Geno Auriemma's request

[PAULK1]

Hitting from the red tees still hasn't improved the "watchability" of womens golf.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Hitting from the red tees still hasn't improved the "watchability" of womens golf.

I'm with grunewar, I don't think I'd notice. It might make UConn games marginally more exciting, for three to five plays per game, but that wouldn't be worth such a drastic move.

[johnny d]

dont watch women's basketball, probably never will other than the new lingerie league, so no it doesnt matter to me what height they put the rim at.

[Lcubed48]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Hitting from the red tees still hasn't improved the "watchability" of womens golf.

And hitting from the senior tees hasn't helped my golf game any. I just miss hit the ball with a different club. My power fade (or the 2 fairway slice) still rears its ugly head. :

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Hitting from the red tees still hasn't improved the "watchability" of womens golf.

I'm sure you know this, but pro women play from ~6,400 to 6,700 yards which are either white or blue tees.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by PAULK1

Hitting from the red tees still hasn't improved the "watchability" of womens golf.

It does when watching Natalie Gulbis

[twocentsworth]

Let's clear up a few things:
1) Is the financial issue a big "roadblock" - Yes.
2) Lowering the basket height would ABSOLUTELY increase FG %.
3) Lower baskets actually reduce a teams' reliance on tall players....RAISING the basket would place a premium on player height.
4) It would take all of 2 weeks for players to adjust - they would be able to shoot more accurately and from a longer distance rather quickly.
5) Mock women's basketball all you want; their game is significantly closer to the ideal of Dr. James Naismith - fundamentals and skill.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Let's clear up a few things:
1) Is the financial issue a big "roadblock" - Yes.
2) Lowering the basket height would ABSOLUTELY increase FG %.
3) Lower baskets actually reduce a teams' reliance on tall players....RAISING the basket would place a premium on player height.
4) It would take all of 2 weeks for players to adjust - they would be able to shoot more accurately and from a longer distance rather quickly.
5) Mock women's basketball all you want; their game is significantly closer to the ideal of Dr. James Naismith - fundamentals and skill.

Sure, but if people are bored to death watching it?

Naismith invented the game as a physical education activity, too, not necessarily something people would want to watch by the millions.

[Andy]

I will just throw this out there....

Several years ago, I was officiating in a few different Boys and Girls Clubs in my area. One club decided to use 9 foot rims for their youngest league, I think it was 8 and 9 year olds. Those games usually ended up with scores in the 40's for each team, depending on the players skill levels. At the other clubs where they kept the 10 foot rims for the same age group, it was rare to see a team score much above 20 points for a game, same length of game time.

Maybe some parallels????

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Andy

I will just throw this out there....

Several years ago, I was officiating in a few different Boys and Girls Clubs in my area. One club decided to use 9 foot rims for their youngest league, I think it was 8 and 9 year olds. Those games usually ended up with scores in the 40's for each team, depending on the players skill levels. At the other clubs where they kept the 10 foot rims for the same age group, it was rare to see a team score much above 20 points for a game, same length of game time.

Maybe some parallels????

I don't think there are any parallels here...on one hand, you are talking about young kids who physically can't chuck the ball that high. On the other, you are talking about 19-23/24 year old women who most certainly can.

The NCAA and Fed. have already made the ball smaller to accomodate the women players not having the same physical strength as the male players...to now also lower the rim is simply ridiculous, imo.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Andy

I will just throw this out there....

Several years ago, I was officiating in a few different Boys and Girls Clubs in my area. One club decided to use 9 foot rims for their youngest league, I think it was 8 and 9 year olds. Those games usually ended up with scores in the 40's for each team, depending on the players skill levels. At the other clubs where they kept the 10 foot rims for the same age group, it was rare to see a team score much above 20 points for a game, same length of game time.

Maybe some parallels????

For those ages, it was probably common for several shots to not even make it 10' above the floor. That is due to a gross lack of skill and lack of strength. Women (usually) are much taller and stronger than 8 and 9 year old kids.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

2) Lowering the basket height would ABSOLUTELY increase FG %.

Other than increasing dunks, which might nudge the overall percentage up a tad ... why do you think a lower basket would increase FG%? It might at the ages that actually have trouble throwing it that high... but not with high school or above.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Other than increasing dunks, which might nudge the overall percentage up a tad ... why do you think a lower basket would increase FG%? It might at the ages that actually have trouble throwing it that high... but not with high school or above.

Not to speak for twocents, let me take a stab at it.

Many shots that would go through a 10' basket would also go through a 9' basket (high arcing shots I should think). Then low arcing shots which would not go through (or perhaps even hit) a 10' basket should go through a 9' basket.

If the number of low arcing shots gained is bigger than the number lost (and I don't see why it shouldn't be), it will take less accuracy to hit the basket and shooting percentage should go up.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Not to speak for twocents, let me take a stab at it.

Many shots that would go through a 10' basket would also go through a 9' basket (high arcing shots I should think). Then low arcing shots which would not go through (or perhaps even hit) a 10' basket should go through a 9' basket.

If the number of low arcing shots gained is bigger than the number lost (and I don't see why it shouldn't be), it will take less accuracy to hit the basket and shooting percentage should go up.

If lowering the basket by a foot would allow those low arcing shots of which you speak to actually enter the basket, then those shots must currently be hitting somewhere near the bottom of the net...I am not buying that.