According to ESPN, NBA executives have actually considered adding a four-point line, flirting with giving fans something they never knew they wanted.

ESPN's Tom Haberstroh shared the news via Twitter on Tuesday:

However, NBA spokesman Tim Frank quickly dismissed the idea of serious four-point line discussions, per Bleacher Report's Howard Beck:

Haberstroh's report (subscription required) gives a bit more insight into the idea of the league adding a four-point line. It all starts with ESPN's Henry Abbott, who spoke recently with Rod Thorn, the NBA's president of basketball operations.

Here is what Haberstroh wrote about that conversation:

Turns out, Thorn didn't think the advent of a 4-pointer would be outlandish at all. Rather than reflexively squash the radical idea like you might expect from a 72-year-old NBA lifer who has worn just about every hat in the league, Thorn seemed genuinely intrigued at the notion and revealed that the 4-pointer has "come up" in league discussions.

Anyway more reason to stop following the nba

its just a dialog so there is not traction to it but imagine a few things:

1. It could bring the sharpshooter back to the game. Sort of "DH" specialist.
2. Brings excitement to blow outs. Teams down in the last few minutes can use this 4 pt. and cam make the game very interesting.
3. What if there was another line , 5 feet beyond the current 3pter and it can't be used until the last 3 min of a game?
4. I always liked the idea that teams should be rewarded for winning a quarter. While wins and losses are the most important perhaps go to a hockey like scoring where teams can be given points for the win, none for the loss but also pts for winning a quarter. Fans could be more engaged in the first half, and teams losing could still get pts for winning a quarter. It rewards consistency. Some teams are just awful but some are more competitive thru the game. It rewards those lessor teams and their fans for competitive play. Lets face it, a team that plays strong quarter by quarter but can't finish currently gets a Loss, as does a team that gets blown away. I think gambling outlets would like quarter by quarter bets. NFL ratings do huge because of gambling.

I think it would be fun if the knicks were down 18 pts with 2 min to go and instead of Melo going to the bench you bring in "Novak" and start bombing away. once in a while a team can get hot and steal a game! Maybe they just win the quarter and get some credit. Kind of like the 2 pt conversion in Football. Its an interesting strategy.

Just thoughts........

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:They laughed at the 3 pt years ago and the NBA adopted it. They laughed at the shot clock.........

its just a dialog so there is not traction to it but imagine a few things:

1. It could bring the sharpshooter back to the game. Sort of "DH" specialist.
2. Brings excitement to blow outs. Teams down in the last few minutes can use this 4 pt. and cam make the game very interesting.
3. What if there was another line , 5 feet beyond the current 3pter and it can't be used until the last 3 min of a game?
4. I always liked the idea that teams should be rewarded for winning a quarter. While wins and losses are the most important perhaps go to a hockey like scoring where teams can be given points for the win, none for the loss but also pts for winning a quarter. Fans could be more engaged in the first half, and teams losing could still get pts for winning a quarter. It rewards consistency. Some teams are just awful but some are more competitive thru the game. It rewards those lessor teams and their fans for competitive play. Lets face it, a team that plays strong quarter by quarter but can't finish currently gets a Loss, as does a team that gets blown away. I think gambling outlets would like quarter by quarter bets. NFL ratings do huge because of gambling.

I think it would be fun if the knicks were down 18 pts with 2 min to go and instead of Melo going to the bench you bring in "Novak" and start bombing away. once in a while a team can get hot and steal a game! Maybe they just win the quarter and get some credit. Kind of like the 2 pt conversion in Football. Its an interesting strategy.

Just thoughts........

A few things:

Nalod you're significantly older than me so correct me if I'm wrong, but before the 3pt line I believe guys were hitting outside shots at about that distance anyway, just having them count as 2-pt shots. The 3-pt line was not such an outlandish thing, as players can hit the shot at a consistent clip. If a 4-pt line is implemented, and is far enough to distinguish itself from the 3pt line, players will not be able to hit it at a good rate. I don't know about you but the idea of nba players chucking half courts in a blowout is not entertaining to me, it sounds more like a bad Harlem globetrotters performance than a professional basketball game. As for your idea of a 4pt line that "activates with 3 minutes left in the game", it's an interesting idea, but it's a little too gimmicky for my taste, it's very ABA-ish. It would also unnecessarily complicate statistics and I don't think it would have that large of an effect on the winners and losers of a game anyway.

"The 4-pt line is a gimmick" -Uncle Darrell, Uncle Drew's grandson

Good points and I would not argue them. Please understand Im not advocating them, I find some aspects interesting.
We do see guys hitting shots from 5 feet beyond the 3pt line too. Im think any strategy that advocates constant shooting from beyond there would fail, and I think it would not be used much. I like the game ending strategy.

Too ABA like? The 3pt shot was very "gimmicky" and laughed at, but it came with the merger and has been a big success. So has the cheerleaders! The Ball was laughed at but while the Red, white and blue has never resurfaced, the orange and white is used in the WNBA and over seasons because it shows up better on TV. Tradition will keep the NBA ball orange. I like to see the back spin on a jumpshot.

As players get bigger, faster, stronger I think the game has changed and if the game has evolved perhaps some things should be considered. Not saying they should be implemented but it brings out some good talking points. Thats all.

Nalod not suggesting these rules, just considering what it could do to the game.

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:a four-point line would necessitate making the court dimensions larger-- which is actually a great idea.

and then if they raised the basket a foot that would also be great.

Why make the rim higher? What good does that accomplish? It would cut down on dunks and alley-oops, the most exciting part of the game, and make a player like Tyson chandler completely useless.

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:a four-point line would necessitate making the court dimensions larger-- which is actually a great idea.

and then if they raised the basket a foot that would also be great.

Why make the rim higher? What good does that accomplish? It would cut down on dunks and alley-oops, the most exciting part of the game, and make a player like Tyson chandler completely useless.

I thought he was already completely useless

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:a four-point line would necessitate making the court dimensions larger-- which is actually a great idea.

and then if they raised the basket a foot that would also be great.

Why make the rim higher? What good does that accomplish? It would cut down on dunks and alley-oops, the most exciting part of the game, and make a player like Tyson chandler completely useless.

It would probably give added value to having a refined low post game but I think you're right that it would make the game boring.

raising the rim would still allow plenty of players the chance to dunk. the average height of nba players has to be close to the 6'6"-6'7" range.

but the benefits would be to forcibly raise the skill level in every aspect of the game that relates to passing, ballhandling, low post work as bonn mentioned, using glass, and especially the midrange game that often requires shooting off the dribble either on ones own or behind picks.

I think you truly underestimate the difficulty of dunking on an 11 ft rim especially in an in-game situation. It would kill basketball.

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:a four-point line would necessitate making the court dimensions larger-- which is actually a great idea.

and then if they raised the basket a foot that would also be great.

Why make the rim higher? What good does that accomplish? It would cut down on dunks and alley-oops, the most exciting part of the game, and make a player like Tyson chandler completely useless.

It would probably give added value to having a refined low post game but I think you're right that it would make the game boring.

raising the rim would still allow plenty of players the chance to dunk. the average height of nba players has to be close to the 6'6"-6'7" range.

but the benefits would be to forcibly raise the skill level in every aspect of the game that relates to passing, ballhandling, low post work as bonn mentioned, using glass, and especially the midrange game that often requires shooting off the dribble either on ones own or behind picks.

I think you truly underestimate the difficulty of dunking on an 11 ft room especially in an in-game situation. It would kill basketball.

Years ago I had thought the same thing - make the court bigger, make the box bigger, add a four point line, raise the basket a bit and make the hoop slightly larger.

I don't know there is a reason to fix something that isn't broken.

But, the players are so much bigger and faster than they used to be - there is very little movement - everyone is very cluttered- that maybe if you opened the court up like that, it would increase movement - reward mid range long range shooters, lessen the importance of having a Shaq type player.

But- again, its fixing a problem they don't really have - and in what universe are they going to take seating away to make the court larger?