Okay, so there's a growing problem in the NBA, three-point shooting, in that there's too much of it. You agree, I agree, Adam Silver agrees. The 3-point line shrinks the forecourt. And the zone defense is the 3-point arc's mirror image. Combined they cut the forecourt by about a half. The mid-range jumper is almost nonexistent.
Now what to do? You couldn't remove the 3-point line with nuclear weapons, it is so much a part of the post-merger NBA. You could re-outlaw the zone defense. Make everybody play man. That's why the zone was outlawed for so long. The Association wanted to show-case the individual talent of their extraordinarially giftrd athletes. The problem with re-outlawing the zone however is that the zone leveled the talent disparity between the top teams and the bottom. That's what it was supposed to do, right? Yes, MJ creating, driving, hitting the mid-range over Craig Ehlo at the buzzer, yes we liked that. But too much of a good thing is still too much. I would fear more boring 50-point blowouts if you re-outlawed the zone. The reason Erik Spoelstra goes to the zone so much is that it gives his chronically talent-challenged teams a chance.
So this is my idea: Picture in your mind a modern, standard NBA half-court offense. What do you see? Two or three guys standing still in their favorite spots behind the arc while one guy runs around like a dervish, threatening to go to the rim, or is he feinting to get the zone to collapse so that he has a passing lane to one of his long-distance snipers? Who are still just standing there. Or you see weaves of picks and guys sliding picks to get open behind the line.
What I want to do is get those statues in the corner to move and so my idea is to create a 3-second or 2-second rule that you just can't stand there. Three seconds or two seconds seconds, whatever the rule would be and it's a turnover. Move or lose (possession).
