• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

NCAA moves back 3-point line

The line would move to 20'9'' but the change wouldn't be in affect 'til the '08-'09 season so while I'm sure it won't hep our precentage any, it won't affect next season.
 
This is a recommendation from the NCAA Rules Committee, and it is NOT yet approved.

A vote by another body (Playing Rules Oversight Panel) on May 25 is required to approve.

Even if passed, it doesn't go into effect until 2008-2009, but here is my take on this......

I don't have the figures but suspect that smaller schools, mid-majors, and schools like the MVC are more dependent on hitting those 3-pointers, as the big-bodies just aren't as prevalent as they are in the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten.
Of course you know where I am leading.....I think this is a move to lessen the potential for a team like BU to knock off one of the big boys, such as Kansas or Pitt.

I like the game just as it is, and no sooner does BU implement a pretty successful offense with a lot of excellent 3-point shooters, and even the #1 guy in the nation returning, then the NCAA says, "hey enough of that, we aren't going to allow you little guys an easy way to score!".

Call me paranoid if you want... but watch who opposes and who favors this measure, and you'll see that I am right!

Lo and behold, the chairman of the rules committee favoring the change is Larry Keating, Sr. Assoc AD from Kansas.
:roll: :roll:
 
tornado said:
This is a recommendation from the NCAA Rules Committee, and it is NOT yet approved.

A vote by another body (Playing Rules Oversight Panel) on May 25 is required to approve.

Even if passed, it doesn't go into effect until 2008-2009, but here is my take on this......

I don't have the figures but suspect that smaller schools, mid-majors, and schools like the MVC are more dependent on hitting those 3-pointers, as the big-bodies just aren't as prevalent as they are in the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten.
Of course you know where I am leading.....I think this is a move to lessen the potential for a team like BU to knock off one of the big boys, such as Kansas or Pitt.

I like the game just as it is, and no sooner does BU implement a pretty successful offense with a lot of excellent 3-point shooters, and even the #1 guy in the nation returning, then the NCAA says, "hey enough of that, we aren't going to allow you little guys an easy way to score!".

Call me paranoid if you want... but watch who opposes and who favors this measure, and you'll see that I am right!

Lo and behold, the chairman of the rules committee favoring the change is Larry Keating, Sr. Assoc AD from Kansas.
:roll: :roll:
Click to expand...

T

I must be paranoid too, then. Because I completely agree with everything you just wrote. This is another attempt to extend the once-shrinking gap between BCS and Non-BCS leagues. No question this move will be fully supported by the BCS leagues.

Perhaps they'll reach a happy medium and extend the line by 6-8 inches instead of 12?

In any case this is a move done with ulterior motives to appease the big money schools and squeeze out mid-majors and low-majors.
 
Some courts will be forced to have as many as FOUR different lines.

19' 9" for the womens college games and high school games
20' 6" for international games if they host some
20' 9" for mens college games
23' 9" for NBA games

The floor is going to look like spaghetti

No word yet on whether the NAIA and other college associations will follow suit.
 
DannyCooksey said:
I must be paranoid too, then. Because I completely agree ...
Click to expand...

The offical NCAA news release gives this reasoning to justify the need for the change:
"Since the three-point line was implemented, the game has changed,???‚¬?? Keating said. ???‚¬?“The student-athletes playing are bigger and stronger and we need to adjust for that"
There is a need for "more space between the perimeter players and post players."

But, you'd almost have to be doubtful if you just look at the facts.

We have heard for a couple decades about how the college game LACKED any dominant big men, and don't bring up Oden, since he's a one time, one year (actually less than a year because he missed several games with injury) blip on the screen.

Nope, the college game has become largely a GUARD dominated game but clearly some of the top schools in the BCS conferences also have fine big man play such as UNC, Duke, some Big Ten teams, SEC, and a couple Pac 10's.
But the impact of the "big men" just simply isn't seen below the "BCS" level, and guards do indeed dominate the scoring in almost every conference!!

Look at the top scorers in the MVC this year.
Ruffin, Crouch, Franklin, Ahearn, Funk, and all made a living at the arc, and the future is even moreso as the entire All Freshman Team in the Valley are guards that shoot well from the arc.

Nationally, the vast majority of the top 50 scorers in DI NCAA play were guards and SF's, and EVERY ONE of the TOP 25 scorers nationally took at least TWO 3-pointers per game!
Also the TOP 5 scorers AND FIFTEEN of the top 20 scorers all took MORE than five 3-pointers per game.

This rule is as clearly aimed at the little guy and the success of the smaller college programs, as the widening of the lane, no dunking, and 3-second rules were aimed at the big man and the dominant schools like UCLA that always seemed to get the best big men.
Things have now come full circle.
 
This reminds me of the discussion back in March when Maryland was eliminated from the NCAA tournament by Butler. Their fans on their message board all but blames Butler of cheating because their less talented players took advantage of their better shooting skills to get 3 points per basket, and Maryland had to settle for 2.--
http://www.bradleyfans.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6816

They will be happy to see this change.
 
I don't think it's as big of a deal favoring BCS as some might think, but I understand the logic of T and Danny's argument. However, I can see the line being further having an opposite effect - I can see a mid-major packing in a zone and tempting that BCS team to shoot 15-20 footers. I think it actually might make it harder on a big team that can't shoot the basketball.

For example - If you pack it in on a team and force them to shoot 19 footers, shooting 30% (3 of 10) yields more points than shooting 40% (4 of 10) on 2's, so poor shooting BCS teams can get away with it. Now, if you reduce those 19 footers to 2-pointers, that poor shooting team has just lost 3 points, and now has to make 2 more shots to make up that difference. Pushing them farther out is only going to reduce their percentage, thus putting a higher premium on quality shooting and lessening their advantage. Also, take a team like BU that has great quickness at the guard spot. Pulling the defenders farther away from the hoop and spreading the court is only going to work to the advantage of an offense like ours, allowing more driving lanes and thus more open jump shots for our quality shooters.

Of course, this isn't going to apply to all teams. This year's Florida team had bigs and shooters, and teams like that are tough to stop no matter what rules you put in. But, a team like this year's KU team would be hurt by this rule, and even more succeptible to defeat by a team like BU.

Nevertheless, I like the game the way it is, and don't like it when they tinker with the rules.
 
I Have mixed feelings about this rule. I agree that this may hurt smaller schools more than the BCS guys, but come on, 19'9" is a joke for college basketball players. I mean it is the same length for a 3 pointer for grade schoolers. It is just too short for the college game. I wouldn't mind seeing it being a little longer, like the international distance but there may be court width issues in the corner.(not sure on college vs international court width)

This rule should open up the midrange and inside game a little bit, as defenses will have to be extended to cover the longer 3 point line. I don't think good shooters will be that effected by a change of only a foot. I don't notice much change in accuracy or mechanics until I get out around NBA range of about 23 feet.

The other thing is you'll have all kinds of asterisks in the record books for 3 pointers made and percentages as far as records go as to before/after the line was moved. I don't know, like I say, I have mixed feelings about it. I wish they would have made it longer from the get go.
 
On a side note, I noticed this last night while watching the Victory, Honor and Glory DVD. At one point they are showing highlights of Hersey Hawkins and I noticed the 3-point line at Carver Arena was a few feet behind the top of the key. Maybe the circle above the free throw line was smaller than it is now, but I couldn't figure out why the top of the key didn't touch the 3 point line.

Also, at one point Snell comments that Hersey Hawkins represented the United States Olympic Basketball team in Barcelona. Didn't he play in 1988 in Seoul, South Korea? I thought Barcelona was 1992 with the Dream Team.
 
Correct on the Seoul deal, it was Seoul and not Barcelona DoublR.

The reason the 3 point line was further was at that time (until 1987) there was no official 3 point line in the NCAA's. Some conferences had it at various levels, but Carver Arena had an NBA type 3 point line... I think mostly for NBA preseason games or hopes to get a CBA team. The 3 point line shot was not counted for games.
 
Yes, Hersey played in the 1988 Olympics.

The 3 point line was instituted in 1986, and the 1986-1987 season was the first to use it in every NCAA game. So Hersey played his first 2 years without the 3-point rule, and the last 2 seasons with the 3-point rule.
 
If they want to move it back, I don't see why they don't use the international 3 point line. It makes no sense to make it different.
 
When has the NCAA ever done anything that made sense?
I agree that if there is to be a change, it should change to the international distance.

They also do not plan to make this change applicable to women's basketball (why not? do they think it is harder for women to shoot from the longer distance?) which means thousands of courts (all levels of the NCAA and any court where an NCAA game will be played), will have to have different lines for men and women's games. That will surely cause confusion for officials and players.
 
Let's say, what if the NCAA soon changes the womens NCAA line to 20' 4", then you'd have different distances for high school, men's college, women's college, international, and NBA.

I'd love to see that floor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top