Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Should WBB lower the rims?

Should WBB lower the rims?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Kate Fagan has an excellent column on ESPN today on this topic: http://espn.go.com/espnw/voices/article/15090920/Fagan-why-lower-rims-women-basketball-flawed

The "lowering the rims" conversation has returned after Chicago Sky forward Elena Delle Donne told USA Today Sports that she's in favor of dropping the hoop height. The WNBA star pointed out that she's in good company: UConn coach Geno Auriemma introduced the idea during a 2012 interview.

"I think [lowering the rims] would bring a whole different aspect to the game and bring viewership as well and show the athleticism of our women," Delle Donne said. "When you look at other sports like volleyball, their net's lower. Golf, their tees are closer. It goes on and on. Tennis, they play [fewer] sets. Why not lower our rim and let every single player in the league play above the rim like the NBA can?"

Then Phoenix Mercury guard Monique Currie wrote on her personal blog: "When you watch a men's basketball game there is usually a dunk almost every other play and fans love it! They want to see players defy gravity. Fans want to see athletes do the impossible, do something that they most likely cannot do themselves and that is dunk the ball!"

..... then Fagan goes on to explain why there are some false assumptions on what fans want to see (Curry & Golden State's popularity has nothing to do with dunking), pragmatic issues (all those gymnasiums and playgrounds around the country couldn't even accommodate this), and the big reason -- it is a shortcut that lessens the sport and development of women's basketball.

******************************

Interesting and good arguments on both sides of this. Would it be a more entertaining sport with lower rims that would attract more fans? Would lowering the rims make sense by acknowledging - like volleyball has - that men are built taller and with more ups so stands to reason that the sport accommodates that? Or would lowering the rims just make women's basketball a poorer brand of men's basketball instead of a sport to appreciate for the very different thing it currently is?
 
Definitely a good counter-argument that it would be difficult to accommodate universally. It would likely also increase injuries. As a crappy player who plays basketball all the time, I can immediately tell when a hoop isn't 10', and it really messes with my jumpshot and my confidence in it, so I can only assume good players would have a transition period switching to a lower rim.

Those are the only negatives I see. It's a major part of the sport that the womens' game is missing out on. We always make new, better rules that completely change the game when we need to and this is one that I see completely benefitting the game.
 
I don't think the women's game is missing anything because most players can't dunk. Keep it the way it is. We are still adjusting to four quarters and no more 1 and 1's on the free throw line.
 
Just have them play Slamball if you're gonna mess with the rims. Lowering the rims would mean having to do so at the youth and high school levels. How many rec centers are going to modify and provide baskets to accommodate this change? It goes with the logistics Kate mentions and would discourage participation as it makes access to the game more difficult. The "improvements" to women's basketball need to be institutional, not to rules or equipment. Keep building interest in developing skills younger ages. More clinics for youth coaches to help them become better teachers and keep that interest going so there are more seasoned athletes getting recruited by the time they are in high school.
 
If so we should also lower HS bball rims. At least in small town schools like the one I went to, where touching the rim was considered a great feat.
 
All gyms that accommodate men/ladies/boys/girls would have to either have two sets of baskets or adjustable ones. It'd be a nightmare. 12 to 14 year old girls often are as tall as the same aged boys.
 
I defer my opinion to the consensus of the top 200 living leading scorers in the HS, NCAA, Olympic, and WNBA record books.
 
No. The men's should be raised. They originally put the net that high so people couldn't dunk. I like watching the women's game because it's closer to that original intent. That, and I have never been able to dunk either.
 
DBT said:
All gyms that accommodate men/ladies/boys/girls would have to either have two sets of baskets or adjustable ones. It'd be a nightmare. 12 to 14 year old girls often are as tall as the same aged boys.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is why it would never happen. Money would be the deciding factor here.

Discussion based, I am not sure it would make much of a difference. I am guessing most women still wouldn't be able to dunk it, from what I know. Not sure if shooting percentage would go up? Maybe, as they wouldn't have to use as much to get the ball up to 10 feet instead of 9, or whatever it goes to. Interesting to think about though.
 
patebuff said:
Yep. This is why it would never happen. Money would be the deciding factor here.

Discussion based, I am not sure it would make much of a difference. I am guessing most women still wouldn't be able to dunk it, from what I know. Not sure if shooting percentage would go up? Maybe, as they wouldn't have to use as much to get the ball up to 10 feet instead of 9, or whatever it goes to. Interesting to think about though.
Click to expand...
Except the women already frequently beat the men in the 3-pt contest :)
 
goalline said:
No. The men's should be raised. They originally put the net that high so people couldn't dunk. I like watching the women's game because it's closer to that original intent. That, and I have never been able to dunk either.
Click to expand...

...ummm...no????!! I have no idea where you get your revisionist history... ...

If you like the women's game better, that's completely fair - to each their own. However, I completely disagree with this false notion that it's closer to the original intent of the game.
 
goalline said:
No. The men's should be raised. They originally put the net that high so people couldn't dunk. I like watching the women's game because it's closer to that original intent. That, and I have never been able to dunk either.
Click to expand...

dyemeduke said:
...ummm...no????!! I have no idea where you get your revisionist history... ...

If you like the women's game better, that's completely fair - to each their own. However, I completely disagree with this false notion that it's closer to the original intent of the game.
Click to expand...

I assume that the basket is at 10 feet (not 9 or 11) because that was the height of the rails where Dr. Naismith was able to nail the peach baskets.
 
I don't find the women's game very entertaining and don't think my opinion would change much if the basket was set to a different height.
 
dyemeduke said:
...ummm...no????!! I have no idea where you get your revisionist history... ...

If you like the women's game better, that's completely fair - to each their own. However, I completely disagree with this false notion that it's closer to the original intent of the game.
Click to expand...

original rules state: "Goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the ground into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edge and the opponents move the basket, it shall count as a goal."

I think the bolded was very intentional.
http://www.kansasheritage.org/people/naismith.html
 
goalline said:
original rules state: "Goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the ground into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edge and the opponents move the basket, it shall count as a goal."

I think the bolded was very intentional.
http://www.kansasheritage.org/people/naismith.html
Click to expand...

And that in NO way says that the baskets were put at 10 feet to prevent dunking - how are you able to make that logical jump?

Buffnik above is correct - the 10 foot height was a completely arbitrary thing based on where Naismith was able to hang the peach baskets. It had NOTHING to do with dunking. Your argument has been made by other people claiming to be "purists" saying that dunking should not be allowed. Phog Allen didn't like dunking (or some quote of his not liking players throwing the ball in the basket), but his opinion, in spite of being a disciple of the inventor himself, does not retroactively make the games' intent different.

I'm not saying you're trying to do this, but it's always hit a sore spot with me when people have denigrated dunking due to how it's not part of the "true" or "pure" game. Bull****. The game evolved and dunking was never outlawed to begin with. This viewpoint that dunking is bad for the game is from some antiquated elitist viewpoint that, in my opinion, is biased towards the individuals' inability to dunk. I can agree that some players are too much in love with dunking to work on other aspects of the game, but dunking is not some rogue and dark aspect of the game.
 
When you play darts, do you stab them into the bulls-eye from directly in front of it? They're meant to be thrown. A dunk is very different than any other shot. I think the baskets were very intentionally put high enough that it required throwing the ball. The originally got a ladder out to retrieve the ball, since the basket didn't have a net. It wasn't positioned so someone could jump up and grab the ball back out, therefore I conclude no one could have dunked it in either. That said, I don't really consider myself a purist, it's just a different game with dunking.

It is fun to watch the guys that can jump from the top of the key and dunk without touching the floor in between. That's impressive athleticism. Obviously, the game has evolved (as all of the popular professional sports have) and I'm fine with it, but I don't see any great accomplishment in most dunks. It just means you're tall.
I'm pretty good at dunking donuts though.
 
Why change, we must be equal.

I have not watched womens basketball since shelly sheetz and the gang.

I don't watch the nba, wnba...blow it up and have coed.
 
goalline said:
When you play darts, do you stab them into the bulls-eye from directly in front of it? They're meant to be thrown. A dunk is very different than any other shot. I think the baskets were very intentionally put high enough that it required throwing the ball. The originally got a ladder out to retrieve the ball, since the basket didn't have a net. It wasn't positioned so someone could jump up and grab the ball back out, therefore I conclude no one could have dunked it in either. That said, I don't really consider myself a purist, it's just a different game with dunking.

It is fun to watch the guys that can jump from the top of the key and dunk without touching the floor in between. That's impressive athleticism. Obviously, the game has evolved (as all of the popular professional sports have) and I'm fine with it, but I don't see any great accomplishment in most dunks. It just means you're tall.
I'm pretty good at dunking donuts though.
Click to expand...

Yes, darts are meant to be thrown, but your analogy would then have every shot in basketball from a certain distance away. That was never the intent, as the game allowed for layups. Naismith and his first gym class likely weren't physically gifted enough to dunk, and Naismith had no idea that one day, kids like Vince Carter, Ronnie Fields, etc would come along. Just because he didn't think of it at the time he invented the game though, does not mean that it was excluded as part of the game's original intent. Again, NOT saying you're doing this (and I probably came off a lot stronger than I should have initially), but the "purists" out there that do hate dunking for that reason...eat ****.
 
goalline said:
No. The men's should be raised. They originally put the net that high so people couldn't dunk. I like watching the women's game because it's closer to that original intent. That, and I have never been able to dunk either.
Click to expand...

Agree. The only men's team I consistently watch is CU.
 
The error in this thinking is again trying to measure the women's game against the men's game.

You can lower the rims, raise the rims, make them bigger or smaller, the games are still going to be different. The women's game isn't about dunking the ball and flying through the air.

If you don't like the women's game with a 10 foot rim you aren't going to like it with a 9 foot rim.

Men and women play tennis on the same court with the same nets and balls, the game is different. Track and field uses the same tracks but don't compete against each other. Other than shortened tees men's and womens golf is basically the same rules but a different game.

Just appreciate each for what they are.
 
Buffnik said:
I assume that the basket is at 10 feet (not 9 or 11) because that was the height of the rails where Dr. Naismith was able to nail the peach baskets.
Click to expand...
The first major revision in Dr Naismith's design occurred when 7 foot, 260 lb Grizzly Dunkin reached above the peach basket and threw the ball downward into it, the ball breaking through the bottom of the basket. After a 25-minute timeout filled with video reviews and angry discussion, it was decided that a downward shot could be permitted. And as a bonus, the "ladder boy" was no longer required to retrieve the ball from the basket after each successful shot, thus increasing the pace of the game significantly as well as audience interest. Additionally, players of the game greatly preferred the fact that a high shot right into the center of the basket no longer was at risk of bouncing back out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top