Posted on 03/29/2005 6:29:59 AM PST by RayChuang88
Was this past weekend of NCAA Tournament basketball a supreme athletic treat? Yes.
Are we possibly watching the greatest NCAA Tournament ever? Yes, that is entirely possible.
Why, then, am I not 100 percent ecstatic about what's been going on? After all, I have been infatuated with the NCAA Tournament since I was about 8 years old, and I just said I believe we may be watching the most competitive and most riveting tournament we've ever known.
Start with this: You know the great deliberation in the Michigan State-Kentucky game over whether the shot Kentucky's Patrick Sparks made at the end of regulation was a three or a two? It's a question that never should have been asked. In a better college basketball world, the game should have been over. It should have been a 2-point shot, and that's that.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
If they get rid of the three, why not get rid of the dunk as well? Isn't it a little too easy to score those 2 points by simply forcing the ball directly through the basket? It's not even taking a shot.
I like the three. It extends defenses and adds strategic depth to the game, making it much more dynamic. Why shouldn't there be an advantage to long-range accuracy? Why is it any less worthy a skill than any other? It prevents defenses from packing the box and making every game a contest of strength inside.
Read the article.
Spot on.
No steroid scandal?
I have never liked the three but as the author states, it ain't going away.
Why not draw some more circles on the court and have a four pointer and five and six..... and anybody who throws the ball from within ten feet of the opposite end of the court should be worth about ten points if it goes in.
My dad always said the goal should be raised to 11 feet and do away with the 3-point shot. An 11-foot goal would separate the men from the boys with regard to dunking, but I think the 3-pointer is a good aspect to the game, preventing teams from just packing their rosters with 7 foot tall posts from Croatia. And for that matter, why not make any shot from behind half-court a 4-pointer? That would make last-second games a lot more exciting. I'm just speculating, though.
Plus it gives most of the white guys something to do.
Yeah when I watch basketball with my friends our favorite expression for these 3-point shooters is "white man from deep!"
I'd like to see a rule stating a player must have at least one foot on the court in bounds in order to call a time out.
I would like to have a team have the option to take the ball out instead of shooting free throws. It would make the games much quicker. And why should a team be rewarded for fouling anyway, which is essentially what happens now.
I'll propose just one simple change -- if the player's foot is "in the paint", then it's a 1 point shot.
I've almost completely lost interest in the pro game, too many Shaq/Yao/Duncan type 7 footers, not enough ball movement or 'strategy'.
Huh? Oh...This thread isn't about deer hunting, is it.
Yeah, I don't like the timeout used to bail someone out. They have no hope of keeping the ball, yet they are able to call a timeout. It would be more interesting if they did the same with the inbounds pass. Once you start to put the ball inbounds, you should not be able to call a timeout just to avoid a 5 second violation. That would make the game a bit more interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.