The abundance libs should advocate for redistributing marginal wealth from randos who spend it on toys and gambling to Elon, who invests at a 50+% rate of return or whatever @grok is this true

I agree with the general idea that a bunch of obvious rule changes make sense for different sports, but this would be a fairly extreme change. I don't play volleyball or table tennis, but service is very different in badminton and pickleball, where the receiving side actually has the advantage. Only in tennis is there a downward service motion that benefits from maximizing power while maintaining accuracy. So the server wins ~60% of the points, while in badminton, the receiver wins a slight majority in singles and about 60% in doubles. (Because of tennis's game–set structure, that means that, for example, men's singles players won 77% of service games at the 2026 US Open.) There are still kind of "free" improvements that could be made to tennis e.g. tennis would make more sense in my mind if it were played as a first-to-21 tiebreaker: 1. The whole "best of 3 sets, each of which is first to 6 games, which are first to 4 points (best of 2)" is just an absurd and pointless structure that adds variance, and allows you to win the match while losing a majority of points, which happens ~4% of the time. 2. The games are kind of long. If you convert the above system to a normal "play-to-X" format based on the length of actual games today, then it would be first to 60 points at the high-school and college levels, a bit more at the ATP pro level, and then ~125 points at the Grand Slam level where they play five sets. Grand Slam matches in particular take multiple hours, much longer than basically any other sport, and that extreme relative length also exists at lower levels though to a smaller degree. Contrast this with badminton where the Badminton World Federation is introducing games to 15 points because the top pros play such long rallies that games to 21 points take a long time and are very taxing. But this means that at amateur/weaker levels a game might take like 5 minutes… That's one of the things with rule changes; there's a desire for uniformity, which is probably somewhat good because equilibria where there are basically competing rulesets is pretty confusing and annoying for players. But I think a good quality of a ruleset is if it can be adapted naturally for different levels e.g. adapted for different target lengths by changing one variable.