Ahh but that is where we meet an impass. Skill is not a constant, therefore in considering it one you have tarnished the calculations and made all prior observations invalid.
Now that we bring inflation into it, doesn't it seem as though the increased ability of the basketball players nowadays should call for the 3 point arc to be moved backward? When people in an economic system make more money, the interest rates are adjusted for inflation, right? Shouldn't the same be true for the placement of the 3 point arc or the height of the rim?
@NorviceTurner Yes, but you are thinking on a purely professional level. At the high school level, shooters are still very inaccurate. If we were to move back the three point arch or raise the rim, we would probably need an extra incentive to get players to shoot from that distance. Besides, do you have any idea the amount of capital that you would need to fix every basketball court in america? The economy isn't in great shape as it stands, and most courts have a limited supply of capital.
@PatrickMitchStephen When N is less than g the opportunity cost of 3 point shots is out weighed by the current cash flow of this economy. N = Term in Number of Periods
@patman2492 Thank you. This is why the 3 point arc needs to be moved backward. If Cash Flow=Points scored, where points scored will not change, but the amount of points will increase due to the increased skill, then the line must be moved backward in order to protect the integrity of the game. The rate of growth over time can be shown by the variable equation y=Ce^(kt), where my t=your j, and k is the skill constant of the players.
I would have tried to get it to the guy open underneath to force overtime, but the guy on the inbounds must have had enough faith in his shooters to know the probability of making that shot was high enough to make going to overtime a relatively small opportunity cost.
Ahh but that is where we meet an impass. Skill is not a constant, therefore in considering it one you have tarnished the calculations and made all prior observations invalid.
patman2492 1 year ago
Now that we bring inflation into it, doesn't it seem as though the increased ability of the basketball players nowadays should call for the 3 point arc to be moved backward? When people in an economic system make more money, the interest rates are adjusted for inflation, right? Shouldn't the same be true for the placement of the 3 point arc or the height of the rim?
NorviceTurner 1 year ago
@NorviceTurner Yes, but you are thinking on a purely professional level. At the high school level, shooters are still very inaccurate. If we were to move back the three point arch or raise the rim, we would probably need an extra incentive to get players to shoot from that distance. Besides, do you have any idea the amount of capital that you would need to fix every basketball court in america? The economy isn't in great shape as it stands, and most courts have a limited supply of capital.
PatrickMitchStephen 1 year ago
@PatrickMitchStephen When N is less than g the opportunity cost of 3 point shots is out weighed by the current cash flow of this economy. N = Term in Number of Periods
g = Rate of Growth
m = Compounding Frequency
i or r = Interest Rate
PMT = Periodic Payment
FV = Future Value
FVs = Future Value of a Single Sum
PV = Present Value
CF = Cash Flow
j = jth Period
patman2492 1 year ago
@patman2492 Thank you. This is why the 3 point arc needs to be moved backward. If Cash Flow=Points scored, where points scored will not change, but the amount of points will increase due to the increased skill, then the line must be moved backward in order to protect the integrity of the game. The rate of growth over time can be shown by the variable equation y=Ce^(kt), where my t=your j, and k is the skill constant of the players.
NorviceTurner 1 year ago
Obviously the shooter had enough faith in the elasticity of the net to compensate for the inflation of the ball.
kvorbach 1 year ago
I would have tried to get it to the guy open underneath to force overtime, but the guy on the inbounds must have had enough faith in his shooters to know the probability of making that shot was high enough to make going to overtime a relatively small opportunity cost.
NorviceTurner 1 year ago