Would a 6'2" average height cap make basketball more accessible and skill-based?
Imagine the NBA imposed a height cap on lineups. The five players on the court could not exceed a combined height of 31 feet—an average of 6'2" per player.
A team could still play a 6'8" center, but the other four players could average no more than about 6'1". Alternatively, a team could build a balanced lineup with five players close to the 6'2" limit.
Would this produce a faster, more athletic and more skill-oriented game? Shorter players generally need exceptional shooting, ball handling, speed and court vision to overcome their size disadvantage, while height provides an enormous advantage in rebounding, finishing and rim protection.
It could also change how kids and young athletes view basketball. Right now, a talented child may feel that pursuing the sport seriously is unrealistic if they aren’t expected to become unusually tall. If professional basketball rewarded players of more typical heights, would more children choose to play and stick with the sport? Would youth coaches place greater emphasis on developing every player’s skills instead of directing opportunities toward the tallest prospects?
On the other hand, would a height cap simply replace height with other genetic advantages, such as explosiveness, speed and wingspan? Teams might spend most of their height allowance on one dominant big man and surround him with extremely short guards. Height would also remain useful at youth and amateur levels, even if the professional game eventually imposed a cap.
How would teams construct their lineups under this rule? Would it make basketball more accessible and entertaining, or would removing most traditional NBA size make the sport worse?