PDA

View Full Version : 3 pt line moved back to '20-9"



dukeENG2003
05-03-2007, 02:12 PM
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
05-03-2007, 02:49 PM
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
05-03-2007, 02:50 PM
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
05-03-2007, 03:47 PM
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
05-03-2007, 03:47 PM
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
05-03-2007, 03:52 PM
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
05-03-2007, 04:05 PM
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
05-03-2007, 04:26 PM
^^
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
05-03-2007, 04:44 PM
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
05-03-2007, 04:55 PM
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
05-03-2007, 05:02 PM
Does anyone have a link to a picture of that old really short three point line tried maybe for one season?
Thanks.

SilkyJ
05-03-2007, 05:19 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:09 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:15 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:36 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:39 PM
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
05-03-2007, 06:42 PM
^^One-hundred percent agreed upon.

MChambers
05-03-2007, 08:16 PM
Finally, a thread about college basketball!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/ncaa/wires/05/03/2060.ap.bkc.ncaa.3.point.line.3rd.ld.writethru.088 3/

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
05-03-2007, 08:18 PM
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
05-03-2007, 08:27 PM
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.

Cameron
05-03-2007, 10:36 PM
Let's just hope this doesn't pass on the 25th.

If it does pass, I am definitely not worried about Duke being able to adapt. Because, as others have pointed out above, we have always had one or two guys on our teams who can fill it up from 24, 25 feet. I mean, in 2001 alone, we had four guys who could step out past 25' and knock it down. Battier, Williams, Duhon, and Dunleavy. And with King and Scheyer playing for us the next few seasons, we'll be in pretty good hands from deep.

However, with that said, the extended line just won't do much to improve the game imo. Like I said earlier, guys who shouldn't be shooting threes will still want to shoot threes even with the longer line. The only thing that will be changing is how badly they are missing. Just leave the game as is. College hoops is perfect.

DukeUsul
05-03-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm not really complaining. I agree he didn't really do it all that much for it to be a problem. It was still irritating when he did it.

Cameron
05-03-2007, 10:43 PM
^^I'm with you. I'm just glad we don't have to worry about him ever shooting them again.

Son of Jarhead
05-04-2007, 12:28 AM
Not being serious of course... but, maybe they can color code them like tee boxes in golf... red for the ladies, yellow for the seniors, white for the men, & blue for the pros.:D

BTW, I agree... 2 feet back would be better. Also, I'm glad they are not considering moving the ladies line back... such a move would really hurt their game. I can imagine so many lines on the court would be very distracting to the players, though. I wonder what color Duke will use for the men's & women's?

Cameron
05-04-2007, 10:14 AM
BTW, this is a complete joke.

hondoheel
05-04-2007, 10:40 AM
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.

Fortunately for UNC fans, the women's team plays in Carmichael.

Spret42
05-04-2007, 11:10 AM
I respectfully must say I am very happy about this change.

Lately the game has too often become a three point shooting contest and everyone is invited. This is a problem when three points are earned by hitting a mid-range jump shot. I have no problem with the three point shot, but it should be a serious risk/reward. It should be a long distance shot; a shot that is risky unless taken by players who are legitimate long distance shooters.

Yes, shooting percentages will go down, but that is only because the game will now recognize and reward only those players who are legitimate shooters. The guys who aren’t will still be the same players, and hitting a mid-range shot will only reward them and their team with the 2 points the shot is actually worth.

I believe in order to be given a 50% increase in reward the shot should be requisitely difficult. 19’9” just isn’t a difficult enough shot. I would recommend the shot be pushed back even farther, to 21’ 9”.

The idea that in big time male college basketball, the three point line is not only closer to the high school line than the NBA line but is actually equal to the high school line seems to me to be certifiably insane.

We have decided that certain standards for the game are universal, the basket remains at 10 feet, free throw line at 15 feet. Those are the basic standards for the game. However the three point shot is designed to be a specialized shot with an increased reward. As players get stronger and better the degree of difficulty for a risk/reward shot like the three pointer should increase as well.

High School 19’9”, College 21’9”, Professional 23’ 9” (22’ from the corners)

A few years ago, Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe wrote the best article I have ever read about the three point shot. I am basically parroting his arguments here. Ryan has been covering basketball since Bill Russell and if he says the 19’9” is too easy I am inclined to believe him.

I do sympathize with the problem of two lines on the floor etc, but that doesn't change the need for the game to reward accomplishment based on difficulty.

SilkyJ
05-04-2007, 01:31 PM
I believe in order to be given a 50% increase in reward the shot should be requisitely difficult. 19’9” just isn’t a difficult enough shot. I would recommend the shot be pushed back even farther, to 21’ 9”.

The idea that in big time male college basketball, the three point line is not only closer to the high school line than the NBA line but is actually equal to the high school line seems to me to be certifiably insane.



I'm torn. Spret's risk/reward argument makes very good sense to me, and he brings another good point with the relationship to the high school vs NBA lines. On the other hand as someone said, college ball is perfect (almost) and I don't want to tinker. I guess I agree with most detractors that if you were going to do this, you should push it back two feet to really make a difference.

I'm anxious to hear Coach k's thoughts as well...

TampaDuke
05-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Not sure if one foot matters, but I'm curious as to whether this change would adversely affect our high pressure defense. At times we tend to have a problem with dribble penetration due to our aggressive D. To the extent that most offenses start out at the 3 pt line, does an extra foot of space allow the penetrator more room to adjust to the help/bigs? Or, does it allow more space/time for the help D to adjust? Neither? While there's been considerable valuable discussion on the impact on offense, I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts as how this impacts our defense.

HK Dukie
05-04-2007, 07:13 PM
JJ's record is that much harder to beat :)

shadycharacter
05-05-2007, 04:17 PM
Seems to me Spret's post makes very good sense.

I believe the original reason for adding the three point shot was largely to give teams an extra weapon for special situations, not unlike the two point rushing or passing bonue after a football touchdown.

In football, almost all teams still routinely kick the one point converstion. Only now and then because of scoring and timing factors do they try the two.

I don't know that the 3 point shot needs to be that limited in BB, but I think that when half a team's shots are from 3 point range, and virtually everyone in the game is jacking them up, it tends to become a playground game instead of a more polished one. And too often the outside players are so into long range that the ball is rarely passed in to the 4 and 5 except with the expectation they will toss it right back out for another three point attempt. I like a game where the inside players participate in the scoring just as much as the guards and SF.....and whatever it takes to make this a more even balance seems to me to improve the game.

SilkyJ
05-05-2007, 05:16 PM
Not sure if one foot matters, but I'm curious as to whether this change would adversely affect our high pressure defense. At times we tend to have a problem with dribble penetration due to our aggressive D. To the extent that most offenses start out at the 3 pt line, does an extra foot of space allow the penetrator more room to adjust to the help/bigs? Or, does it allow more space/time for the help D to adjust? Neither? While there's been considerable valuable discussion on the impact on offense, I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts as how this impacts our defense.

Again, it depends. For the best penetrators, especially those that are pass first, it is better for them, meaning harder to defend them. It does give help defenders (PF and Centers) more time to come over and react to the penetrator, but there will be more space for the person they were guarding to move into and to receive a pass. So good penetrators will be able to drive and dish and you will see more easy dunks and layups off penetration (see steve nash and all the athletes surrounding him). As for scoring penetrators, it is also good for them if they are good at changing direction and using spin moves (see D Wade) as they can spin away from the defender into that space and get off a close shot or a layup/dunk.

Like I said, it the extra space gives helps defenders more time to get over and make blocks and take charges, so against weaker competition the defense might benefit more, but if you have the best defenders going against the best penetrators, it is going to benefit the offense more than the defense.

But at the end of the day, 1 foot isn't that much so it really doesn't matter. We will take a few more charges here and there and teams may get a couple more easy layups off b/c we can't stop penetration, but really it won't matter all that much.