a ee Following the above exhibit in New York, which will be remembered by a majority of your present membership, we were encouraged to make further tests, using the dimensions of the board illustrated on page 47 of the Summer edition of the 1939-1940 Rules Book. We followed the suggestion and fabricated fifteen special backboards, using the 32" dimension rather than the 27" smaller board as illustrated below. Before reporting results of the demonstrations in various Basketball Coaching Schools and other institutions during 1939, we submit for your consideration a comparison between the objectives of the Rules Committee xX as set forth on page 47 of the Summer edition of the 1939-1940 Rules Book and the claims of the exponents of the convex surface backboard. 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 - 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. — oa ee Boe zi i a 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.”