It's official... NCAA to move back 3-point line in 2019-20
- Thread starter PiscatawayMike
- Start date
I love the idea. You know what; move it back to NBA range as far as I'm concerned? The 3 point shot was a once a specialty and now everyone can knock them down. I like the idea that it opens the lanes a little more for dribble drives. Most really good shooters are able to at least pop from International range so I'm very happy about this change.
Are they leaving the 3 point line there for the ladies? If so, they simply have to add the new line.
I never liked giving an extra point in the first place for hitting a trick shot (yeah, I'm old), but at least make it something that gives today's players some degree of difficulty for it. So I'm happy to see the line moved back, personally...
The average NBA team jacked up 32 attempts per game this year and made 35.5%.
The average team jacked up 2625 3s for the season and 4691 2s. The 2s were 52%. Pretty much a wash (3 vs 2)from an effective standpoint.
Can you imagine watching an NBA game and seeing 64 3 point attempts. I can't which is why I don't.
The average team jacked up 2625 3s for the season and 4691 2s. The 2s were 52%. Pretty much a wash (3 vs 2)from an effective standpoint.
Can you imagine watching an NBA game and seeing 64 3 point attempts. I can't which is why I don't.
IMHO A good/smart HC will start pulling guys to the bench - early in the season - for purposely stepping back to haul up from out there instead of settling for makeable 2’s, in an effort to keep this from happening.
Interesting thought and may factor in to more shots being taken although less will be taken overall I believe as the 2 pt % will increase while 3pt % will decrease.
At least you'll agree that eventually by backing up the line we will see less 3 pt shots, right? Therefore, just finding a reasonable length would be best.
Personally, based on a great recent ESPN article, the NBA line should probably be around 27-29ft.
If you're in the "3 pointer ruins basketball" camp moving the line back should be what you want to see. Opens up lanes for driving and more room for big men to operate.
NBA hasn't changed the 3 point distance since the 90s and team only recently started shooting so many 3's. The NBA distance being a bit further isn't the reason the NBA all of a sudden started jacking up so many 3s over the last few years since it's been the same distance for 2 decades
NBA hasn't changed the 3 point distance since the 90s and team only recently started shooting so many 3's. The NBA distance being a bit further isn't the reason the NBA all of a sudden started jacking up so many 3s over the last few years since it's been the same distance for 2 decades
How about we do away with three point shot
A few weeks ago a D1 coach told me that the ladies voted not to move their three-point line to the international distance. So that would mean two three-point lines on the court.
I’m good with that. Again, I go back to the late 80s, 88-89 to be exact was my freshman year. There were really two shooters from 3 point range on that team; Tom Savage and Rick Dadika. The following season Earl Duncan and Keith Hughes both came to Rutgers and both could shoot the 3 ball. Other schools seemed to also have just a few players who were known 3 point shooters. Now, schools like Michigan live by the 3 pointer and all the players are essentially shooters. 3 is better than 2. I think this step makes the shot a bit more challenging especially in the highly competitive Big 10 where defenses are so quick. If the line is international, the real good shooters will all be popping from nba range and that’s when you really know how good a kid can potentially be in the nba.
I’m really happy to see to the change. I would like coaches to have a few challenges though and not just in the last minute or two minutes of play. Too many bad calls have impacted some of these games and it’s not just the one call but the runs that follow sometimes after a bad call have caused some huge swings. Add a few challenges per half for each team to get some of these calls right. It’s terrible to see the replay and how wrong the refs can be. I don’t always fault them as the game moves quickly but some of them are really terrible.
30 second shot clock....another thing I hate....has done a number on post play.
Again personal preference watching people shoot 3 pointers is not my bag. I do think ultimately the move back will lead to more 3s.....not initially.
Let’s make half court shots worth 4 and 3/4 court worth 5.
Every new rule change has been more aligning with the NBA. They betternor get lax with calling illegal screens.
I get it and it's typically the older generation that doesn't like the 3. My point is moving it back should lead to less 3s, more driving and cutting, and more room for post play due to the floor being spread... so this should be a rule change you would like.
As I said above the increase in 3s in the NBA over the last few years has nothing to do with the distance since it's been the same distance for 20+ years now and only the last few years have really seen the 3 attempts skyrocket
I feel like this is going to start a trend of people asking for the free throw line to be moved back and the basket raised.
Should have just left it alone.
Should have just left it alone.
I’m old and I love the 3. I also like that they moved it back. It’s too easy right now and the mid-range game has almost disappeared. It’s all layups and 3s. I like the 20 seconds after an offensive rebound too.
How old is this older generation? The ABA was using the three-point shot in 1967, 52 years ago, and the NBA started using it 40 years ago in 1979.
Make it 25 feet like the ABA. It was good enough for the New Jersey Americans and the Teaneck Armory.
Pretty much if you're over what, 30 (?) you followed the game for years where the 3 point shot was actually special, almost a little bonus. Nowadays, yikes, everybody makes them. I'm watching the NBA playoffs and the game at that level isn't as interesting as it used to be (obviously from my POV) and a big part of it is how insanely good they are from 3.
Great article a couple weeks ago on ESPN about how to solve the 3 point shot, essentially bring the % down to about 33%, and according to their stats I believe it would be 28-29 ft in the NBA. Added benefits of removing the side 3 which results in 2 guys on offense doing nothing but standing there waiting for the kick out 3.
It’s not going to lead to less 3s. Even before this change 3PA have been going up in CBB across the country year over year. This change will allow this trend to continue. The NBA is layups/dunks and 3s (except for end game situations) and CBB will continue to trend similarly.
As long as they do not emphasize freedom of movement for offensive players in CBB like they do in NBA it’ll be fine.
I also like the shot clock adjustment after offensive rebounds as it stimulates change of possession and allows for more exciting end game scenarios.
As long as they do not emphasize freedom of movement for offensive players in CBB like they do in NBA it’ll be fine.
I also like the shot clock adjustment after offensive rebounds as it stimulates change of possession and allows for more exciting end game scenarios.
If you are facing a team that will knock down 40+% of open looks the top of your chalk board says defend the 3 point line.....if all of a sudden the numbers arent as good the D wont have the same focus at the line.
Initially I suspect attempts will be down slightly as less offensive layers will be green lighted. In 10+ YEARS AS younger players live with the ne line the shooting will continue to improve.
Do people really enjoy watching guards chuck 30 footers every 45 seconds
Not me.
Here's some info about the potential impact of this change. 2.2% difference in 3 point shooting.
Being an RU fan, I only look at things through an RU lens and given our crappy 3-point shooting (dead last in the B1G last year), this could help us, if we play it right, since 3-pt shooting will obviously come down with the line further away for everyone. RU was 31.2% from downtown last year, translating to 0.93 points per trey, while we were 47.2% from two (tied for next to last in the B1G), translating to 0.94 points per deuce, so there was no apparent advantage in shooting either type of shot for us, overall. However, if we assume our trey % goes down with the harder shot, then, it would seem we should shoot less treys and more deuces (assuming out 3-point shooters are the "same" as last year, which we know is not quite the case, but is probably a good guess).
On the other hand there are teams like Wisconsin last year, who scored 1.10 points per trey and only 0.99 points per deuce, so in theory they should've shot all treys, while Indiana only scored 0.94 points per trey, while scoring 1.07 points per deuce, so in theory they should've never shot any treys. I know this is simplistic, but I assume coaches all know their percentages and adjust the ratios according to the results. And with 3 point % going down for everyone next year, I assume some coaches will shoot a lot less of them, assuming they would score at a higher rate per shot from two.
The other advantage to 2-point shots is that a higher percentage of them result in shooting fouls, as guys shooting treys get fouled a lot less. To really "know" which types of shots are best, we'd need to know the fouling ratios for each type of shot, as well as the resulting number of foul shots made to get a true measure of points per trey attempted and points per deuce attempted. I don't think those data are readily available, but I assume coaches know this - which is probably why Pike wanted us shooting very few treys.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...m/_/stat/3-points/year/2019/seasontype/2/id/7
On the other hand there are teams like Wisconsin last year, who scored 1.10 points per trey and only 0.99 points per deuce, so in theory they should've shot all treys, while Indiana only scored 0.94 points per trey, while scoring 1.07 points per deuce, so in theory they should've never shot any treys. I know this is simplistic, but I assume coaches all know their percentages and adjust the ratios according to the results. And with 3 point % going down for everyone next year, I assume some coaches will shoot a lot less of them, assuming they would score at a higher rate per shot from two.
The other advantage to 2-point shots is that a higher percentage of them result in shooting fouls, as guys shooting treys get fouled a lot less. To really "know" which types of shots are best, we'd need to know the fouling ratios for each type of shot, as well as the resulting number of foul shots made to get a true measure of points per trey attempted and points per deuce attempted. I don't think those data are readily available, but I assume coaches know this - which is probably why Pike wanted us shooting very few treys.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...m/_/stat/3-points/year/2019/seasontype/2/id/7
Period dont like it? 75
Don't like how it's too easy for today's generation of players and the frequency with which 3 pointers are shot? 33? 40? 45?
Just because it was in the rulebook doesn't mean that people were exploiting it like in today's game. It took 9 years before a player (Ainge) broke 100 in a season in 1987-88, and another 7 years until someone (Starks) broke 200 in a season in 1994-95. Took 11 more years for someone (Allen) to crack 250 in 2005-06.
This year? 12 players had at least 200, and Harden led with 387. 3 years ago, Curry had 402.
Larry Bird's career high was 98 threes in 1987-88.... which would have been good for 108th this season. Completely different world than it was 20-30 years ago.
Latest posts
-
-
Basketball VIDEO: Steve Pikiell + Ace Bailey talk Purdue Postgame- Latest: William J. Leggett
-
