"24 seconds is not long enough to shoot - promotes iso and less ball movement."

Shorter shot clocks actually promotes movement and action, which is what fans want to see as opposed to dribbiling out a shot clock for 35 seconds (or no shot clock...who thought four corners was fun to watch?)

That's the exact reason NCAA switched from 35 to 30 seconds...

"no zone defense: why? If it doesn’t work, then don’t play it. Why can’t you defend the basket however you want?"

Because at the time, the league was dominated by very large players and not a great amount of shooting, and if you allowed defenders to clog the lane, teams would load up on big players and camp out, leading to teams jacking up 25 footers without having the personnel to make that viable

I would be in favor of allowing zone defense now, but I don't think it would be a good strategy with the direction the game is moving

"the “advance the ball 65 feet just by calling timeout” rule. This is most inexplicable, bs, against the spirit of the game rule in sports. Why are you rewarded for calling a timeout?"

This is a rule for the fans, leads to higher percentage shots late in the game, keeps televisions tuned into the game. The percentage of a 30 footer vs a 60 footer going in are night and day, so you create scenarios to make the more exciting plays more likely to happen

"Not to mention it’s the same cast of characters every single year. That boring to me, at least."

I agree...prior to 2010, 36 out of 63 NBA Finals matchups involved either the Lakers or the Celtics (or both) but thankfully since players started moving more freely, more teams have gotten involved

(Oh wait, that's not the answer you wanted)