Mavs owner Mark Cuban says the 3-point arc is “getting too close” and believes the NBA should think about moving it farther back. Agree, disagree, or need more time to contemplate?
Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Excuse me?! I’ve been advocating for a deeper distant 3-point line for the past year. And I take it a step further by suggesting that the court be widened to accommodate a true arc at the deeper distance — no more shorties from the corners that even your Uncle Bill could hit. That extra point should be a real bonus, rewarding risk and legit shooting proficiency. More space inside the arc would welcome back the mid-range game, where so much of the game’s artistry (think Julius Erving, Dominique Wilkins, George Gervin, etc.) takes place. Fewer 3-pointers would wring some of the sameness out of the league and restore a premium on talented big men. And don’t worry about “losing pricey front-row seats” by widening the court — there’s always going to be a front row, a second row and so on, until you run out of room at the top of the arena and lose the last few rows.
Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: I’m going to side with Mark Cuban here. Not just because the sharpshooters of the league have become too competent at the current distant and turned it into shooting for kewpie dolls on the carnival midway. But also because of Cuban’s other goal — to hopefully put more emphasis back on the mid-range game, a lost art.
Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: More time. I could see it happening one day, as the game continues to change, but don’t see the need for that kind of adjustment now. While the three-pointer has become a greater weapon and teams are making more from behind the arc, it is because they are shooting more. Not because they are shooting better. There is no reason to counter now.
Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Let me say that I agree with Cuban 95 percent of the time, but this is not one of them. Why punish players for getting better at shooting? It was just 15 or so years ago when folks complained that the international players were far too skilled at shooting than their American counterparts. And now that we’ve improved, it’s time to make changes? I think players need to get better at defending the 3.
John Schuhmann, NBA.com: It’s fine the way it is right now. Layups (1.20 points per attempt) are still more valuable than corner threes (1.12) and a trip to the free throw line (1.51) is still the most efficient way to score. So getting into the paint and working inside out is still an important aspect to NBA offense. Stephen Curry certainly changes the math and the Warriors make defending the whole floor a near-impossible task. But the MVP is a unique player, the champs shouldn’t be penalized for putting together an almost-perfect machine, and we don’t need to change the distance until the overall math shows tells us that getting to the basket isn’t critical.
Sekou Smith, NBA.com: I disagree with Cuban on this one. And what’s with everybody trying to come up with rules changes to mess with a beautiful game? Guys can jump out of the gym these days, but I don’t see anyone lobbying for the rim to be raised another foot. I enjoy watching the current crop of sharpshooters knock down shots from all over the floor. Not everyone is shooting it like Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson. But this is one of those times that I think we should all just sit back and enjoy the show instead of trying to manipulate things.
Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: I like things the way they are. One decade ago there was a lot of talk about the death of shooting in American basketball and how too many NBA players were lacking in skill. Let us enjoy the ongoing display of the Warriors and other explosive teams under the current system of rules, because this celebration of offense has been a long time in coming.
Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: I disagree with moving the line — we didn’t raise the basket when more people started dunking. Although if the general feeling is that there are too many 3-pointers being hoisted, I have two alternate suggestions that might be worthwhile. (Or might be terrible ideas.) First of all, how about leaving the 3-point line and instead adding a 4-point line at, say, 30 feet? That would open the floor up even more. Or, we make a unilateral decree that every team is allowed to shoot just 10 threes per game? It would then be up to the team to decide how and when they want to budget them, and once they take 10, every shot counts as 2 points, even if it was taken from half court.
