= = = The Modified Backboard Question The following data is reproduced from Page 47 of the Official 1939-1940 Basketball Rules Book by permission of the copyright owners. It is offered in conjunction with the demonstration backboard on exhibit, to acquaint all basketball coaches with - tL ae -_ =. what is being attempted by the Research Committee of the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada to modernize present backboards which are considered inadequate for today’s game. “-_—_—--—-.,, - ea, 54" MODIFIED BACKBOARDS (Reproduction of Page 47 of the 1939-1940 Basketball Rules Book) “If backboards were to be designed to fit the present day type of game and, if there were no problems connected with the transi- tion, the boards would be quite different from the traditional 4 by 6 rectangle. At the last meeting of the National Basketball Committee it was unanimously agreed that there is considerable waste space in the present type of board and that this has become a detriment. They authorized a section in the guide to be devoted to the outlining and discussion of the most suitable type of back- board to fit present day conditions. The sentiment, based on extensive experimentation, indicates that a board resembling one of the two types shown on the diagram above is desirable. It is probable that the board of future years will be of this type and further experimentation has been authorized. Such a board would: 1. Permit freer use of the four-foot end space, permit offensive play from nearly all sides of the basket and thus relieve congestion in the lane. 2. Greatly increase the visibility of the basket from corners and ends of the gymnasium. 3. Increase the space under the basket from which a goal may be made and permit a rebounder to escape from congested area. 4. Simplify the bridgework for hanging the backboard since the weight would be reduced by nearly one- half and the span would not be so great as to cause warping or twisting. 5. Have a more pleasing streamlined appearance and be a better target, thus promoting greater accuracy. Failure to streamline the backboards is due to the initial expense in making a change and to difficulties due to lack of uniformity during a transition period. However, the same problems con- front every industry when changing conditions make equipment obsolete. No group can afford to forever limit itself to use of models designed for conditions of several decades ago. If such a change were to come, it would probably have to come as an optional measure during a transition period of several years. In the meantime, those who are installing new equipment may choose to anticipate improvements and use a supporting struc- ture which will not exceed the limits outlined above. The present type backboard could then be trimmed down or easily replaced by a smaller one. A pair of modified boards might be installed immediately on one of the cross courts. An exchange could easily be made between regular court and cross-court if it should be desirable in the future. Interested groups should make observations on the space actually used on present boards and encourage experimental use of the proposed type. Several manufacturers have shown a willingness to produce boards of this type for experiment. One of these is the Fred Medart Manufacturing Company, St. Louis, Missouri. They have built boards of the proposed size and shape and also with an added feature, a convex rather than a plane surface.” Re: Convex Surface Backboard... With reference to the five enumerated advantages of the modified backboard, listed above, the following extract from the 1939- 1940 Rules Book, Page 46, Paragraph 1, under the heading “EXPERIMENTATION” — ‘“'THERE IS ALSO MERIT IN BOARDS WITH A CONVEX SURFACE WHICH WILL PERMIT ADDI- 1. ‘‘Freer use of the four-foot end space, etc.’’ TIONAL FREEDOM IN THE FOUR-FOOT END SPACE AND WHICH WILL TEND TO SCATTER THE REBOUNDS AND THUS RELIEVE CONGESTION IN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE BASKET.” — is supported by the following claims which are presented for your consideration. A comparison of the drawings below reveals the added opportunity of offensive play on convex surface backboard. END COURT LINE END COURT LINE END COURT LINE a PRESENT 4’ x 6’ BOARD 2. “Increase Visibility, etc.”’ MODIFIED 54” FLAT BOARD The above drawings also serve to illustrate the added visibility made possible by the curvature of the convex board. Consideration of the question of visibility should not be restricted to players but should be viewed from the MODIFIED 54” CONVEX BOARD standpoint of spectators as well. The gain in spectator visibility is immediately apparent when dotted lines in illustrations on back page are followed beyond the end court lines to include the area occupied by spectators. Continued on back page.