The NBA has a problem, and it’s got a long range. Teams today are firing up three-pointers like they’re free samples at Costco. While the three-point revolution has undeniably transformed the game, many observers — including legends like Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley — argue that it’s come at a cost.
When teams are chucking 45-50 three-point attempts per game (as many are in the 2024-25 season), the spectacle starts to feel more like a three-point contest than a basketball game. And let’s be honest: that’s fun for about five minutes during All-Star Weekend, but not so much over an 82-game season.
Basketball is at its best when it showcases a diverse array of skills. Fans miss the artistry of post moves, the excitement of fast breaks, and the silky smoothness of mid-range jumpers. Instead, today’s game often boils down to, “Who’s got the hotter hand from deep?” To restore balance, it’s time for the NBA to rethink how it approaches the three-pointer. Here are three solutions to help curb the barrage of long-range bombs and bring back the variety that makes basketball great.
Idea 1: Shrink the Three-Point Line
One way to reduce the number of three-point attempts is to make them harder to come by. By shrinking the distance of the three-point arc, players would have less room to maneuver for open shots. Imagine trying to squeeze off a three-pointer with a 6’10” defender breathing down your neck because the arc is only 21 feet away instead of 23.9. Suddenly, taking a mid-range jumper doesn’t seem so bad, does it?
This solution could make three-pointers more selective. Instead of being the default shot, they’d become a luxury, a high-risk, high-reward weapon. Plus, shrinking the arc would create more space inside the arc, potentially encouraging more drives to the basket and creative playmaking.
Of course, there’s a downside: would we even call it basketball if Steph Curry wasn’t hitting logo threes? This idea might risk alienating fans who love the long-ball theatrics.
Idea 2: Change the Scoring System
Another approach is to tweak the value of three-pointers. Currently, a three-point shot is worth 50% more than a two-pointer. What if the league adjusted that ratio? For example, a made three-pointer could be worth 2.5 points instead of 3. It’s enough to keep the three-pointer enticing but not overwhelmingly dominant. Teams might think twice about hoisting up a contested three when a wide-open mid-range jumper is worth nearly as much.
This idea would also spark hilarious in-game math debates. Imagine a coach screaming, “We need 1.5 more points to tie!” as players scramble to figure out whether they should shoot from 17 feet or 27. It’d be chaotic, but it might just work.
Idea 3: Limit the Number of Successful Threes Per Game
Here’s the big one: cap the number of successful three-pointers a team can make in a game. Set the limit at, say, 12-15. Once a team hits its quota, any subsequent three-point shots would only count for two points.
This rule could fundamentally reshape the way teams approach offense. Coaches would need to strategize when to unleash their three-point weapons. Do you let your shooters fire away early and risk running out of threes in the fourth quarter? Or do you save them for crunch time, knowing you’ll need those big buckets when the game’s on the line?
Fans, meanwhile, would get to enjoy a more varied brand of basketball. After a team reaches its three-point limit, we might see more creative offensive sets, post-ups, and fast-break opportunities. The game would become less about volume shooting and more about tactical execution. And as an added bonus, we’d get to watch players lose their minds when their highlight-reel triple only counts for two points. (Cue the memes.)
Why This Solution Works
Limiting successful three-pointers strikes the right balance between preserving the excitement of the long ball and encouraging other styles of play. It doesn’t eliminate the three-pointer; it simply makes teams think more strategically about when and how to use it. The rule would also create more drama. Imagine a team sitting on 14 threes with five minutes left, knowing their next one will be their last. Suddenly, every shot matters a little more.
Critics might argue that this rule could be hard to enforce or that it’s too radical a departure from the game’s current structure. But remember, basketball has evolved before. The shot clock, the three-point line itself, and even instant replay were once considered radical ideas. Sometimes, a bold move is exactly what the game needs.
A Game Worth Watching
At its core, basketball is supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to be thrilling, dynamic, and unpredictable. Watching 50 three-pointers a game might be fun for stats nerds, but it’s not what gets most fans out of their seats. We want to see crossovers that leave defenders wobbling, passes that thread the needle, and yes, the occasional thunderous dunk that makes you question the laws of physics.
By implementing a rule that limits successful three-pointers, the NBA could bring back the balance that makes basketball the beautiful game it’s meant to be. Players would have to show off the full range of their skills, and fans would get to enjoy a richer, more varied spectacle. Plus, think of the chaos: coaches hoarding their three-point allotments like timeouts, announcers losing their minds when a shooter drains a “two-point three,” and players pleading for a couple of extra bonus threes in overtime.
It’s time for the NBA to solve its three-point problem. The league’s best years were defined by players who could do it all: Magic’s passing, MJ’s mid-range fadeaways, Shaq’s dominance in the paint. Let’s make basketball about more than just the long ball again. Because while the three-pointer is great, too much of a good thing can leave you feeling, well, a little flat — and not in a good way.
