Which 3-point line change would you prefer?

I never really liked watching Dame pulling up from the logo. Felt this had nothing to do with scoring 3 points and more to do with showing off. Truly a poor basketball play. So for me, moving back the line will only encourage this ball-chucking ugly basketball! Too late to remove the 3-point shot entirely however. So having it available during the last 5 minutes of each quarter and not available in overtime period OR, have the 3-point shot available during the first 5 minutes of each quarter including the first 5-minute overtime period and not available during extended overtime periods. I would like to watch several games with each of the above options and determine what dynamics are resulting before selecting which way to go. My early opinion is that if the “last five minutes” of each quarter was chosen, there would be more “comeback” opportunities for teams that fall way behind. Nevertheless I would like to see several games using the “first five minutes of each quarter” option.

 

If you’re going to have a 5 point shot I’d make it where the new 4 point shot is for the opposing team and make the 4 point shot the half court line. I would think you’d really want that 5 point shot to be something rare and special. If you make it the half court line players will just be chucking it up.

 

you don't like tanking so maybe you're seeing it as a bogey-man in a lot of corners

the reality is there has always been tanking and there have always been bad teams...every year

last season, 7 teams won 30 or fewer games; in the 2019-20 season; 10 teams won 30 or fewer. In 2012-13, 8 teams won less than 30 games. In 2007-08, it was 7 teams again; in 2001-02 it was 7 teams. In 1995-96, it was 8 teams winning 30 or fewer. In 1988-89, again, 7 teams won 30 or fewer games but there were only 25 teams in the league!

so no, I don't believe tanking/bad-teams have anything to do with depressed attendance and viewership numbers. This season, 42% of all shots taken are three's; yeah, that's right, 42%. Ten years ago it was 27%. Fifteen years ago it was 21%. Twenty years ago it was 19%

the NBA used to be a home for dominant, physical, big men playing dominant, physical basketball; Wilt/Russell/Thurmond....Jabbar/Walton/Moses/Gilmore/Parish....Hakeem/Robinson/Shaq/Ewing. The NBA used to be a home for both big men and elite perimeter players like Jordan/Bird/Magic. Fans liked to see that variety in the games. But physical, dominant big men have been turned into anachronisms by the rule changes and the 3 point line. It's turned into cookie-cutter offenses where passing around the edges & chucking up three's has more value than passing inside & dominating the paint. It's fucking boring

 

I get that but honestly it isn't. Why did you start a "Which 3 point line change" thread in the first place?
You started it because a prominent NBA player commented about the game losing it's robust following. He happened to mention the 3 point part of the game.

Whether you want to admit it or not the reasons for the decline of the game, as it has been mentioned many times here on your thread include the 3 point shot. I personally feel those issues are very relevant.
I could have very well continued with the "Large Market" issues as those teams never seem to have to tank nearly as long and usually no more than 2 years where the Blazers most likely will have to go no less than 5 and probably 10. Please don't bring up San Antonio. Everyone here knows that is not a small market team that in any way compares to Portland.

Yeah? Tell me exactly how long the Lakers, Celtics, New York, Chicago will be tanking or have tanked? Now compare that to the Blazers and Kings, Hornets (How come they are bad again?) Jazz.
There are more teams to bring into this conversation but currently they actually have decent teams. Now the question is how long will they be able to keep them? Will Stephen A get his rally cry to get Alexander out of OKC when he again doesn't win a ring? Or is it going to be Mitchell out of Cleveland?

You thinking "Tanking" is the same for every team in the league and has been that way forever is rich.

 

WUT?...that makes no sense

the conversation, at least my part of it, was about declining interest for the NBA in general, mainly gauged by TV ratings. Blaming tanking as a primary reason is a red herring because tanking has always been a factor, and there have always been really bad teams. Sure, the attendance and viewership for a specific team, like the Blazers, will lag when that team sucks. But other improving & better teams make up for it.

I'm watching a lot less Blazer basketball this season, and I know I'm not alone, and it's not because of tanking, it's because of tanking while featuring the 3 veterans that most people don't want to watch anymore and believe should have been traded before the season started. The roster doesn't make sense and a decade of fence-straddling torpedoes fan enthusiasm

as for the NBA in general, it's not just the heavy reliance on 3 point FG's, but it's certainly a focus of a lot of people including lots of people connected to the NBA. It's the subject of this thread too. But sure, there are other factors. Way too many stars are taking way too many games off; 'rest games' is a new normal. There has also been an expansion in the media options for other sports like the NFL and college football to compete for viewership Now, it's probably a case where just about anything you point to can have some 'correlation-without-causation' issues. But the bad-team/tanking-team ratios have remained pretty constant over the last 20-30 years so trying to draw a correlation isn't credible

 

Sure.