12/03/24
October 07, 2003
The long ball just got longer.: The NCAA rules committee is set to push the college 3-point line back 9 inches. That's 20 ft. 6 in. away from the goal. Good idea? Bad idea?
posted by lilnemo to basketball at 04:20 PM - 25 comments
Good call. I almost wish they would knock it back a bit more. It's still three feet closer (on the arc) and 1.5 feet closer (from the wings) than the NBA shot. Let the shooters actually shoot them and make the forwards play the post instead of pulling up and heaving bricks. 3-pointer is far too important in college basketball, hopefully this alleviates that a bit. On Preview: what lilnemo said/quoted.
posted by pivo at 04:36 PM on October 07, 2003
Good idea. Besides discouraging poor shooters, it might also help clean up inside play by spreading the court more. Of course widening the lane (is that going to be an experimental rule ths year?) would have a greater effect.
posted by mbd1 at 04:38 PM on October 07, 2003
Why not just make the NCAA and NBA rules the same? Do they have different college/pro rules in baseball, football, soccer, hockey? I mean, why the difference? They're all farm teams for the big-time, aren't they? Why? Why?
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:58 PM on October 07, 2003
Do they have different college/pro rules in baseball, football, soccer, hockey? Yes, yes, yes, and I don't know.
posted by mbd1 at 05:27 PM on October 07, 2003
But they don't make the field or scoring areas smaller, do they? C'mon! Somebody give me a definitive answer. I'm not talking about substitutions or time periods or timeouts, I'm talking about the playing/scoring areas. Stop the insanity!
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:39 PM on October 07, 2003
Some college hockey teams play on Olympic ice sheets, others play on the standard pro size.
posted by emoeby at 05:47 PM on October 07, 2003
O god, they have different sizes for Olympic and pro? What the? The madness grows ...
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:49 PM on October 07, 2003
3-point line? Whatever. Trampolines, dude.
posted by Samsonov14 at 05:53 PM on October 07, 2003
worldcup2002, The differences in the colloege and pro versions of the big sports do affect the scoring and fabric and flow of the game. In college baseball the aluminum bat would have to be the major culprit. In college football things like one foot inbounds vs 2 feet in on a catch, advancing a muffed punt/kick area couple off the top of my head. So while these don't affect the scoring areas or playing fields, they definitely affect the games deeply. Without looking I would imagine college hockey players (including goalies) would have something like bigger padding allowances or some such.
posted by pivo at 06:14 PM on October 07, 2003
I'd like them to take the old NBA 3 point line and move that back about 3 feet. That way it'd be out of bound son the wings and around halfcourt at the top of the key. And I'm serious. I really think the current 3 point shot diminishes the game. The old NBA 3 point line was okay. It was so far away only good shooters even attempted it. Chuck Person, Dennis Scott, Glen Rice, Rex Chapman (alone on fast breaks). When you hit one of those it was impressive.
Some basketball analyst made a good point that the 3 point line has taken away from the game. You don't see any movement below the foul line because all the players are heading for the 3 point line. It's a shame.
posted by Mike McD at 07:25 PM on October 07, 2003
How about adding a 4 point line halfway between the current 3 point line and halfcourt? I mean, if you want to jazz up the game...
posted by billsaysthis at 07:33 PM on October 07, 2003
How about outlawing the dunk? If Wooden says it, I take it as gospel.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:02 PM on October 07, 2003
Well, answer me this: Why is the NCAA scoring area not exactly like the NBA? And, why, really, is it NOT THE SAME when the pro basketball farm system is the NCAA? They've obviously moved the line to make it more difficult to shoot treys. Why not go all the way? What's the official reason? Is there some benefit to the players? Spectators? TV? I still have not seen a satisfactory answer.
posted by worldcup2002 at 08:13 PM on October 07, 2003
20'6" is the distance that has been used for the three-point line at the university level in Canada since the line's inception a few decades back. It is quite surprising how much of a difference those 9 inches make in terms of release. As a former player and assistant coach at that level, however, I can most definitely say that it does not discourage marginal shooters from taking the shot. My theory on why the line is so much shorter in the NCAA than the NBA? It's all in what they are respectively trying to sell. The NCAA likes that there are so many good teams, all of whom can win on any given night. March Madness is packaged and sold with that in mind. And a shorter 3-point line will ensure that teams can always shoot their way back into a game and keep it close. The NBA, on the other hand, wants less of that type of uncertainty in their product -- that is, they want their premiere teams to win more predictably. If teams are unable to shoot their way into a game as in college, then theoretically the better teams, better players, and hopefully, bigger TV markets should rise to the top at the end of the season. It's percentages. Obviously, that's not the whole of it, but I'm certain it comes into play somewhere.
posted by smithers at 08:54 PM on October 07, 2003
And, why, really, is it NOT THE SAME when the pro basketball farm system is the NCAA? worldcup: to add to what I wrote above, I think that -- 1. having different rules allows the NCAA to maintain their ridiculous "illusion" that they ARE NOT the farm system for the NBA. 2. the players simply aren't skilled enough: if you forced college athletes to use the 23-foot 3-pt line, the wide lane and a 24-second shot clock, you would routinely see scores in the 40s and 50s.
posted by smithers at 09:04 PM on October 07, 2003
wfrazierjr, Why outlaw the dunk? It is the higlight reel, the bread and butter of the NBA, and what keeps basketball alive in this day and age. Without the dunk all you have is women's hoops and, not to cast aspersions or start a debate/flame war, we all know how well that sells. Though if I recall correctly, the dunk was outlawed in college hoops at one time, most notably when Russel and Chamberlin were in college (back when they were about the only 2 who could dunk...them or other black players)
posted by pivo at 09:17 PM on October 07, 2003
I'm not really advocating the abolition of the dunk, but it couldn't hurt. Tell me how could a big chargin'-all-the-time, takin'-eight-steps lummox like Shaq could survive in this league without it. The dunk requires absolutely NO freaking skills. Even for artistes such as Dr. J or MJ, what does a dunk have to do with basketball? It requires the same motion as jamming a slice of pie in your piehole. As a matter of fact, you display MORE actual skills every time you toss that wadded-up fax toward the recycling bin (you are using the recycling bin, aren't you?). At least then, you have to have some sense of touch and trajectory. And what about women's basketball, pivo? People don't avoid women's hoops because they lack skills or ability — they avoid it because THERE'S NO GODDAMNED DUNKING. What sense does that make? Watch a WNBA game. See how they do actual basketball things, like, I don't know, run offenses and work off screens? How much of that is there really in the NBA? Half the time it's just a damn clearout for a one-on-one matchup. Screw that. The dunk, and its resulting culture, have led us to an NBA where nary a guard can shoot a jumper, and the backdoor cut is now like spotting Nessie. It's the And1 Tour, where guys can break ankles and dunk from a foot above the rim, but ask them to spot up from 15' and sink 'em and they turn into this. Screw that, and screw the dunk.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:11 PM on October 07, 2003
smithers - I would think that a 24 second clock in college could only increase scoring. I understand the implication that shot selection would fall off, but there would also be an increase in the total number of shots taken. It wouldn't be pretty, that's for sure. Moving the three point line would have an almost imperceptible effect on scoring compared to taking 11 seconds off the shot clock.
posted by mbd1 at 10:46 PM on October 07, 2003
wfrazier, granted the dunk is not the only reason people avoid women's basketball, and all the reasons you mentioned and more are why they do. It was just the most obvious example. Personally I agree with you, if I were 7'2" 350lbs and never got called for charging or travelling, I could be the franchise as well. Key though is not getting rid of the dunk, it's getting rid of rules and calls that protect the dunker (like that BS arc around the basket where charging is non existent). No way someone Iverson's size should be able to go inside and still walk without a limp. Let em play. I also, though my previous post did not reflect it, lament the loss of jump shooters and basketball players in general. I am hopeful the influx of the fundamentally sound European players is a wake up call to the youth, and more importantly, the youth coaching in America. That said, knocking the 3 point line back is the next best thing to getting rid of it. Killing the 3-point line altogether gets us our beloved 15-20 ft jump shot back. The dunk itself is not the problem, the protection of the dunker and the 3-point shot is.
posted by pivo at 12:16 AM on October 08, 2003
Without the dunk all you have is women's hoops ... we all know how well that sells.
I disagree. The WNBA doesn't sell because they aren't very good. The last time I watched a WNBA game both the passing and the shooting were poor. Yes, there was some planned offensive exectution but it wasn't spectacular.
I suspect Wooden is right. If you outlawed the dunk it would improve basketball. The elite men's players are so good, so talented, that I think you would see some truly amazing plays if they directed their energy into something other than dunking.
Case in point, have you noticed that Stephon Marbury almost never dunks? He can ... every once in while when he was on the Nets he'd catch a huge alley-oop. But most of the time Stephon doesn't and he's on record saying he doesn't want to show up any big men and risk getting them mad. Is Stephon someone I would turn on to see? Absolutely. Does Iverson dunk a lot? Nope. Most of the time it's reverse lay-ups, finger rolls. Is he exciting to watch? You bet he is.
posted by Mike McD at 08:52 AM on October 08, 2003
Wfraserjr - great post, and the Ostertag slam never gets old. I think that this is a good move - if anything it might spread the floor a little and produce a little bit more variation in offence. I don' think, however, that 9 inches is going to be the difference in scouting the real shooters from the pretenders. Besides, these guys aren't idiots - they know they're being scouted so often (JWill 2 years ago prime example) they'll jack one up a good foot, foot-and-a-half from beyond the college line. Okay all that aside, some of these guys are probably idiots. But it has little to do with the distance of the line.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:06 AM on October 08, 2003
Best non-dunk ever: MJ's fake dunk to lefty lay-up against the Lakers. It still makes my jaw drop. But outlawing the dunk would actually make the NBA regular season a team sport, and that just won't stand!
posted by garfield at 09:23 AM on October 08, 2003
Tie for best non-dunk ever: Landsberger and Kareem posterized May 11, 1980 Game 4, NBA Finals, Julius Erving started out on the right side and drove past Lakers’ forward Mark Landsberger along the baseline. As Erving elevated toward the basket, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar came over to block a layup attempt. Erving changed course in mid-air and floated behind the backboard to the other side of the basket then wrapped his right arm behind Kareem and laid in a reverse layup. “Here I was trying to win a championship and my mouth just dropped open,” recalled Lakers’ guard Magic Johnson, then a rookie. “I thought, ‘What should we do? Should we take the ball out or should we ask him to do it again?’” The Lakers would win the series in six games.
posted by gspm at 10:23 AM on October 08, 2003
mbd1: I guess my feeling is that the drop in shooting percentages will be too great to overcome the increased number of shots that go up. Many college teams have trouble running offence to get good shots in 35 seconds -- if you reduce that by 11 seconds you will see many time violations, or garbage heaves to beat the clock. Add to that the fact that NBA teams need 48 minutes to score their 90-100 points and that college teams will only get 5/6 of that, and I foresee some really unwatchable basketball. But I guess to come back to the point of the thread: this has absolutely SFA to do with shot clocks or banning dunking. They have decided to move the line back 9 inches and that is a good thing in my opinion. It is embarassing that colleges would use a line closer to that of high school than that of the pros.
posted by smithers at 10:25 AM on October 08, 2003
I like this idea. From the article:
Earlier this year, South Carolina coach Dave Odom, a rules committee member, said the extra 9 inches might discourage marginal shooters from taking longer shots.
This makes seperating (and evaluating) true perimeter shooters (and scorers, for that matter) from fakes an easier task for scouts. This still places the NCAA line a good foot and a half shorter than the NBA line, but with the dearth of quality big men in college basketball this should free up some space in the paint to allow more scoring oppurtunities as well. Not that this will keep scrubs from chucking up those ugly knuckleballs, but its a good try at a deterrent.