4 on 4, one more time
4 on 4, one more time
Folks seem to like stars, space, scoring, cleaner visuals. 4 on 4 would aid them all and maybe TV ratings. Possibly reduce injuries too from less bodies in motion, colliding. I'd try it with WNBA, NBA or at least G league or a true juniors league. High grade the players further and / or expand league.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
Player happiness? How about increased on average opportunities for those who play? 4 on 4 would do that. 5 on 5 was spur of moment decision more than a century ago. Nothing sacred or perfect. For all the issues about space, that should be pretty obvious. Player size, abilities and playing style are far different than originally found.
More teams could be good or bad depending on quality of the owners. The current quality is not so high as to make noticeable deterioration that likely imo. The league size is more about enforced scarcity and greed than anything else.
More teams could be good or bad depending on quality of the owners. The current quality is not so high as to make noticeable deterioration that likely imo. The league size is more about enforced scarcity and greed than anything else.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
If Ice Cube, etc. buy Fox regional sports networks, the Big 3 could move from minor footnote to bigger prospect. If they do, they might want to consider going to 4 on 4 to be seen as more "normal", "legit", entertaining.
Even if Ice Cube doesn't buy them all or any of them (others are more likely), maybe the new owners are receptive to some form of other basketball offering, perhaps at an elevated level. Or maybe he gets shut out (used to be on Fox regional networks I'm told) and the Big3 stays minor or eventually closes.
I wonder how much the NBA has thought about competition recently. Maybe the threat leads to NBA expansion or more or quicker.
Even if Ice Cube doesn't buy them all or any of them (others are more likely), maybe the new owners are receptive to some form of other basketball offering, perhaps at an elevated level. Or maybe he gets shut out (used to be on Fox regional networks I'm told) and the Big3 stays minor or eventually closes.
I wonder how much the NBA has thought about competition recently. Maybe the threat leads to NBA expansion or more or quicker.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
I played a lot on a small neighborhood court where 4 on 4 was the norm. 5 on 5 was impossible, and 3-3 was also cool. More like half court, but with a basket at either end.
On a full size court 4 on 4 is a workout. But there is a premium on speed, since a 4-3 fast break is significantly more advantageous than 5-4. You find yourself running more and resting less.
In such a league, we'd expect lots of substitutions to keep up the energy. Fewer big men, fewer going 30+ mpg, more getting 10-15 or 20-man rosters.
Pretty sure the number 5 was arrived at after some years of experimentation, as was the size of the court.
On a full size court 4 on 4 is a workout. But there is a premium on speed, since a 4-3 fast break is significantly more advantageous than 5-4. You find yourself running more and resting less.
In such a league, we'd expect lots of substitutions to keep up the energy. Fewer big men, fewer going 30+ mpg, more getting 10-15 or 20-man rosters.
Pretty sure the number 5 was arrived at after some years of experimentation, as was the size of the court.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
Apparently the very earliest games were 9 on 9 with no dribbling. (I also heard of 10-10 for women with half the players staying on each half of the court, perhaps to eliminate running.) The standard became 5 on 5 fairly quickly (within 4 years) but Wikipedia indicates it was initially a convenience move for splitting a football team in two and giving them something to do when they couldn't be outside. With dribbling, dribbling skill and speed, you certainly didnt need 9 and I don't five is essential either.
Full court is a workout with any number unless folks take turns not getting back with effort. 5 on 5 full and 3 on 3 half court are the traditional options. 4 on 4 would take different thinking; but after a bit I think it could be a new normal. One in, 3 out would fit with the way the game is played. Looking backwards, not that much justification for the 5th guy beyond prime rebounder. A scramble for the rebound sounds fine, exciting to me.
3 on 3 makes sense for a senior league but I am not sure it will have staying power or grow. 4 on 4 would be good for a youthful, running, flashy B league, for a more star oriented WNBA or a top-tier modern men's game.
There is a lot of standing around doing almost nothing of value or interest in 5 on 5. 3 on 3 eliminates more of that than 4 on 4 but off the ball action can be an interesting part of the ballet. If you cling to 5 on 5 it has to be about the off ball action. So the question is how much? 4 on 4 seems like the better amount to me. But it isn't likely to sway traditionalists. I am for 4 on 4 in the abstract and for practical reasons. I'd like to see league expansion. I'd prefer to watch the best players in less crowded conditions. It would likely increase creative drives and dunks. 3 point game is increasingly boring to me. This might bring better balance back. 4 out, 1 in (for passing back out) and more and more 3s and more step back 27 footers? No thanks.
Move the 3 pt line back to 27 ft? That would be less radical than 4 on 4. I'd accept that. Doing both might be good. Lots of space... for different kinds of skill.
Full court is a workout with any number unless folks take turns not getting back with effort. 5 on 5 full and 3 on 3 half court are the traditional options. 4 on 4 would take different thinking; but after a bit I think it could be a new normal. One in, 3 out would fit with the way the game is played. Looking backwards, not that much justification for the 5th guy beyond prime rebounder. A scramble for the rebound sounds fine, exciting to me.
3 on 3 makes sense for a senior league but I am not sure it will have staying power or grow. 4 on 4 would be good for a youthful, running, flashy B league, for a more star oriented WNBA or a top-tier modern men's game.
There is a lot of standing around doing almost nothing of value or interest in 5 on 5. 3 on 3 eliminates more of that than 4 on 4 but off the ball action can be an interesting part of the ballet. If you cling to 5 on 5 it has to be about the off ball action. So the question is how much? 4 on 4 seems like the better amount to me. But it isn't likely to sway traditionalists. I am for 4 on 4 in the abstract and for practical reasons. I'd like to see league expansion. I'd prefer to watch the best players in less crowded conditions. It would likely increase creative drives and dunks. 3 point game is increasingly boring to me. This might bring better balance back. 4 out, 1 in (for passing back out) and more and more 3s and more step back 27 footers? No thanks.
Move the 3 pt line back to 27 ft? That would be less radical than 4 on 4. I'd accept that. Doing both might be good. Lots of space... for different kinds of skill.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
Apparently David West is involved with an effort to launch a new, age restricted B-league. (With the name of Historical Basketball League?)
Hey guys, consider 4 on 4. Especially for this, where you are trying to develop players faster, further than via the existing channels.
Hey guys, consider 4 on 4. Especially for this, where you are trying to develop players faster, further than via the existing channels.
Re: 4 on 4, one more time
Another way to change the NBA significantly would be to go to two seasons per year.
Instead of a mid-season tournament, which Adam Silver seems intrigued by but I'd consider a waste of time, why not have 2 seasons and 2 sets of playoffs? And perhaps 2 sets of contracts, free agency and trade deadlines. Double the chances to win, double the strategic drama. With 2 sets of playoffs you probably could cut regular season games some. Seasons could be same length or modestly different as TV and competitive considerations suggest. Have a long between season rest, perhaps during football playoffs. Maybe spread seasons over more months.
Less back to backs. Less early in week games. Less season ticket holder fatigue. Tanking might be less drawn out, noticeable. Could get rid of the bloated, not very interesting All-Star weekend. Twice the chances to adjust, twice the chances to be new and interesting, twice the chances to "go for it". More playoff showdowns, more champions, more repeats. What's not to like? Tradition violation?
Instead of a mid-season tournament, which Adam Silver seems intrigued by but I'd consider a waste of time, why not have 2 seasons and 2 sets of playoffs? And perhaps 2 sets of contracts, free agency and trade deadlines. Double the chances to win, double the strategic drama. With 2 sets of playoffs you probably could cut regular season games some. Seasons could be same length or modestly different as TV and competitive considerations suggest. Have a long between season rest, perhaps during football playoffs. Maybe spread seasons over more months.
Less back to backs. Less early in week games. Less season ticket holder fatigue. Tanking might be less drawn out, noticeable. Could get rid of the bloated, not very interesting All-Star weekend. Twice the chances to adjust, twice the chances to be new and interesting, twice the chances to "go for it". More playoff showdowns, more champions, more repeats. What's not to like? Tradition violation?