11/21/24
May 03, 2007
NCAA may move 3-point line: The men's 3-point line may be moved back one foot. This will make it 3 inches farther than the international line, but 3 feet closer than the NBA line (at its farthest point). The women's line will remain the same. Is this the right change? Was change needed?
posted by PublicUrinal to basketball at 01:49 PM - 17 comments
I don't think moving the line back will equate to getting better shooters in the NBA. If you can shoot, you can shoot from anywhere. I watch a lot of college ball and they regularly shoot the ball from NBA range. The only effect this will have is on college basketball, and that will be in the form of less 3 pointers and worse 3pt shooting %'s.
posted by yay-yo at 03:10 PM on May 03, 2007
I like it. They need to move it back. Probably farther than that. The college game has unfortunately deteriorated (at times) to a series of dunks and 3 pointers. It's stagnant and a little bit too predictable. It seemed March Madness had become a three-point shooting contest at times last year and this year. I don't want to see another Illinois or Ohio State jack up three after three after three....
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:33 PM on May 03, 2007
About time. If NCAA basketball wants to continue to portray itself as the legimate proving grounds for the NBA, or if David Stern continues to feed that assumption, the gameplay and rules should more closely resemble each other. Next step, shorter college shot clock.
posted by gradys_kitchen at 03:47 PM on May 03, 2007
I have to agree that it's about time that the 3-point line was moved back. Should've been done years ago. I think that one foot further back is just right. gradys_kitchen - I disagree with you about a shorter college shot clock...if the college shot clocks were any shorter, then they would be in the middle of the backboard or on the rim...Wow, tough crowd! Seriously though, I think the college shot clock needs to stay right where it's at. It promotes better team play and better offensive/defensive play-calling and strategy. One of my biggest gripes about the NBA is the 24-second shot clock, just way too short IMO. It leads to too much one-on-one garbage play or prayer shots in order to hit the rim before the clock runs out.
posted by BigTallChris at 04:18 PM on May 03, 2007
I've got a yeah-but for all ya'll. I am going to side against what some have said; a proving grounds for the NBA; no way. How many NCAA DIV. I II III players actaully make it to the NBA? I'd bet 1% or less, so that arguement cant hold much water. The other arguement was someone was sick of all the 3's being thrown up at the rim...well, what makes any1 think they will shoot any less? If they change the line, the only thing that will change are players 3 point percentage, which I can safely bet will worsen. The only plus I can see here is it might open up the lanes a little more as defenders will have an extra foot of ground to cover to guard a shooter as they will be a tad farther from the basket. I dont want to argue the shot clock issue since its off topic, but I disagree with shortening it anymore, it was wise to cut it from 45 seconds to what it is now. I agree with BigTall dude more or less.
posted by dezznutz at 05:09 PM on May 03, 2007
It's a good idea.th college line should not be the same as the high-school line.there should be some progression as the level of play goes up.It's also good that it is farther than the international line.maybe they'll get used to it,and maybe be better in international play.
posted by mars1 at 06:07 PM on May 03, 2007
I like it. It should keep post players from hoisting ill-advised shots with impunity, and inadvertently it may get college players to improve the lost art of the mid-range jumper.
posted by lilnemo at 07:30 PM on May 03, 2007
It's the right change since the NCAA continues to be the training ground for the NBA. I could care less how it translates to the NBA game for future players, because I could care less if the NBA dried up and disappeared. I do like college basketball though, and think the line needs to be further back. The current line is far too easy and routine of a shot. The lack of fundamentals in more and more top basketball talent, whether it's shooting from long-range or other aspects of the game, is why the U.S. continues to look ridiculous against top world competition.
posted by dyams at 08:18 PM on May 03, 2007
Back in the Dark Ages when I played, the best way to open up the inside was to actually hit shots from outside and make them come out to guard you. It is difficult for me to see how longer and more unsuccessful shots will do anything to loosen up or clean up inside play. Leave the line where it is and start calling fouls inside for holding and smashing into the opposing player. In the long run, college basketball will be better for it.
posted by JUDGE DREAD at 08:45 PM on May 03, 2007
I say move the line out. I hate how the current three point line kills fluidity and inventiveness in the half court game. It's like a big picket fence running through the action. It's just way too big of a determining force in how teams execute their sets. I'm a fan of good old fashioned medium range 2 pointers. From anywhere on the floor. Without stopping to worry about where your feet are in relation to a damn line. I would like to see fluid, unburdened basketball. Plus, if they move the line out a bit, the Syracuse 2-3 zone suddenly doesn't look nearly as suffocating and unsolvable. Right now, all that orange color and vigorous arm waving packed inside the existing three point line is a daunting obstacle to behold.
posted by beaverboard at 09:48 PM on May 03, 2007
I think moving the 3-point line back is a good idea, only it should be moved back to at least 22 feet. With the line where it is now, there are two problems: First, for good shooters, making a 3 is like taking candy from a baby. It's just too easy and good defense often goes unrewarded. Every year, there are a number of players (usually 3-point "specialists" who do very little except trot around the arc waiting for the ball to come their way) who shoot better (sometimes much better) from 3 than from 2. That's a sign that the 3-point line is too close. Second, the short distance tempts lesser shooters into taking (and missing) too many 3s. It's ridiculous that so many guards have overall shooting percentages under 40 percent because they jack up so many 3s and make less than 30 percent of them. If the line were out further, those players would have to think more about sharing the ball. In the end, a made 3 should be a reward for good offensive execution that sets up an open shot, but the team should have to work for it. I remember the title game a few years back when Illinois put up 40 threes against UNC and made only 12. Live by the 3, die by the 3. Of all the phases of the game, long-range shooting is the one most prone to inconsistency, so why do coaches make it such a huge part of their strategy? I've seen many teams shoot themselves right out of a game. As a Maryland fan, I've always liked Gary Williams' philosophy of not relying excessively on outside shooting.
posted by TerpFan at 11:17 PM on May 03, 2007
Agree with all. It is about time the 3 point line was moved back. I have been telling my friend about this issue for a long time. Anyone can shoot, if you are a shooter, from top of the key. Shooting from 19'9"only allows you to shoot from a high school 3. I feel as a player moves into an upper level of playability, it should make a little more difficult. I am 40 and i can still shoot from top of the key and beyond. I love the idea.
posted by gitbzy at 01:23 AM on May 04, 2007
Hopefully this'll help bring the jumper back to the game of basketball. Every kid that can jump and dunk thinks that they can make it into the NBA because of just that. The game needs more players like a Reggie Miller or Rip Hamilton that can make a 16-17 footer look like a free throw. Don't get me wrong, I love the dunk but it just seems as if every player that can throw it down feels as if they deserve some award because of it. Michael Jordan is one of the greatest dunkers of all time (IMO) but if you can remember his 'official' final shot against the Jazz while playing for the Bulls in the '98 NBA Finals with Byron Russell draped all over him, it was in fact a smooth and perfect jumper. Maybe this will help kids develop into more all-around players instead of being one dimensional.
posted by BornIcon at 05:14 AM on May 04, 2007
For those that play in the post like me (I'm 6'8"), I love the idea of moving the 3-point line back! I can get so frustrated and mad at guards that hurl up a 3-pointer whenever they can, while I'm wide open underneath for an easy lay-up...and that's after I ran the full length of the court and battled a couple of opponent's big men to get that position. Nothing makes me madder or gets me more frustrated than when I run over 90 feet during each possession and battle for position, just to have a guard gun it each time after running only 40-50 feet and not having any actual physical contact with the opponent. That's all for now...thanks for letting me have my "big man vent".
posted by BigTallChris at 02:43 PM on May 04, 2007
Moving the three point line back is only a small step for college basketball. The next step, or leap if you may, would be to completely wipe out the alternating possession arrow. That is totally ridiculous and often rewards the wrong team for defensive pressure. Make 'em jump for it.
posted by terribleteddy at 09:15 AM on May 05, 2007
An overheard idea to have an international line, that is the same for every court, no matter which level, might work. It would set a standard, less adjustment during olympic play also!
posted by dlopez916 at 09:44 PM on May 07, 2007
It's the right change since the NCAA continues to be the training ground for the NBA. Current players are missing so many 3 pointers in the playoffs this year they had to do something!