Lowering the Basket

[DobbsRover2]

"When James Naismith invented the game, it was essentially to give track athletes a way to stay in shape while confined indoors during the harsh New England winters. However, the average height of those athletes was about 5'6" -- nowhere near the height (or reach, for that matter) of the athletes we have today. Obviously, Naismith those athletes of yesteryear were not thinking of dunking the ball." (Earl Monroe, former N.B.A. player).

Lowering the basket will turn WBB into the "slam dunk" circus as MBB. What I find most enjoyable about WBB is play-making.

There's a lot of things Naismith didn't envision about basketball back when it started, but please don't say we should also go back to the no-dribbling rules and the set shots of yore. I think most of the BB audience would disappear.

But I'm still pushing to go back to those fetching old UConn unis of 1902 when it was the women who wore the ties and they never lost.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Coach has a distinct resemblance to HuskyBill.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Coach has a distinct resemblance to HuskyBill.

You mean that HB also coaches undefeated teams? That's a very tall achievement.

 

[Sonny44]

Actually I do believe I read an article where DT said she prefers the men's ball. They use the same ball Internationally (USA Basketball - Olympics and such) and I assume (though I'm not sure) that since most European leagues play under FIBA rules, they also use the men's ball.

I think she said playing pickup with boys all those years growing up, she always played with the men's ball. I really see no reason why they couldn't use one size in NCAA and WNBA.


I was gonna say, but you beat me to it.

I see we've changed topics already.

Girl's hands are much smaller than men's, harder to control the ball, might result in sloppy play, more turnovers, etc., IMO.

You can't trust DT's opinion on this because she's like the best woman player that ever lived, or at least one of them. She wouldn't have a problem shooting a beach ball through the hoop.

 

[easttexastrash]

I hate shooting with the smaller ball. I find that it is much easier to control the slightly heavier ball. Have you ever tried to play shot with a volleyball? I liken it to that, although not to that extreme.

 

[easttexastrash]

The real reason BG didn't play in the Olympics: she can't dunk with the bigger basketball.

 

[Icebear]

The real reason BG didn't play in the Olympics: she can't dunk with the bigger basketball.

LOL. Love it. Obviously, you're offering humor since BG can easily complete the two-handed dunk.

 

[easttexastrash]

If the basket is lowered for play in the US and not the rest if the world think of the impact on our shooting in international play. We would be adjusting to a larger ball AND a higher rim.

 

[cohenzone]

I think the shot blocking would escalate like crazy. It would be harder to arc the ball over a tall player to a lower rim. And the bigger kids would be dunking pretty often. Bad idea.

 

[UConnChapette]

I say lower it to about 5 feet and make them shoot from the bottom up. Give the little guards a chance to block the tall center's shots as they bend down to make a shot.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I think the shot blocking would escalate like crazy. It would be harder to arc the ball over a tall player to a lower rim. And the bigger kids would be dunking pretty often. Bad idea.

Not sure that makes any sense in terms of trigonometry and physics. So you're saying that if the basket was up at 15 feet it would be easier to arc the ball over a tall player than at its current height? The player's ability to judge the proper arc will lessen the further above the player's shot release height the rim is, and that height is generally anywhere from 6.5 to 9.5 feet, but the ball must still go upward over fingertips that are mostly below the 9.5 feet. There will be a slight adjustment to the arc from 10 to 9.5 feet, but that is not made any more difficult by a tall player. If the shooter makes a kind of line drive flick shot near the rim, it's possible that a close defender could block it, but that is the case now and it is always just a matter of a player learning to put the proper arc on the shot, which would be a negligible difference for 9.5 feet.

Now if you're saying that a Griner sized player could extend up over 9.5 feet and impede a two foot jumper, that is true, but it also happens now and a rim at 9.5 feet she will get more goal tending calls, which may crimp her style a bit.

And it will not necessarily be the tall players that will dunk some. It will be coordinated players who can jump, and they may just be 6 feet tall.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I confess, I wouldn't go back to men's BB...I'd stick with soccer...

 

[Sonny44]

I hate shooting with the smaller ball. I find that it is much easier to control the slightly heavier ball. Have you ever tried to play shot with a volleyball? I liken it to that, although not to that extreme.

I don't know what "playing shot" is.
I know I couldn't throw a slider or a cutter with a softball.
You probably have bigger hands than most teenage girls.

 

[cohenzone]

Not sure that makes any sense in terms of trigonometry and physics. So you're saying that if the basket was up at 15 feet it would be easier to arc the ball over a tall player than at its current height? The player's ability to judge the proper arc will lessen the further above the player's shot release height the rim is, and that height is generally anywhere from 6.5 to 9.5 feet, but the ball must still go upward over fingertips that are mostly below the 9.5 feet. There will be a slight adjustment to the arc from 10 to 9.5 feet, but that is not made any more difficult by a tall player. If the shooter makes a kind of line drive flick shot near the rim, it's possible that a close defender could block it, but that is the case now and it is always just a matter of a player learning to put the proper arc on the shot, which would be a negligible difference for 9.5 feet.

Now if you're saying that a Griner sized player could extend up over 9.5 feet and impede a two foot jumper, that is true, but it also happens now and a rim at 9.5 feet she will get more goal tending calls, which may crimp her style a bit.

And it will not necessarily be the tall players that will dunk some. It will be coordinated players who can jump, and they may just be 6 feet tall.

I'd wager that if players generally had to hit a 9.5 basket, the arc would tend to be lower and easier for even the less tall players with jumping ability to block. The higher the arc, normally less accurate at some point. Very few players put that big an arc on the ball. I think players like Stewart would have a field day blocking shots on a 9'6" hoop and the awful women's refs would be screwing up goal tending calls all over the place to add to their repertoire of bad calls. Maybe with time players would adjust the arc to compensate for the need to get the ball over the better leaping/taller player .

Obviously somewhat shorter players will be able to dunk on a 6 inch lower basket. But when you consider that most of the taller and athletic players either can't or just don't dunk very often, I'm not so sure you'd be seeing a lot of over the rim play by six footers. Dunking requires fairly big hands and not many women can elevate to do a 2 handed dunk.

If you're shooting at a target 12 feet off the floor, the need to elevate the shot just to reach the basket will put the ball beyond the reach of just about any defending woman on the planet and most men as well unless they are right on top of you or you are very close to the hoop, but the shooting percentages would likely drop.

I also think that if the men's game ever raised the rim, the big men might dominate even more. I think outside shooting would be less accurate. You'd never see a six footer dunk and even the regular lay up would not be so automatic.

That being said, however, one of my UConn days memories relates to a classmate of mine and maybe the best pure shooter in school history, Wes Bialosuknia. Not sure if they still have this, but there was a big charity fund raising week that included various games of skill at a midway in the old Fieldhouse. This one year they had a female student sitting above a pool on a dunking stool under an 11 foot basket. You had 3 chances to make 2 foul shots in which case the girl would be drenched. Nobody could do it during the several minutes I was watching. Then Wes shows up, one of the best FF shooters in college ball. Calmly swishes the first two and into the drink for the girl. He adjusted pretty well.

 

[meyers7]

I confess, I wouldn't go back to men's BB...I'd stick with soccer...

Very, very good choice.

 

[meyers7]

Not sure that makes any sense in terms of trigonometry and physics.

Well if you are going to bring trig and physics into the conversation.........

You know we don't do well with facts and figures here. We are much better at speculation and pontificating.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'd wager that if players generally had to hit a 9.5 basket, the arc would tend to be lower and easier for even the less tall players with jumping ability to block.

In the short term, changing the height of the basket might lead to shooting being a bit off, but players would rapidly adjust for the many different complex factors involving long shots, layups, little and medium sized jumpers, and maybe a few dunks. Just saying that putting a minute more arc on the ball to compensate should not effect shooting much, but the chance for goal-tending calls would greatly increase if defenders didn't adjust, though they would. Can you imagine if the hoop was at 7 feet? Nearly every shot would be a likely goal tending call.

And meyers, I'll be posting the same trig final up later that you barely passed back in 8th grade, and this time after all the years to bone up, I really expect that you will do better than a 66.

 

[cohenzone]

Well if you are going to bring trig and physics into the conversation.........

You know we don't do well with facts and figures here. We are much better at speculation and pontificating.

What the heck are facts and figures?

 

[meyers7]

What the heck are facts and figures?

Well I guess we do talk a bit about "figures" on here on occasion - see the thread on the ESPN Body issue.

 

[meyers7]

And meyers, I'll be posting the same trig final up later that you barely passed back in 8th grade, and this time after all the years to bone up, I really expect that you will do better than a 66.

8th grade? I ain't that smart. IIRC (and no guarantee of that) I think I took Algebra in 9th, Geometry in 10th, Advanced Algebra (Algebra II) and Trig in 11th. Not sure what I took in 12th??? Maybe Advanced Geometry (whatever that was). I didn't take Calculus until college. Should have just skipped that (or maybe I should have studied more in HS).

Although I do on occasion (not as much as I used to) use Trig functions in my job.

 

[rocky rococo]

All of this to accomplish what? To try to appeal to "sports bar" guys that wouldn't watch women's sports if you paid them to? It would just give them one more excuses than they already have to ridicule women's hoops. (BTW, I guarantee that 98% of those guys are completely clueless as to hurdles and their heights, either men's or women's. )

 

[DobbsRover2]

All of this to accomplish what? To try to appeal to "sports bar" guys that wouldn't watch women's sports if you paid them to? It would just give them one more excuses than they already have to ridicule women's hoops. (BTW, I guarantee that 98% of those guys are completely clueless as to hurdles and their heights, either men's or women's. )

Uh, uh, uh, you're referring to Kibs, who thanks to his devoted fellow BY friends now knows the real truth about that exciting hurdles topic. Those of us who have to go around the track lowering the hurdles between guys and girls races are painfully aware of the difference.

There is a vast male audience of viewers out there and I refuse to believe that they are mostly all so trogged out that they can't be pulled in by ESPN Body issue types playing with some of the more exciting tools that the men have while still playing a more fundamental and team-oriented game. Hell, I was one of those naysaying codgers sitting on a bar stool back in 1995 saying that these women can't play for beans until I saw Jen Rizzotti break away and throw down a ferocious two-handed dunk against UTenn. Or maybe my memory's going a bit.

 

[meyers7]

Uh, uh, uh, you're referring to Kibs, who thanks to his devoted fellow BY friends now knows the real truth about that exciting hurdles topic. Those of us who have to go around the track lowering the hurdles between guys and girls races are painfully aware of the difference.

I never had to do that, but while at my son's track meets, I saw them going around doing that. I thought, "well that certainly sucks". Especially when they would switch all 6/8 lanes and then 3 girls would run.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I never had to do that, but while at my son's track meets, I saw them going around doing that. I thought, "well that certainly sucks". Especially when they would switch all 6/8 lanes and then 3 girls would run.

You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?

 

[Icebear]

Well if you are going to bring trig and physics into the conversation.........

You know we don't do well with facts and figures here. We are much better at speculation and pontificating.

Pontificating is only allowed in the Pope thread.