A Deeper 3 Point Line Next Year?

[richardjackson199]

I like this idea and hope it happens. I think it would help Duke:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-rules-committee-proposes-moving-back-3-point-line-to-international-distance/

Bummer we lost boogie though

[dukelifer]

I like this idea and hope it happens. I think it would help Duke:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-rules-committee-proposes-moving-back-3-point-line-to-international-distance/

Bummer we lost boogie though

I agree that is a good change and should reduce percentages a bit from 3 for the average shooter. Unless Alex or Joey become a bigger part of the O-not clear how this will affect Duke

[sagegrouse]

I agree that is a good change and should reduce percentages a bit from 3 for the average shooter. Unless Alex or Joey become a bigger part of the O-not clear how this will affect Duke

No surprise, but one of the options is to allow review of basket interference in the last two minutes plus OT.

[jv001]

I wish this rule would have been implemented last season. Zion would have been even more incredible with a cleaner lane. I have no idea how it will affect this years team. GoDuke!

[UrinalCake]

I wish this rule would have been implemented last season. Zion would have been even more incredible with a cleaner lane.

I feel like the deeper line would have caused opponents to pack it in even more against us, because they would respect our three point shooting even less. They would have essentially defended us as if the line didn’t exist.

In general I am in favor of this rule change though. The three point shot has become too common, it should be a difficult thing reserved for specialists.

[budwom]

fine by me, but even a fifteen foot arc wouldn't have helped us last year.

[bullettoothtony]

It wouldn't help us defensively. Extending the coverage area for our overplay defense? I cringe at the thought.

[fuse]

Overall a good idea.
Would have helped past Duke teams.

Unclear how Duke will be able to take advantage on either side of the ball in upcoming seasons.

[MChambers]

It wouldn't help us defensively. Extending the coverage area for our overplay defense? I cringe at the thought.

Since Duke usually puts pressure on outside the three point line, I don’t think it would hurt Duke’s defense.

[Neals384]

fyi the FIBA distance is 22' 1 3/4", or for metric-savvy folks, 6.75 meters.

[TruBlu]

fyi the FIBA distance is 22' 1 3/4", or for metric-savvy folks, 6.75 meters.

Measurements on DBR are worthless unless they are in cinderblocks. Surprisingly, the Internet does not have a conversion chart.

[devildeac]

Measurements on DBR are worthless unless they are in cinderblocks. Surprisingly, the Internet does not have a conversion chart.


Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit

"In the US, CMU blocks are nominally 16 in (410 mm) wide and 8 in (200 mm) long. Their actual dimensions are their nominal dimensions, minus 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) any direction (to allow for mortar joints regardless of their orientation as laid).[7] In Ireland and the UK, blocks are usually 440 mm × 215 mm × 100 mm (17.3 in × 8.5 in × 3.9 in) excluding mortar joints. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, blocks are usually 390 mm × 190 mm × 190 mm (15.4 in × 7.5 in × 7.5 in) excluding mortar joints."

You're on your own to complete the math.

;)

[TruBlu]

Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit

"In the US, CMU blocks are nominally 16 in (410 mm) wide and 8 in (200 mm) long. Their actual dimensions are their nominal dimensions, minus 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) any direction (to allow for mortar joints regardless of their orientation as laid).[7] In Ireland and the UK, blocks are usually 440 mm × 215 mm × 100 mm (17.3 in × 8.5 in × 3.9 in) excluding mortar joints. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, blocks are usually 390 mm × 190 mm × 190 mm (15.4 in × 7.5 in × 7.5 in) excluding mortar joints."

You're on your own to complete the math.

;)

Uh, if I have to do my own math, it is not a conversion chart.:cool:

[mkirsh]

fyi the FIBA distance is 22' 1 3/4", or for metric-savvy folks, 6.75 meters.

What’s also interesting about the FIBA line is that it’s slightly shorter in the corners, like the NBA line but much less pronounced. A lot of NBA offenses have incorporated schemes to take advantage of the arbitrage of the shorter corner 3, so it will be interesting to see if that makes its way to NCAA hoops

[budwom]

What’s also interesting about the FIBA line is that it’s slightly shorter in the corners, like the NBA line but much less pronounced. A lot of NBA offenses have incorporated schemes to take advantage of the arbitrage of the shorter corner 3, so it will be interesting to see if that makes its way to NCAA hoops

this is what happens when you get involved with foreigners and their fancy meters and kilowhatevers and such.

[lotusland]

I like to see the 3-pt line moved all the way off the court but I like post play and pull up jumpers. The 3 point line was created as an NBA gimmick. I don’t think the intent was to make the game revolve around three point shooting. It’s gotten boring imo.

[gus]

I like to see the 3-pt line moved all the way off the court but I like post play and pull up jumpers. The 3 point line was created as an NBA gimmick. I don’t think the intent was to make the game revolve around three point shooting. It’s gotten boring imo.

The first game with a three point line was played in 1945 in a college game. The ABA had a three point line throughout its history. The NBA didn't adopt it until several years after the ABA folded.

[sagegrouse]

I like to see the 3-pt line moved all the way off the court but I like post play and pull up jumpers. The 3 point line was created as an NBA gimmick. I don’t think the intent was to make the game revolve around three point shooting. It’s gotten boring imo.

Yes, but the argument for the three-point line in college had to do with the shot clock. The introduction of the clock meant that teams would just pack the middle to stymie the offense. The three-point shot was the counter. Dean Smith was particularly insistent on this.

[wsb3]

Confession, I did not know this. My childhood sports memories do not go back to 1961.

The 3-point line's first use in a professional league was back in 1961 in the American Basketball League. The ABL only lasted 1 ½ seasons before folding, so the 3-pointer quickly went away.

Link- https://www.usab.com/youth/news/2011/06/the-history-of-the-3-pointer.aspx

[frb]

that's just kicking the can down the road. they're not looking at readily available data.

the issue is NOT where the line is... the real problem is when the 3 pt shot was introduced, it was given far too much value over the 2 point shot. The conversion rate of a mid range and long range really isn't that much different.. so why would you take the 2 pointer? the 3 is just about the same probability and is worth 1.5x more. If you're trying to be as efficient as possible, you shoot 3s and lay ups/dunks. Mid range generally isn't worth burning a possession on.

to "correct" the trend, if you even want to do that, do one of 2 things. Change the point values or eliminate the 3 point line altogether which will never happen- fans like it and the players do, too.

awarding 1.5x the value of the 2 point shot was the error that was made. Now with modern analytics, teams are playing to be efficient.. and you do that by shooting 3s and lay ups. And of course driving to the basket and drawing fouls... the drives to the basket collapse the defense which opens up shooters to receive a pass for a wide open.. you guessed it.. 3 point shot.

keep moving the line back and the kids will adapt. they'll figure out how to shoot from even the NBA 3 pt line. Might take a little while for coaches/trainers to get players ready but you'll see that over time, moving the line didn't accomplish anything.

[frb]

It wouldn't help us defensively. Extending the coverage area for our overplay defense? I cringe at the thought.

yup. imagine how many open 3s would be created if the opponent played mostly isolation plays. pick and drive to the basket.. shooters lined up well beyond the 3 pt line. defense collapses to help with the driver and driver kicks it to the shooter of his choice for a wide open 3.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

that's just kicking the can down the road. they're not looking at readily available data.

the issue is NOT where the line is... the real problem is when the 3 pt shot was introduced, it was given far too much value over the 2 point shot. The conversion rate of a mid range and long range really isn't that much different.. so why would you take the 2 pointer? the 3 is just about the same probability and is worth 1.5x more. If you're trying to be as efficient as possible, you shoot 3s and lay ups/dunks. Mid range generally isn't worth burning a possession on.

to "correct" the trend, if you even want to do that, do one of 2 things. Change the point values or eliminate the 3 point line altogether which will never happen- fans like it and the players do, too.

awarding 1.5x the value of the 2 point shot was the error that was made. Now with modern analytics, teams are playing to be efficient.. and you do that by shooting 3s and lay ups. And of course driving to the basket and drawing fouls... the drives to the basket collapse the defense which opens up shooters to receive a pass for a wide open.. you guessed it.. 3 point shot.

keep moving the line back and the kids will adapt. they'll figure out how to shoot from even the NBA 3 pt line. Might take a little while for coaches/trainers to get players ready but you'll see that over time, moving the line didn't accomplish anything.

First, "kicking the can down the road" is not a bad thing in this instance....sports ALWAYS make adjustments as the games evolve. Seems like you are balancing this versus the idea that any change is a permanent solution. There's no such thing in sports.

Second, how can you change the fact that a 3 is 150% of a 2? Start awarding 2.5 point baskets? That wasn't a "mistake" - it was simply an unavoidable conclusion.

Third, moving the line back will indeed accomplish something, at least in the short run. And again, sports change their rules "in the short run" by design.

[gus]

yup. imagine how many open 3s would be created if the opponent played mostly isolation plays. pick and drive to the basket.. shooters lined up well beyond the 3 pt line. defense collapses to help with the driver and driver kicks it to the shooter of his choice for a wide open 3.

If that's an effective tactic, why would the current shorter three point line preclude teams from running that anyway?

[COYS]

If that's an effective tactic, why would the current shorter three point line preclude teams from running that anyway?

An admittedly cursory Google search didn't give me hard data to back up this theory, but I would imagine that the average distance of a three point shot has increased steadily, even taking into account the NCAA moving back the line a decade ago. I think a lot of shooters now set up well behind the line to further stretch the defense. This is anecdotal, of course, but I know that a minor tweak Coach K made ahead of the 2007-2008 season was to encourage Duke's shooters to spot up an extra step back from the line, sacrificing a few feet to gain better spacing along with a split-second more time to step into a shot before the defense could recover. I feel like almost all teams do that now, with the better shooters sometimes spotting up from way farther out.

I don't think a small change in the distance of the line will make all that much difference in spacing. I DO think that corner threes will really start to increase in value, though, much as they have in the NBA game.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think a small change in the distance of the line will make all that much difference in spacing. I DO think that corner threes will really start to increase in value, though, much as they have in the NBA game.

I think the un-commented on point about the proposed change is that the NBA, FIBA and NCAA rules seem to converging -- shot clocks, court measurements, three-point arcs, etc. I must say there is a certain logic to it. Hasn't FIBA adopted the 24-second clock, and isn't the NCAA moving in that direction? Now the NCAA has a proposal to adopt the FIBA three-point arc. Hmmmm.... suspicious minds are very active.

[frb]

If that's an effective tactic, why would the current shorter three point line preclude teams from running that anyway?

it doesn't.. it would just be better spacing if you pushed the line back. Larger drive lanes. the better the spacing, the more open the 3s are. you also need some who can run isolation and draw the defense in and then kicking it to open 3 pt shooters.. like james harden's role with the rockets. doesn't even need to be as good as harden. just someone with a quick step and a good handle who can draw the foul or kick it to the open 3 pt shooter.

[frb]

An admittedly cursory Google search didn't give me hard data to back up this theory, but I would imagine that the average distance of a three point shot has increased steadily, even taking into account the NCAA moving back the line a decade ago. I think a lot of shooters now set up well behind the line to further stretch the defense. This is anecdotal, of course, but I know that a minor tweak Coach K made ahead of the 2007-2008 season was to encourage Duke's shooters to spot up an extra step back from the line, sacrificing a few feet to gain better spacing along with a split-second more time to step into a shot before the defense could recover. I feel like almost all teams do that now, with the better shooters sometimes spotting up from way farther out.

I don't think a small change in the distance of the line will make all that much difference in spacing. I DO think that corner threes will really start to increase in value, though, much as they have in the NBA game.

get the book "sprawlball"... data scientist from UT Austin wrote it. came out last week. it focuses on the NBA but there's a lot of similarities to the college game and the proliferation of the 3. https://www.amazon.com/SprawlBall-Visual-Tour-New-Era/dp/1328767515. the author speaks to the issue with the 3 pt shot is its value of 1.5x the 2 pt shot. the value is so great, there's no incentive to shoot mid range J's... so the game turns into a 3 pt shooting/dunk/lay up show with a lot of isolation sets. basically the 2 most efficient shots are those within 8 feet of the hoop and the 3 (especially the corner 3). anything in between isn't a good use of a possession. generally speaking. obviously there's exceptions.

[cato]

get the book "sprawlball"... data scientist from UT Austin wrote it. came out last week. it focuses on the NBA but there's a lot of similarities to the college game and the proliferation of the 3. https://www.amazon.com/SprawlBall-Visual-Tour-New-Era/dp/1328767515. the author speaks to the issue with the 3 pt shot is its value of 1.5x the 2 pt shot. the value is so great, there's no incentive to shoot mid range J's... so the game turns into a 3 pt shooting/dunk/lay up show with a lot of isolation sets. basically the 2 most efficient shots are those within 8 feet of the hoop and the 3 (especially the corner 3). anything in between isn't a good use of a possession. generally speaking. obviously there's exceptions.

Were you the one, or was it someone else, who noted that both the fans and players were big fans of this?

[UrinalCake]

If that's an effective tactic, why would the current shorter three point line preclude teams from running that anyway?

I wonder this as well. People keep saying the farther line will increase spacing. But there is nothing that forces the defense to actually defend all the way out to the line, or for the offense to set up outside the line. Maybe there's some psychological effect where players get accustomed to using the line as an invisible boundary, I don't know.

[frb]

Were you the one, or was it someone else, who noted that both the fans and players were big fans of this?


fans of the 3 pt shot you mean? i think so.. I haven't done a poll or anything.

[gep]

OK... out of the box, here. The mid-range shot is apparently the most inefficient shot, and a "lost art". So, what about 2 points in the lane, 3 points between the lane and the 3-point line, and of course 4 points outside of the 3-point line...:confused: Or, 1 point in the lane, 2 points between the lane and the 3-point line, and 3 points outside of the 3-point line.

[lotusland]

I wonder what it would look like if 2 points were awarded for field goals and 1 point for free throws?

[mattman91]

OK... out of the box, here. The mid-range shot is apparently the most inefficient shot, and a "lost art". So, what about 2 points in the lane, 3 points between the lane and the 3-point line, and of course 4 points outside of the 3-point line...:confused: Or, 1 point in the lane, 2 points between the lane and the 3-point line, and 3 points outside of the 3-point line.

How about a panel of judges that sit on press row determine how many points each shot is worth?

[TruBlu]

How about a panel of judges that sit on press row determine how many points each shot is worth?

Under these conditions, Zion would have averaged about 8.5 points per shot last year. His dunks would have been all 10’s, except for the one or two that he missed.

[camion]

How about a panel of judges that sit on press row determine how many points each shot is worth?

Ooooh, just think of the possibilities. Each shot could be given a degree of difficulty multiplier like in diving. :)


Oh the discussions that would create. I can see a world of D-of-D video replays where judges huddle repeatedly and a basketball game could approach the length of a cricket match. :eek:

[sagegrouse]

How about a panel of judges that sit on press row determine how many points each shot is worth?

That would be great - then we could have video review after each field goal and a second round of voting.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

That would be great - then we could have video review after each field goal and a second round of voting.

....beware the East German judge......

[budwom]

but if your guys just can't hit threes, perhaps the reviled two point shot isn't such a bad idea.

[devildeac]

I wonder what it would look like if 2 points were awarded for field goals and 1 point for free throws?

Likely another dean's myth invention...

[fuse]

I wonder how much more the game would change if between the three point line and half court was worth four, and over half court five?

I won’t hold my breath for the MTV pro-am 50 point basket lowering at the end of each half. 🤣

[Reddevil]

I wonder how much more the game would change if between the three point line and half court was worth four, and over half court five?

I won’t hold my breath for the MTV pro-am 50 point basket lowering at the end of each half. ��

While we're at it lets put a windmill in front of the basket and paint clowns on the backboards so they can shoot it into the clowns mouth.

[WVDUKEFAN]

I hope not. We couldn't shoot 30% from this one.

[curtis325]

Under these conditions, Zion would have averaged about 8.5 points per shot last year. His dunks would have been all 10’s, except for the one or two that he missed.

Zion would still get 7's and 8's for missed dunks.

(mandatory deductions)

[MChambers]

The best solution is the one suggested 50 years ago by Abe Lemons: Cut a hole in the floor and then everyone will recruit [very short people].

[rsvman]

I think it's a valid point that the discrepancy in value of a 3-pointer versus a 2-pointer is overly generous. Toe just on the line? Two points. Toe a fraction of an inch behind the line? Three points. Shot difficulty? Exactly the same. The issue is dichotomizing the value of the shot, when the difficulty of a shot based on distance from the hoop is actually a continuous variable.

There are two possible solutions, the first of which is simple and elegant and will never happen no matter what. And that is to get rid of the 3-point shot entirely. Play basketball the way we used to play basketball. One point for a shot from the free-throw line, two points for a shot from "the field." You get to choose from what point on "the field" you want to try for your two points.

The second solution is my idea, and it is also never going to happen. My idea is to make the point total continuously variable, reflecting the reality of the shot's difficulty. This would, unfortunately, necessitate using decimals to express fractional point totals. No rounding would ever take place. This would not be done by humans; the game would be scored electronically. Cameras overhead, connected to computers, would ascertain the value of the shot as the ball left the hand and add to the total if the shot is successful. Values should probably start at 2 and go from there. Automatically the top of the key "three-pointer" would be worth more than the corner "three-pointer," because it is farther away. It would be weird to hear a score like, for example, Duke 82.4 Carolina 49.9, but over time you'd get used to it.



I'm acknowledging the unlikelihood of either of the above suggestions ever being put into play. So here's a more realistic idea. How about moving the three-point shot back even farther, and making it ALWAYS be the same distance? Therefore, there would be no "corner three" anymore. The corner shot would only be worth 2. I'd also be OK with using the half-court line as the "4-point" line in the same way that we currently use the 3-point line. Can you imagine the situations? Down by 3 with 1.5 seconds left, have to make sure you shoot it from beyond half-court. Oh, no! His toe was on the half-court line; only worth three! I love it.

[gus]

it doesn't.. it would just be better spacing if you pushed the line back. Larger drive lanes. the better the spacing, the more open the 3s are. you also need some who can run isolation and draw the defense in and then kicking it to open 3 pt shooters.. like james harden's role with the rockets. doesn't even need to be as good as harden. just someone with a quick step and a good handle who can draw the foul or kick it to the open 3 pt shooter.

But you were arguing that pushing the line out would hurt our defense. This is a bit reductionist, but ultimately what you were arguing is that a more distant three point line would make it easier for Duke's opponents to score. But this is nonsense -- if setting up further out from the three point line made it easier to score, teams can do that anyway. Unless you think the thought never occurred to other coaches that setting up a little further out would open up spacing? That seems unlikely.

[gep]

...

The second solution is my idea, and it is also never going to happen. My idea is to make the point total continuously variable, reflecting the reality of the shot's difficulty. This would, unfortunately, necessitate using decimals to express fractional point totals. No rounding would ever take place. This would not be done by humans; the game would be scored electronically. Cameras overhead, connected to computers, would ascertain the value of the shot as the ball left the hand and add to the total if the shot is successful. Values should probably start at 2 and go from there. Automatically the top of the key "three-pointer" would be worth more than the corner "three-pointer," because it is farther away. It would be weird to hear a score like, for example, Duke 82.4 Carolina 49.9, but over time you'd get used to it.

...



An alternative to a computer and cameras is to put a sensor in the ball... I think i’ve Heard about Putting sensors in the ball before. I’m sure with sensors available today... trajectory and distance can be easily determined in real time. But Zion dunk will probably destroy any sensor 😎. Also no need for review of buzzer beaters, basket interference, maybe even out of bounds-last touched.. other sensors on the court and basket will “see” all

[awhom111]

I think the un-commented on point about the proposed change is that the NBA, FIBA and NCAA rules seem to converging -- shot clocks, court measurements, three-point arcs, etc. I must say there is a certain logic to it. Hasn't FIBA adopted the 24-second clock, and isn't the NCAA moving in that direction? Now the NCAA has a proposal to adopt the FIBA three-point arc. Hmmmm... suspicious minds are very active.

FIBA has been at 24 seconds for a while and was the first to try out the lower shot clock reset on offensive rebounds. Men's college basketball in many ways is the lone holdout on having unique rules, but that seems to be changing. Convergence has always made sense on the women's side because most WNBA players also spend time playing overseas so most professional players will eventually play games under international rules. It would certainly be nice for high schools to finally go to a universal shot clock. I do hope that certain international rules are never adopted, but some people want to move in that direction with live ball timeouts.


I wonder this as well. People keep saying the farther line will increase spacing. But there is nothing that forces the defense to actually defend all the way out to the line, or for the offense to set up outside the line. Maybe there's some psychological effect where players get accustomed to using the line as an invisible boundary, I don't know.

Based on where college players tend to set up on offense when there are two lines in games in MSG, it does seem that players will go wherever the line is.

[rsvman]

I sincerely hope they don't keep shortening the shot clock. In my opinion it will pretty much ruin college basketball as we know it. I think it's too short already. I would also like then to go back to giving a new full shot clock to the team that gathers an offensive rebound.