of great post players. Once upon a time, if you were taller than 6'9" you were going to play in the paint, either willing or by force. If Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, or Dirk had been born 15 - 25 years earlier some coach would have tied them to the block until the forgot about shooting. The growth of the 3-pointer and everyone wanting to shoot them hurt post development. If you shoot 10/20 in the paint you get 20 points. If you shoot 8/20 from Three you get 24 points. Less physical toll and more points while being less efficient. Why wouldn't you develop a long range shot instead of a good drop-step?

 

[Silk31]

Would this board be better off if this conversation was banned?...YES

 

[Dogdeacon]

Banning the dunk didn't make Bird a better player in the paint. Being a basketball savant, a 15 inch vertical, and the foot speed of a 3 legged turtle all but eliminated his need to dunk a lot.

I think the growth in importance of the 3-point shot had a bigger impact on the development of great post players. Once upon a time, if you were taller than 6'9" you were going to play in the paint, either willing or by force. If Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, or Dirk had been born 15 - 25 years earlier some coach would have tied them to the block until the forgot about shooting. The growth of the 3-pointer and everyone wanting to shoot them hurt post development. If you shoot 10/20 in the paint you get 20 points. If you shoot 8/20 from Three you get 24 points. Less physical toll and more points while being less efficient. Why wouldn't you develop a long range shot instead of a good drop-step?

Well maybe, we just don't truly know right?
We have essentially one player in the history of basketball for whom the banning of the dunk coincided with his development and it just happened to produce one of the 5 greatest players ever so it sounds compelling. But we'd really have to look at every big man that played in college from 1968-76 versus those that did immediately preceding and after and then their corresponding NBA careers. Did field goal percentage go up or down? Did these guys have longer careers b/c they knew how to play aerial and ground-bound games?

Millinium is absolutely right though that the 3-point shot encouraged more/better outside shooting and less post play. I would bet that BEFORE the 3 pointer EVERY basketball player spent much less time shooting from 19'+ versus the time spent practicing other shots. Now its probably 50%* (3's) - 50% (all other shots) on average for high school and college players practicing on their own and even higher for 3-pt specialists.

*#s recently spiked with Steph Curry's popularity & success

 

[intlzncster]

Well maybe, we just don't truly know right?
We have essentially one player in the history of basketball for whom the banning of the dunk coincided with his development and it just happened to produce one of the 5 greatest players ever so it sounds compelling. But we'd really have to look at every big man that played in college from 1968-76 versus those that did immediately preceding and after and then their corresponding NBA careers. Did field goal percentage go up or down? Did these guys have longer careers b/c they knew how to play aerial and ground-bound games?

Millinium is absolutely right though that the 3-point shot encouraged more/better outside shooting and less post play. I would bet that BEFORE the 3 pointer EVERY basketball player spent much less time shooting from 19'+ versus the time spent practicing other shots. Now its probably 50%* (3's) - 50% (all other shots) on average for high school and college players practicing on their own and even higher for 3-pt specialists.

*#s recently spiked with Steph Curry's popularity & success

To add to that, the numbers say that a 3pt shot attempt is a better bet to take than any long two. So it's either 5'-and-in (whatever it is) or from 3pt land.

 

[A10 fan]

To add to that, the numbers say that a 3pt shot attempt is a better bet to take than any long two. So it's either 5'-and-in (whatever it is) or from 3pt land.

You hit the nail on the head. The 15 footer used to be considered a great shot. It's a shot you should never take now. 33% from 3 is equal to 50% from 2. Good 3 point shooters will hit at least 40% from 3. That's the same as shooting 60% from 2, a percentage that will only be made inside of 5 feet. Layups, dunks, bunnies, and 3s is the way to go.

 

[Husky25]

Except that bird COULD dunk.

 

[c29328]

I thought the OP was asking about banning the drunks. I was getting pissed.

 

[Phorcys]

Dunks banned from the college game? Absolutely not.

But as a 5’9” middle-aged man who still prefers to consider himself a bit of a baller, I would like to see the practice banned on all municipal basketball courts in Los Angeles County.

The lack of such a ban has led to far too many embarrassing moments for me personally.