markvmc wrote:But unlike you, I don't think there's anything to address here, so I don't think anything needs to be addressed prior to a hypothetical emergency situation (i.e., lost revenue, or the prospect thereof, for the NBA).
That's fair. There is no right or wrong here. If you enjoy watching Drummond and Jordan go to the line 36 times in a game - if that's what you want to buy a ticket to see or tune into watch, who am I to tell you that you should not?
But I think it's fair to hypothesize the speed, athleticism, the offense actively vs the defense, the team play is a significant part of the appeal of professional basketball overall, much more so than watching a guy at the line shoot a short set shot undefended.
I go to NBA games to see some of the world's greatest athletes do things regular people cant do, not things I CAN do. I can find better than 50% FT shooting at high school games and in my own backyard. But that's just my opinion.
Same way I don't think NFL would be as popular a product if there was 5 times the number of field goal attempts a game than there is now.
Are FT's part of the game? Sure. Always will be. So are timeouts and jumpballs but I'm not sure they're high-up on anyone's lists of why they enjoy the game. Time outs are necessary and strategic, not fun to sit watch.
The NBA and the NCAA slowly moved away from jumpballs through the evolution of the game, so no reason this rule cannot as well.
I'm not sure how you establish which bits of the game are fundamental and which aren't,
Fundamental does not equal illegitimate.
The fundamental elements of basketball are the same as soccer, football, hockey and many other sports. An offense actively attacks a goal which is defended by another team.
Penalty shots, and free kicks, and penalties and field goals are all, necessary, legitimate parts of the game, but they aren't fundamental. Frankly surprised to find an argument to this.
I would think that an ability to make a shot from the free throw line with no defense impeding your attempt is a fairly fundamental basketball skill.
A skill, no doubt. So's dribbling and passing, but several years ago the NBA and NBA decided to add a shot clock because no one wanted to watch teams hold textbook fundamental dribbling and passing clinics to protect a lead.
They changed the game or the better by adding a brand new element to make it more fun to watch, despite it being a legitimate strategy and exhibit of fundamental skills to successfully hold onto the ball without turning it over to the other team.
And given the reality of unintended consequences, I don't think inertia is always a bad argument. Care is needed in introducing new rules so that in attempting to fix a perceived problem, you don't create new, perhaps worse, problems.
Such as? They'll still be shooting fouls. They'll still be And-1s. They'll still technicals. They'll still be the same rules the last 2 minutes of the game. No incentive will be removed for players to be good free throw shooters.