The focus of the discussion so far on the court size I think misses some of the more significant (and interesting) suggestions.
So firstly, the guy's focus on this being an extreme offense era is clearly misplaced - there's nothing wrong per-se with more scoring. I am, however, open to his argument that a better more aesthetically-pleasing and consistently-called game can be found out there with a different enforcement balance. Let's ignore the grumpy-old-man interpretations of the video (and his suggestion of "fewer games"), and instead look at his actual discussion of rules:
1) Carries: players wait with the ball in their hand until the defender reacts and then move with it, which can beat anyone, even with good D (and given no hand checking allowed). We should aggressively call carries and ignore fans' pleas until the players adjust to the new normal.
This I agree with, even though complaints about carries are very old-man-ish. It would create more pass-driven offense (which I like), and also create more opportunities for steals (which are fun, and reward different styles of player).
I think the penalty doesn't have to necessarily be a turnover, though. The first time it happens in a possession it could be like a kick-ball, offense gets side-out - disincentive, disrupts rhythm, but the team doesn't feel so aggrieved.
2) The way Travels, Zero-Steps and Moving screens are called - offense given free rein even when it's completely unfair to the defender.
Moving screens are the most "definitely!" part of this video, for me. It's an unfair advantage to the offense. Yes, KG did it all the time, yes Al Horford gets away with it, I don't care, if you reset expectations then players will adjust. You shouldn't be able to get away with contact with a defender unless you're truly stationary.
Zero-steps (gather steps) are fine in my eyes. I don't want lots of turnovers upon receipt of the ball. If anything, I think travel calls upon receipt but in the course of making a player's first move are called way too often, and they're not preventing action against the spirit of the rule (which is "you can't run with the ball"). That said, the combination of gather-step plus two steps plus (if needed) a hop stop basically leads to things looking like handball, being able to run around with it in your hands, impervious to any attempts to dispossess you. We could do with further conservatism on how that's called, I think, but it's not the most urgent priority.
3) Adopt FIBA's bigger court and longer 3-point line.
I'm of two minds on this. Firstly, sure, you're giving up a few seats in the arena, but overall that impact is very small. But I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make. The high quality of the corner 3 today means that teams have to defend players over there more honestly, creating more room in the middle and more opportunity for around-the-horn passing and incisive cuts. The credible threat of the 3 helps, and sometimes the bluff is called, but if you can't defend the paint without helping off of someone posted up in the corner, you need to adjust your defensive tactics imo.
4) ...and removing the 3-second defensive rule, and allow hand-checking.
I could buy this, if you're not going to enlarge the court or eliminate below-the-break 3s. You've still protected the cutters with the restricted area under the basket. Lack of a 3-second rule won't stop layups and pretty plays around the basket, and it's a silly thing that is inconsistently called anyway. The guy's rationale for it is silly, though: "it will slow the game down and result in fewer possessions that end after 0 or 1 passes". The current ruleset favors passing-based penetration because you have to respect the 3 so much. If a big can just camp out in the paint, I don't know why the result would be more passing - seems likelier to be more mid-range jumpers.
Hand checking is a tougher one. It's one of the things people cite when they refer to the NBA's 80s-90s golden era as being tougher and and more physical. Clearly it was no barrier to pretty or entertaining basketball. And it gets at one of my biggest frustrations, which is foul calls on light incidental contact that clearly didn't alter the shot or "punish" the shooter in any way. So if "allow hand checking" helps prevent the gather-step-step invincible charges to the rim, and/or helps minimize ticky-tack foul calls, then I think it would help.
In
other videos promoting Euro-style rules, the guy also suggests that the continuation rule on fouling shooters is whistled far too much in favor of the shooter, which I buy in theory, but also see how it's just about impossible to officiate it fairly on the continuum between gather - going up - releasing.
I'll also add that one of my favorite FIBA rules is allowing players to clear the ball off the rim after initial contact. So if it hits the rim and bounces up, you can jump up and clear it off (or put it in) without it being goaltending either way. That leads to a lot of fun plays, where the heads-up player who can effectively play above the rim is rewarded. It does lower FG% of course, but it's exciting, so that's a tradeoff worth considering.