Which major team sport would be most changed by doubling the size of the playing surface?

Cricket. A larger field would reduce the number of runs scored. It would also become more of an endurance event for players -- we will see batsmen score more runs by running between the wickets and fielders would have to cover more ground. It might also lead to heavier bats being used in an effort to clear the fence more often, and thus greater upper body strength for batsmen.

areusure? wrote:

Is doubles tennis a team sport?

That was my first thought too. Every serve would be an ace on a gigantic court.

Interesting question: If you double the size of the football playing field, would that also double the ways Belichick would cheat or create an exponential level of cheating?

I think basketball would change the most dramatically of the 4 you mentioned. There'd be so much more space and the big men would have to become faster and fitter for the running (assuming the court grew longer), which might require using shorter, more agile players and the paint game could fade away (basketball pun)seems like in every instance, fitness would have to increase. baseball/football would be dumb double the size (imagine stadium size). Football would have guys getting tired running to the end zone those extra yards and wasting time on the clock just running (could be a good tactic though i guess just running around)Bandy is hockey on a soccer field basically. was the pre-cursor to hockey I believe, I used to play in high school and my cousins have played in the world championships a few times in Europe/Russia. the ice sheet is massivehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandy

Skull cap wrote:

Football, baseball, basketball or hockey?

the jamaican jerky wrote:

Women's Beach Volleyball.

Just any volleyball. It would be impossible to defend a ball purposely sent to the back line

While there has been some interesting commentary about how speed may supplant size and strength on a larger playing area, in thinking about this problem, it really all comes down to defense: how much more difficult would it be to defend in a larger space?

Looking at some history and comparison data

1) Football -- just look at the difference in defending in the CFL vs. NFL. The bigger field would make it almost impossible to stop an adequate spread offense

2) Hockey -- there used to be different-sized NHL hockey rinks and the Boston Garden was 9' shorter and 2' narrower, which translated into a much more physical game. Compare the European hockey rinks, which have historically been 15' wider than the standard NHL rink and the European style that developed put more of an emphasis on speed, skating and passing

3) Basketball -- here you would see a huge change in the pace of the game, assuming the 24-second shot clock is retained. So much more time would be spend going up and down the court and so much less time would be spent running half-court sets. Speed would be at a premium and here the defense would have an advantage. Still, the 3-point shot is what has revolutionized this game and with big men having to traverse longer distances and less time in a half-court offense, this would become a game of fast breaks and three pointers. Advantage to the defense here.

4) Baseball -- You think the old Yankee Stadium or Cleveland/Lakefront or the Polo Grounds had a deep outfield? Here we would see the return to the 19th century and/or dead ball era type of baseball -- or more like modern softball strategies. This game would be a lot less interesting and much more tactical. Here again, the defense would be likely to dominate as all home runs would be of the inside-the-park variety.

Bonus: what would a 15,000 yard U.S. Open course play like?

Basketball. Golden State would go undefeated since Steph Curry would be even more impossible to guard, hitting 50' threes from the baseline.

Baseball. Very different game in the AL East since the Great Green Monster in Fenway would have to rival the height of the Burj Khalifa.

Hockey. The intermission periods would have to become an hour in length for the zamboni to cover all the ice.

Football. The game would become even more unwatchable since it would take 5 more minutes between every snap for the players to reassemble and huddle and the refs to set the ball. And the Cowboys would still choke.

I would already like to see NBA courts lengthened/widened. The players are so huge it's only a few strides for them to go from 3 pt. line to 3 pt. line. Like normal-sized people playing on a 2/3rds size court.

Well baseball is not a sport so it just means a bigger waste of space for lazy overpaid morons to stand around. There is roughly 18 minutes of actual physical activity in one baseball game. With some detailed calculations that breaks down to 1 minute of physical exertion per player per game. So if you increase the size of the field the players would probably strike because the "jog" in from the outfield every inning would go over their strenuous 1 minute of physical activity per game.

If number of players can also be increased:

Basketball and Hockey would most likely resemble lacrosse as the sports are closely related to begin with.

Football would be like dungeons and dragons.

Football - speed would be 10x the factor of strength, hitting would be nearly impossible and the field would be stretched so that someone is always open.

Then hockey, same speed commnet, but the area to score would be the same size, so defending around the net wouldn't change except behind the net which would be a huge change. There's a limit to how far you can reasonably shoot from.

Then baseball, losing the home run would change a lot but only for some hitters in certain situations.

Basketball last, you still need to be close to the basket to score. Running around 60 feet from the rim would be useless. You can already shoot from half court if you want. The inside game would still be critical since someone needs to rebound.

Macdaddy wrote:

Baseball Y'al wrote:

Baseball. Double the size of the playing field while limiting the defense to nine players would be the biggest advantage for an offensive team in any of the four major professional sports.

All of the other sports have man coverage, baseball doesn't and because of this difference baseball wins this thread..

Baseball wouldn't change whatsoever. If you still have foul/fair lines, the only area that could be 'doubled' would be the LENGTH of the outfield. Which would likely cause scores to drop a bit, but nothing else.

The hockey rink doesn't double in size, but it significantly increases from NHL hockey to international play. This doesn't change the game that much.

Id go with NFL. Much more running around.

In baseball the outfield would not only become longer, but due to the angle created by the foul lines, the outfield would become significantly wider the further back you went, creating much more open space to hit the ball into. If a player hit what would be a home run on the current size field, it would likely bounce/roll much farther, allowing the runners more time to score. Even if the outfielders were playing deep, deep hits that fall between outfielders would be much harder to get to before they hit the ground or begin to roll back.

Baseball wins this thread.

bruh wrote:

In baseball the outfield would not only become longer, but due to the angle created by the foul lines, the outfield would become significantly wider the further back you went, creating much more open space to hit the ball into. If a player hit what would be a home run on the current size field, it would likely bounce/roll much farther, allowing the runners more time to score. Even if the outfielders were playing deep, deep hits that fall between outfielders would be much harder to get to before they hit the ground or begin to roll back.

Baseball wins this thread.

Baseball becomes more interesting and more like it was originally designed, but it does not change the most. "If a player hit what would be a home run on the current size field, it would likely bounce/roll much farther, allowing the runners more time to score." So they would all score, just like they all do now when someone hits a home run length ball. The only change is line drives to the outfield between outfielders become inside the park homeruns in many cases.

the jamaican jerky wrote:

Women's Beach Volleyball.

Yeah but if we're doubling cup size too, I'm OK with the change ups.

bruh wrote:

In baseball the outfield would not only become longer, but due to the angle created by the foul lines, the outfield would become significantly wider the further back you went, creating much more open space to hit the ball into. If a player hit what would be a home run on the current size field, it would likely bounce/roll much farther, allowing the runners more time to score. Even if the outfielders were playing deep, deep hits that fall between outfielders would be much harder to get to before they hit the ground or begin to roll back.

Baseball wins this thread.

Hmmm... interesting points. Considering that many homeruns only make it over the fence by a few yards, combined with the number of times I've seen individuals waiting at the wall for a homerun, I'd venture to say that half(ish) of current homeruns would be caught or run down before the runner would reach home. However, now that you mention it, we would likely see many line-drives getting through gaps and rolling and rolling and rolling, much like the little leaguers haha turning would be doubles into easy inside the parkers.

Too bad bowling isn't a team sport. 2x farther to roll the ball would be tough.

golf