3 pt line moved back to '20-9"

[dukeENG2003]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2859065

moved back to 20 ft 9 inches

This should make things interesting. The article says it begins in 2008-2009, so it won't affect this upcoming season.

[MrBisonDevil]

I wonder if the new 3pt line will change the number of teams playing Man-To-Man or Zone. Can someone comment on defensive strategy?

[arydolphin]

It's a little silly that the line will move back for men's games but not for women's games. Thus, every college court in the country will probably have 2 different 3-point lines. I bet that will cause some confusion, similar to what happens when college games are played on NBA courts. One foot is not going to make a big difference, the line should go back to 21 feet and 9 inches, to make it 2 feet longer than the high school line and 2 feet shorter than the NBA line.

In terms of the impact on defense, the thought is that by having the 3 point line extended will pulling defenses further away from the basket. I'd imagine that it would hurt defenses trying to collapse down on a dominant big man or trying to impede cutters coming through the lane. Of course, the argument could also be made that 1 foot isn't going to make much of a difference at all.

[hurleyfor3]

Check it out, JJ made three-pointers harder for everyone else, the same way Tiger Woods made golf courses harder for everyone else.

I'm exaggerating... no, actually I'm not.

[UKBOO]

It's not exactly a done deal yet, but I imagine it will pass. I think the final vote is the 25th.

As for defense, the idea is to creat more space between post players and perimeter players. Players are bigger and stronger now, and they are trying to create more space. My guess is, you may see a little more zone in the beginning.

[g_olaf]

One foot is not going to make a big difference, the line should go back to 21 feet and 9 inches, to make it 2 feet longer than the high school line and 2 feet shorter than the NBA line.

I agree, 2 ft would be better, still I think one foot will make a significant difference both in 3FG% as well as 3pt attempts. Hopefully, this will help produce a resurgence of the midrange game.

[pamtar]

It's a little silly that the line will move back for men's games but not for women's games. Thus, every college court in the country will probably have 2 different 3-point lines. I bet that will cause some confusion, similar to what happens when college games are played on NBA courts.

Great point. I've seen countless times when players heave up an NBA three at the end of the shot (or game) clock just to see it come up short. I doubt the extention will effect the men's game as much as it will the women who dont utilize the three as often. Some even seem to struggle with the current legnth.

[UKBOO]

^^
I don't think they are moving the ladies' line back. That means some courts that are used for college and pro could have three different lines on it.

[mgtr]

Three different three-point lines. Now if we just had three different free throw areas, and maybe three different basket heights, and maybe three different rim sizes... People just have no sense about these things. I would guess that the major schools wanted the three point line moved out, and the smaller schools didn't. Just a guess, though. But that is one price you pay for a democratic system.

[UKBOO]

Personally, I wish college would adopt the configuration and rules of international play. I think the US players suffer some when they start playing on these courts and with these rules. With the leaping ability of players these days, the US should be able to clean up where the "(non)goaltending" rules come in to play, as an example. I think college would be a great place for players to get used to international play. But I guess that is a topic for another thread?

[zaah1]

Does anyone have a link to a picture of that old really short three point line tried maybe for one season?
Thanks.

[SilkyJ]

I wonder if the new 3pt line will change the number of teams playing Man-To-Man or Zone. Can someone comment on defensive strategy?

Two conflicting schools of thought (at least with the voices in my head):
1) extending the line makes the 3pt shot harder, and zones tend to force more 3pt shots, so you would think you would see more zone.

2) extending the line extends the court and so your zone gets stretched out, and there will be more open space in the middle of the court and around the free throw line making for easy buckets, if you have players with a good midrange game. Also, as someone else mentioned it makes it harder to collapse on a dominant bigman.

So, I guess it depends on personel: if you play teams that like to jack it from deep, play zone, if they like to pound it inside play man.

But all of this depends on whether the 1 extra foot makes a difference, which it may not. If that is the case, then folks won't play more zone cause it won't make a difference.

[kexman]

I think in theory this should only help the defense. Since teams were free to fire it up from 20'9'' before, it should not necessarily affect how far the defense has to cover. The caveats to that are 1) with practice at the new distance the ability to shoot from 20'9'' will probably improve or players that can shoot at this new distance will see increase playing time. 2) Offenses do seem to set up just outside the line so maybe this will get them to set up another foot further out...not that they couldn't do this before, but I know I always subconsciously receive passes just outside the 3 point line.

The 3 point line was too easy at 19'9''... I think I would have aimed for 21' or 21' 6''. It will be interesting to see what subtle changes come from the rule change. I would think moving it out a little further so that mainly only a team's 1 or 2 best shooters could shoot the 3 would have been fun. At 19'9'' almost any college perimeter player could shoot the open 3 point shot.

[Cameron]

This is ridiculous. Sorry, NCAA, but your moving the three-point line back a foot is not going to do anything productive. In fact, it's just stupid. I love the "reasoning" behind it, though. The fact that the powers that be (and, even more shockingly, coaches) actually think shooting percentages are going to become much higher now that the line is going to be moved back boggles my mind. I know that a lot of people have been adovacting this move for a long time now, citing that a change would bring back the mid range game to college basketball. Well, I got news for those people: Not gonna happen.

I would even go as far to say that three-point shooting percentages are going to be even worse than before now that the line has been moved. Guards LOVE shooting threes; it's eye candy for scoreres. The players that were shooting threes when they shouldn't have been before the line change are now going to be shooting threes when they shouldn't be again, only this time from farther. The three-ball is too big a part of the game; it will continue to be utilized as much as before, even with the extension. So moving it back does nothing but make it a harder shot. So congratualtions, NCAA, you have just turned college basketball into a mini-NBA, where you'll see more bricks from downtown than makes. This makes a whole lot of sense.

And as for the line helping bring back the mid range game... I don't think so. Did anyone ever stop and think that the new mid range shot might just turn out be the approximate location of where the old three-point shot was? Again, percentages are not going to suddenly become much higher because of a foot difference. They will, on the contrary, most likely get worse.

This is a sad day in college basketball history.

And please, NCAA, if you have any serious thoughts on expanding the March Madness field anytime soon, then you need to fold. Change doesn't always translate into progess. Sometimes, it's just unecessary. As the old adage says, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

[UKBOO]

Two conflicting schools of thought (at least with the voices in my head):
1) extending the line makes the 3pt shot harder, and zones tend to force more 3pt shots, so you would think you would see more zone.

2) extending the line extends the court and so your zone gets stretched out, and there will be more open space in the middle of the court and around the free throw line making for easy buckets, if you have players with a good midrange game. Also, as someone else mentioned it makes it harder to collapse on a dominant bigman.

So, I guess it depends on personel: if you play teams that like to jack it from deep, play zone, if they like to pound it inside play man.

But all of this depends on whether the 1 extra foot makes a difference, which it may not. If that is the case, then folks won't play more zone cause it won't make a difference.

SilkyJ
As to whether it causes more zone, or helps or hurts the D, it will still depend on the team that is on offense, just like it did before. If a team can hit that shot, a zone will still get chewed alive. If a team can not, then a zone can just pack in. What you may see is a change in the offense. A team that can shoot, and can drive will really pay off. In that case, a defense will be stretched in either a man to man or a zone, creating larger gaps. If I were a coach, I would have my players start working on this shot NOW.
If a team can shoot, and has a post player, then doubles will be harder as well. The common theme.. If a team can shoot...

[UKBOO]

And please, NCAA, if you have any serious thoughts on expanding the March Madness field anytime soon, then you need to fold. Change doesn't always translate into progess. Sometimes, it's just unecessary. As the old adage says, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

The field is perfect just the way it is and the numbers prove it. A 16 has never defeated a 1. BUT a 15 HAS defeated a 2. I don't even know why they have the play in game.

[Cameron]

^^One-hundred percent agreed upon.

[MChambers]

Finally, a thread about college basketball!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ritethru.0883/

To 20 feet 9 inches, but not until 2008-2009. I think this wouldn't affect Duke much. We tend to cover past the three-point line, and we usually have at least a few shooters who are quite comfortable further outl

Discuss.

[DukeUsul]

I think it's a good decision. They've been talking about it for years, I'm glad they decided to go for it. I think with the line at 19'9" we've lost the art of the mid-range jumper. This should open up the floor a bit, reduce the number of bad 3-pt attempts by guys who shouldn't be taking them (see McBob this year) and make guys who can hit the truly deep ones more valuable.

[yancem]

I think it's a good decision. They've been talking about it for years, I'm glad they decided to go for it. I think with the line at 19'9" we've lost the art of the mid-range jumper. This should open up the floor a bit, reduce the number of bad 3-pt attempts by guys who shouldn't be taking them (see McBob this year) and make guys who can hit the truly deep ones more valuable.

I agree that this a good idea. I also think that it will help Duke seeing how Coach K seems to go after the best shooters in each class but I don't understand why people link McRoberts as one of the guys that jack up threes when they clearly can't make them. In 06 he shot all of 13 threes and in 07 only 23 and I remember at least a handful of those being at the end of the shot clock. Significantly less than one attempt a game is hardly anything to complain about. If memory serves me correct, he made 2 or 3 in the McD's game so maybe if he had taken more and found a rythem they would have started falling.