11-Foot Rims

[tornado]

Here is the question, should basketball consider moving the height of the rims to 11 feet.

The premise is that the big guys control and dominate the game so much that moving the rims up a foot would help the smaller players, and negate the effect of guys who can do much but DUNK (can you say SHAQ).

So, there is going to be an exhibition game this Saturday at the University of Washington, using players from the NBDL to see how the 11 foot rims affect the game.
The promoter, Tom Newell, thinks it will greatly benefit the the little guys and take away a lot of the big guys' advantages.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2003747066_elevenfoot14.html

BUT--- there are those who disagree.............as this entire thing has been tried before. They've played games on 11 foot rims and to the surprise of most of these guys, it turned out NOT to help the little guy at all.
Of course things could be different if the did this a lot and everyone got used to the really high rims, but in other exhibition games on 11-foot rims, it turns out that the BIG GUYS had just as much or even MORE advantage.

Why?? Because there are a whole LOT more missed shots and they come down under the rim where the big guys get them all and they are already so much closer to the 11-foot rim that they are the only ones who can consistent get a decent, close-in shot to be able to score on the 11-foot rims.

In the end, in other 11-foot exhibition games, the big guys dominated just as much, maybe more.

[Da Coach]

Here are the final statistics for 2006-2007. The overwhelming majority of players who appear are not centers. They are the perimeter players.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/stats/bycategory?cat=Fielding&conference_id=NCAAB&sort=25

[tornado]

Here is an interesting response.......

Of course everyone says this was the worst year in the NBA, scoring is down, one of this year's playoff games was the 2nd lowest scoring one ever, and games are downright boring.
Some of the top offensive stars....guys like Dwayne Wade, Shaq, etc...had injuries and bad years.

So at the very time we need SOMETHING to help increase the offense and increase the scoring....they come up with this silly idea that will make it even harder for just about everyone to score.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/turn2/ci_6157761

http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=318247e7-1dcb-43e5-b7d2-f146f4f6af74&k=44390

[bert notorius]

Dumb idea. Period. Guys who have a 42" vertical would still dunk, only the re-entry would be a foot greater. Just picture Livingston's knee in your mind's eye, over and over.

[MacabreMob]

Dumb idea. Period. Guys who have a 42" vertical would still dunk, only the re-entry would be a foot greater. Just picture Livingston's knee in your mind's eye, over and over.

I didn't watch it (wasn't interested in seeing it actually).

But I have a question (and maybe I am just confused)... A guy with a 42" vertical falls harder after dunking a ball through an 11' rim than a guy with a 42" vertical dunking a ball through a 10' rim?

[bert notorius]

The short answer, yes.

[tornado]

Mac....yes...any fall from 11 ft., generates more impact that a fall from 10 ft.

[dogsrus]

Mac....yes...any fall from 11 ft., generates more impact that a fall from 10 ft.

But the player isn't falling from 10 OR 11 feet. He's falling from the extent of his vertical. IOW how far his feet are off the ground.

I think everyone is making the assumption the player would have to jump higher to dunk at 11 feet vs 10 feet. Thats not necessarily the case. I can stand flat footed and reach various heights with my arm length/extention. So a player with a 42 inch vertical can dunk a ball jumping 42" at a variety of heights.

IF as MM stated the player has a 42 inch vertical he's only "falling" 42" no matter if he's dunking at 8', 9' 10', 10.5', 11' etc.

[bert notorius]

Just because someone can jump 42" doesn't mean he's going to. It is unnecessary most times. If the hoop is higher, suddenly it becomes necessary. If you have ever watched the slow mo's of these remarkable players you can catch their eyes searching for a safe place to land. A foot difference may not sound like much, but it is. Plus, I'm not sure Shaq could even dunk an 11'-0" rim. What fun would that be?

[dogsrus]

Just because someone can jump 42" doesn't mean he's going to. It is unnecessary most times. If the hoop is higher, suddenly it becomes necessary. If you have ever watched the slow mo's of these remarkable players you can catch their eyes searching for a safe place to land. A foot difference may not sound like much, but it is. Plus, I'm not sure Shaq could even dunk an 11'-0" rim. What fun would that be?

True Bert .....and I doubt the full vertical a player has is used much at all. But as the question reads it assumed a player is falling 11 feet vs 10 feet. Thats not the case. A player can dunk at 10 or 11 feet with a 42" jump. The difference will be in the extention of the arm. The fall is the same in either case.

Lets say Bert has a 2 foot arm extention...

Bert could stand a foot away from Ernie and hit him or two feet away and hit him the difference would be a bent Bert arm verse a fully extended Bert arm.

[tornado]

dogs.....lets say I go down to March Madness, and they have all those different baskets set up for hacks like me to do some dunking.
They have one at 7' and they have one at 8'

Even though I am out of shape, I can still get up and dunk on both of them.
But when I dunk on the 7' basket, it is easy and it doesn't hurt my knees.
Then when I dunk on the 8' basket, I obviously have to jump a little higher and I notice when I come down harder, it hurts my knees more.
That's because of simple physics. I am coming down from a greater height and there is more impact.

The assumption you are making, dogs, is that even when a guy dunks on a 10' basket, he is still jumping 11'-same height he'd have jumped if the rim was 11'.
But I believe that if they raise the rims to 11', then the players will jump higher in order to get up to that height, and so they will be coming down harder.

The only guys who would ever need their full 42" vertical to dunk on the 10-footer would be the Spud Webbs of the world and they won't even be attempting a dunk on the 11 footer.

[tornado]

..... it turned out NOT to help the little guy at all.
... the BIG GUYS had just as much or even MORE advantage.

Why?? Because there are a whole LOT more missed shots and they come down under the rim where the big guys get them all and they are already so much closer to the 11-foot rim that they are the only ones who can consistent get a decent, close-in shot to be able to score on the 11-foot rims.

In the end, in other 11-foot exhibition games, the big guys dominated just as much, maybe more.

So how did it turn out?

Here is a story on the game with the 11 ft rims...
and it turned out exactly as I would have predicted, with the biggest guys dominating as if they were Shaq against a bunch of middle schoolers.

Guess what....the only really big guy, a 6-11 NBDL player named Braydon Billbe, scored 20 points and had 14 rebounds, and dominated the paint for the winning team in this 90-60 blowout.
The leading scorer on the losing team was also their big guy, 6-8 Brandon Burmeister.
and the higher rims didn't "open up the passing lanes and force players to create better shots".
In fact, they took just as many 3-pointers as in most games, and nobody but the big men scored very much.

What seems to tell me, is that the big guys will dominate even more if they raise the rims to 11.
Remember, if they do it in the NBA, they'll have to do it in college and eventually high school, then the big guys dominate everywhere.

Then the obvious....if the mens rims go to 11 ft, then the womens rims will have to go up also, or every gym in America is obsolete since the vast majority cannot adjust back and forth from 10 to 11.

The women already have a really tough time scoring, and if they raise the rims to 11 ft, there will only be a few women over 6-7 that will score.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2003751219_eleven17.html

[Da Coach]

Do you think that maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that the outside shooters were at a severe disdvantage having not had much time to practice shooting at the 11 foot rim. Layups and short shots would have been just as easy as with a 10 foot rim, but longer shots would take years to perfect. I am sorry, but 1 game, involving players I have never heard of, proves nothing.

[tornado]

likely 50 games wouldn't show everyone, but it did show that if the purpose is to negate the size and althelticism,
and to encourage team play, outside shooting, etc...then one thing for sure...this game DID NOT show any such thing.

I predict if they do it again, then the same thing will occur...no matter how clumsy and unskilled, the bigger, taller players will dominate.