We should try a new scoring system for basketball that is similar to tennis: the first team to 30 points (winning by at least two) wins a period, and the first team to win three periods wins the game. This approach creates multiple high-pressure moments in tennis matches and significantly increases excitement for fans. It might do the same for basketball.

~~~

Basketball can be an exciting game—lots of action, frequent scoring, and tremendous athleticism leading to amazing plays for fans to enjoy. And there can be tremendous excitement at the end of games. However, there are often lulls in games, particularly when one team builds a sizeable lead This is particularly the case with professional games that are longer and higher-scoring. While there’s the enticing prospect of a big comeback in these games, this doesn’t happen very frequently. A modified scoring system might increase the excitement in basketball, and there’s a good though somewhat unexpected, model:  tennis.

The nested scoring structure of tennis creates a very different dynamic for the fan and for the player. If one player wins several games in a row and builds a big lead, she can take advantage of it—until the end of the set. Then a new set starts. It doesn’t matter how badly her opponent lost the previous set, it only counts as one set. The next set starts at 0-0, and there’s a very high level of pressure right from the start. There’s also increasing tension as the end of each set approaches, and over the course of a match there are numerous critical points. What if we applied this same scoring structure to basketball? Here’s how it would work:

Games are divided into periods. The team that gets to 30 first wins that period, and teams must win by two points. The first team to win 3 periods wins the game. College basketball could adopt a similar scoring system, with games played to 20 rather than 30.

This would create multiple opportunities for high excitement towards the end of periods. The same excitement created in tennis matches could be added to basketball, with even greater effect.

One other way of thinking about this:  imagine if tennis scoring were the same as basketball—one long match, won by the player who scored more points in 48 minutes? Or what if the victor was simply the first to score 72 points? In tennis, players must win four points per game and six games per set; three sets would be 72 points—though this would exclude the current deuce / ad structure. Even as a tennis player and fan, I would find this much less interesting because the tension wouldn’t really mount until the end of the time or until the target score approached. Having multiple points of tension dramatically increases the excitement for the fan. If the scoring structure makes that much of a difference in tennis, isn’t there a good chance it would do the same for basketball? Volleyball also has a similar scoring structure, and the multiple points of tension make it significantly more interesting for fans. Think about LeBron, Kobe, or Durant being able to hit multiple “winning shots” every game! I think it would be worth trying.