PDA

View Full Version : Rim / goal requirements question



g4orce
03-07-2011, 01:00 PM
I know that there are loads of requirements concerning every aspect of the game, but I have a question concerning the goal itself. I've often heard players saying that they like the rims in Cameron b/c they lend itself to a shooter's bounce - the implecation being that the rims are soft. That begs the question:

Are there torque/tension requirements for how a rim is conected to the backboard/ mount?

I thought that maybe my ears were just hearing things Saturday night against UNC, but when I heard several of my tarheel co-workers talking about it, including some who went to the game, I thought that I would ask. Just about every shot that hit the rim had an odd, very audible "clang." I thought it was just the mic'ing by CBS, but the co-workers that went to the game also said they heard this. Since CBS wouldn't feed the audio back into the Dean dome, that made me curious.

It seemed to me, and this is just my assumption until I review the game (which I'd rather not do:(), but a number of missed 3's, and there were an inordinate number, the ball didn't go long after the miss. It seemed to stay within a few feet of the lane. Again, this is my assumption, but could the rim be set so as to allow a hard bounce to give a flat recoil? IOW, could the rim be set so that a hard bounce from a long shot result in a short distance rebound?

If so, that would give a team like the tarheels the advantage in rebounding against a team that plays the 3. There is another thread concerning fast-breaks on missed 3's, so I'm just curious if that could have been played to the heels advantage?

Any thoughts?

UrinalCake
03-07-2011, 01:46 PM
I've always thought that the rims in Cameron were soft, i.e. the have a lot of give to them so that when a shot hits the rim it has a better chance of rattling in. It seems like this would benefit a jump-shooting team like Duke over an inside shooting team. Never thought about the rebounding aspect of it. This is purely conjecture though. The rims do seem to produce a really loud clang, but maybe this is due to using the old-school ceiling supports rather than the floor-mounted ones.

I don't know what the official rule is but I'm sure there are limits to how much tension there has to be in the rims. I doubt anyone makes a big deal out of it though.

wgl1228
03-07-2011, 02:25 PM
I don't know but the rims in Madison Square Garden are very unforgiving. Maybe thats why the Knicks have always been so bad (J/K).

Lar77
03-07-2011, 02:30 PM
I've always thought that the rims in Cameron were soft, i.e. the have a lot of give to them so that when a shot hits the rim it has a better chance of rattling in. It seems like this would benefit a jump-shooting team like Duke over an inside shooting team. Never thought about the rebounding aspect of it. This is purely conjecture though. The rims do seem to produce a really loud clang, but maybe this is due to using the old-school ceiling supports rather than the floor-mounted ones.

I don't know what the official rule is but I'm sure there are limits to how much tension there has to be in the rims. I doubt anyone makes a big deal out of it though.



I read an article a few months ago about a theory on college home court advantage. Apparently, the home team has choice of balls used in a game. The article went on to state that there are 6 different brands in use in Division I. It also contended that there is some variation among brands and contended that the ball gives an advantage to the home team if the vistor uses another brand (I recall a summary of a statistical study, but no specifics).

While it seems that a coach would be able to adapt to this (or rim tensions, lighting, noise, and other variables) during game preparation, it also seems that would detract from the main mission. At the end of the day, you have to play better defense than their offense.

Dr. Rosenrosen
03-07-2011, 02:44 PM
I read an article a few months ago about a theory on college home court advantage. Apparently, the home team has choice of balls used in a game. The article went on to state that there are 6 different brands in use in Division I. It also contended that there is some variation among brands and contended that the ball gives an advantage to the home team if the vistor uses another brand (I recall a summary of a statistical study, but no specifics).

While it seems that a coach would be able to adapt to this (or rim tensions, lighting, noise, and other variables) during game preparation, it also seems that would detract from the main mission. At the end of the day, you have to play better defense than their offense.

I never thought about this before. Not surprising though. If you get used to the feel of a certain brand of ball, it certainly could play a role when you suddenly are using something else that feels a little different in your hand.

94duke
03-07-2011, 03:06 PM
I read an article a few months ago about a theory on college home court advantage. Apparently, the home team has choice of balls used in a game. The article went on to state that there are 6 different brands in use in Division I. It also contended that there is some variation among brands and contended that the ball gives an advantage to the home team if the vistor uses another brand (I recall a summary of a statistical study, but no specifics).

While it seems that a coach would be able to adapt to this (or rim tensions, lighting, noise, and other variables) during game preparation, it also seems that would detract from the main mission. At the end of the day, you have to play better defense than their offense.

article from 2010/03/04:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/is-home-court-advantage-really-about-the-ball/

swood1000
03-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Looks like quite a bit of variability is permitted in the rim. From http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/fielddiagrams/bball.pdf:


Art. 4 (Men) All competitive rings shall be tested for rebound elasticity once before the season (July 15-October 15) and once before the postseason. The rebound elasticity requirement shall be 35 percent to 50 percent energy absorption and be within a 5 percent differential between baskets on the same court.