[burger]

Well, based upon my own personal preferences ...
tougher 3 point shot = good
wider lane = indifferent to good
elimination of fouling as a strategy = good (though new rules a small effect here)
more commercials = bad

But, it's pretty hard to ask teams to suddenly adjust to new rules at the end of a season.
Of course, it's only the NIT, so as good a place to experiment as any.

Why is harder 3-point shooting good?  A couple of years ago, people were all worried that D-I scoring was down and the games were plodding because of overly physical defense.  So they added the restricted area under the basket and started calling more defensive fouls.  Now they want to take the game in the opposite direction by making 3-point shooting harder.  I couldn't find the overall numbers, but it looks like the median 3-point % by team is around 34.7%.  Median 2-point % is just under 50%.  So, basically 3-pointers and 2-pointers have similar net rates of points per shot.  Why mess with that?

[burger]

Well, based upon my own personal preferences ...
tougher 3 point shot = good
wider lane = indifferent to good
elimination of fouling as a strategy = good (though new rules a small effect here)
more commercials = bad

But, it's pretty hard to ask teams to suddenly adjust to new rules at the end of a season.
Of course, it's only the NIT, so as good a place to experiment as any.

Why is harder 3-point shooting good?  A couple of years ago, people were all worried that D-I scoring was down and the games were plodding because of overly physical defense.  So they added the restricted area under the basket and started calling more defensive fouls.  Now they want to take the game in the opposite direction by making 3-point shooting harder.  I couldn't find the overall numbers, but it looks like the median 3-point % by team is around 34.7%.  Median 2-point % is just under 50%.  So, basically 3-pointers and 2-pointers have similar net rates of points per shot.  Why mess with that?