Our attention spans are getting shorter. Filmmakers and video game designers are adapting. But professional sports leagues have no good way of picking up the pace of their contests without destroying their integrity. Until now.
Do you watch televised sports less often than before? In my mid-twenties, I spent years without a TV, but still managed to catch most Lakers games in a given season. Even in my late twenties I'd watch a dozen or so regular season games per year. Now I only watch the playoffs. It's partly that I'm busier, and that sitting at a computer for work makes me less inclined to spend my leisure time staring at another screen. But I enjoy NBA basketball less largely because I've lost patience for the game.
The main culprit isn't the general shortening of attention spans brought on by the Web so much as the DVR. It accustomed me to skipping all commercials. Initially this made watching basketball more fun, especially at the end of close games. Then my dad started fast-forwarding through all non-clutch free throws. He'd even speed it up sometimes as the point guard walked the ball up the court. Unless the game is significant - imbued with dramatic tension that makes the slow bits suspenseful - I can't sit through a game at regular speed anymore. But fast-forwarding is no good either. A basketball game has a certain rhythm, and altering it without cost is no more possible than fast-forwarding to the best part of a favorite song and expecting to experience it as fully as if you'd listened all the way through.
Permit me a prediction. Attention spans are different today than they were a generation ago. Movies move faster. Video games unfold at a more frenetic pace. Perhaps the NFL can survive in this new environment. But slower paced sports? I suspect they'll have to evolve to keep a healthy viewership.
The problem is that there is no good way for this evolution to happen. Rule changes are too risky: implementing them means embarking on an unpredictable experiment for an entire season. That's okay for small tweaks, like giving point guards eight seconds rather than ten seconds to get the ball across the half-court line. But what about more substantial innovation? Imagine a larger tweak that would be widely considered an improvement. How would we know to adopt it?
The answer is for the NBA, Major League Baseball, and perhaps other sports leagues to set aside a few games each year - perhaps pre-season contests, but ideally early in the season games - to try out one major experiment per annum. Perhaps a vote among sports writers or fans or even players would determine it. Or less plausibly, but more conveniently for the purposes of this article, they could leave things up to me. What follows are a few suggestions I'd be terrified to impose for a whole season, but that I'd love to see adopted for a few contests to gauge their impact.
The major problem in this league is that the game stops far too much. It's especially unbearable in a game that is tightly officiated in the early minutes. Who wants to watch someone shoot free throws in the first quarter?
What I'd like is for the referees to tally all the fouls for the first three quarters, and the opening minutes of the fourth quarter. During this time, teams would just get the ball out of bonds when fouled, and the referee wouldn't even have to touch the ball before it went back into play. Then with some number of minutes left in the game - maybe 8 minutes, maybe 5 minutes - the teams would compare tallies, cancel out one another's shots, and send the team that earned more shooting fouls to the line to take all their shots at once. (Alternatively, this could be done for the first half only, and the shots could be taken at halftime). Free throws were never meant to be as large a part of basketball as they've become. And clutch foul shots at the end of the fourth quarter would be unaffected by this plan.