RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

International 3-point line distance approved

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 63608
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/21 5:41 pm    ::: International 3-point line distance approved Reply Reply with quote

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2021-06-03/international-3-point-line-distance-approved-womens-college-basketball

Quote:
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel today approved moving the 3-point line to the international distance of 22 feet, 1¾ inches in women’s basketball, beginning with the 2021-22 season.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 1194
Location: iowa/indiana/midwest


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/03/21 10:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Big news. Surprised there hasn't been more chatter about it. I'm not sure if this will help teams like mine (iowa) who are already really good at 3's by creating separation between them and their competition, or hurt us because it will mean our 3pt% might go down.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1041



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/04/21 4:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is nothing but good for the growth of the game in the long run. If shooters aren't already shooting from the men's line in practice regularly, shame on their coach. Percentages might dip a bit for a while, but the added space opens up room for post moves, entry passes, driving lanes, cutting lanes, you name it. I can't wait.



_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments. - Katya Zamolodchikova
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/04/21 4:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.

I don't understand the claims that this change will "open up" more space for post play or drives. First, the space in the half court will remain exactly the same as it's always been. Second, post plays and drives don't occur 22+ feet from the basket. Third, even if having some players stand 22+ feet from the basket would effect such a salubrious "opening up", nothing prevents players from doing just that under the current rules. And they do; most half court play starts with a player or two positioned beyond 22 feet.

The more likely effect is that defenses will take a gambling advantage of the inevitably lower 3pt% and pack defenses tighter toward the paint, resulting in less space for post play and drives.

Finally, I see no reason why American WCBB should attune its rules to international rules. Basketball is an American game, 99.99% of American college basketball players will never play international basketball, so American colleges should just stick with rules that make sense for American players and audiences.

I see nothing of player or fan benefit coming from this rule change. It's just the product of a bureaucratic conformity impulse.
Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21079



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/04/21 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It seems logical to me that the same fundamentals that have caused pretty much every other league (including the American WNBA league) to increase the distance, also apply to the same sport when it happens to be played by athletes who happen to be studying to get a college degree.
If a basket is going to be worth 50% more than other baskets, it should be more of a challenge. The statistics show that over time it has become less of a challenge.
Over the years, improvements in players combined with associated tactical adjustments have resulted in the game trending a lot more towards layups or threes while minimising anything in between. To me, the mid-range game dying out doesn't equate to "more interesting".
From a playing POV, the significance of the 3 point line in terms of player positioning on the court, and therefore the spaces that are available elsewhere, is very obvious. The arc is without question a critical reference point.

The game has out-grown the old line so this is a sensible and positive change.



_________________
Is there gas in the car?
Yes there's gas in the car.
ThreeBall25



Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2764



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/04/21 10:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.

I don't understand the claims that this change will "open up" more space for post play or drives. First, the space in the half court will remain exactly the same as it's always been. Second, post plays and drives don't occur 22+ feet from the basket. Third, even if having some players stand 22+ feet from the basket would effect such a salubrious "opening up", nothing prevents players from doing just that under the current rules. And they do; most half court play starts with a player or two positioned beyond 22 feet.

The more likely effect is that defenses will take a gambling advantage of the inevitably lower 3pt% and pack defenses tighter toward the paint, resulting in less space for post play and drives.

Finally, I see no reason why American WCBB should attune its rules to international rules. Basketball is an American game, 99.99% of American college basketball players will never play international basketball, so American colleges should just stick with rules that make sense for American players and audiences.

I see nothing of player or fan benefit coming from this rule change. It's just the product of a bureaucratic conformity impulse.


Boomer? Karen? Both??


undersized_post



Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 1194
Location: iowa/indiana/midwest


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/04/21 11:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ThreeBall25 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.

I don't understand the claims that this change will "open up" more space for post play or drives. First, the space in the half court will remain exactly the same as it's always been. Second, post plays and drives don't occur 22+ feet from the basket. Third, even if having some players stand 22+ feet from the basket would effect such a salubrious "opening up", nothing prevents players from doing just that under the current rules. And they do; most half court play starts with a player or two positioned beyond 22 feet.

The more likely effect is that defenses will take a gambling advantage of the inevitably lower 3pt% and pack defenses tighter toward the paint, resulting in less space for post play and drives.

Finally, I see no reason why American WCBB should attune its rules to international rules. Basketball is an American game, 99.99% of American college basketball players will never play international basketball, so American colleges should just stick with rules that make sense for American players and audiences.

I see nothing of player or fan benefit coming from this rule change. It's just the product of a bureaucratic conformity impulse.


Boomer? Karen? Both??


Laughing Laughing Laughing


awhom111



Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 3031



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 12:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.

I don't understand the claims that this change will "open up" more space for post play or drives. First, the space in the half court will remain exactly the same as it's always been. Second, post plays and drives don't occur 22+ feet from the basket. Third, even if having some players stand 22+ feet from the basket would effect such a salubrious "opening up", nothing prevents players from doing just that under the current rules. And they do; most half court play starts with a player or two positioned beyond 22 feet.

The more likely effect is that defenses will take a gambling advantage of the inevitably lower 3pt% and pack defenses tighter toward the paint, resulting in less space for post play and drives.

Finally, I see no reason why American WCBB should attune its rules to international rules. Basketball is an American game, 99.99% of American college basketball players will never play international basketball, so American colleges should just stick with rules that make sense for American players and audiences.

I see nothing of player or fan benefit coming from this rule change. It's just the product of a bureaucratic conformity impulse.


I really like that 99.99% figure. The consistent estimate is that approximately 10,000 American men play in sanctioned leagues overseas at any given time. Guess there have been a couple hundred million American men who have played college basketball then. That's not counting the unsanctioned leagues, one of which a G League player once decided to leave for in the middle of the season.

The number on the women's side is way smaller, but should be at least 1,000 at any time, which means that at least a reasonable percentage will play at least a little bit. It's already the WNBA line so aspiring professionals will want to have that as the basis too. If nothing else, I will be happy to finally not have to see two lines in most college venues.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 4900
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 12:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think we should have separate lines for boys' and girls' high school basketball, men's and women's college basketball, the NBA, the WNBA and international play. We could have a rainbow on every court and it would be so much fun to see the refs try to determine whether or not any shot is behind the arc Very Happy Very Happy


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1266
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 4:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.


This is correct in the immediate term. Of course, data shows that shooting efficiencies in most all levels - high school, college, professional - have been on the steady incline over the years, and the 3-pt. line is now today an integral strategy in basketball when once it was more of a trickster, "hit the ducky and win the big prize" occasional attempt as an afterthought, or a desperation heave at the clock when there was no other option.

I was JUST watching a old video on youtube Thursday night. An old Boston Celtics game in 1980 in the old Boston Garden against the San Diego Clippers. It was Larry Bird's rookie season. The game announcers were talking about the impending prospect of Bill Walton joining the Clippers and turning their season around, of Dave Cowans returning to the Celtics from his injury, and how Boston had just signed Pete Maravich to a contract. Both Cowans and Maravich were on the bench for that game in street clothes, and the cameras showed them often. Walton did not travel with the Clippers so he was not there.

But the announcers also talked about the new 3-pt line of the NBA that was just introduced that season, and the impending face-off between the two top 3-pt shooters to that point, the Clippers' Brian Taylor and the Celtics' Chris Ford. Taylor would end up leading the NBA that season with 90 completions as well as 239 attempts, for a .377 completion %. "Downtown" Freddie Brown of the Supersonics led the league with a .443 completion %, off of 39 of 88 shooting. Taylor would respond by leading the NBA in 3-pt. FG % the next season in 1980-81. Taylor also led the ABA in 3-pt FG% the final year of the ABA in 1975-76, then played 4 years in the NBA without a 3-ptr until they brought it back.

If you look at the statistics for 3-pt. attempts and completions in the NBA, they have steadily increased over the decades. No one took North of 300 attempts until 1986-87: many seasons until then the leader took fewer than 200 attempts. Since 1986-87 there has only been ONE season of fewer than 400 attempts: that was the 1998-99 season that only had 50 total games due to a lockout. Since that season, there has only been one leader with fewer than 500 3-pt attempts, and that was the 2011-12 season which only had 66 total games due to ANOTHER lockout.

Competitive sports will ALWAYS pull the athletes that participate in them to greater heights and achievements, as they fight to be the best or to win championships. It's the nature of the game. So therefore, the effect of the game in extending the 3-pt line IN THE LONG RUN, will produce 3-pt shooters from that range, that will ONLY improve over the years.


GlennMacGrady wrote:
I don't understand the claims that this change will "open up" more space for post play or drives. First, the space in the half court will remain exactly the same as it's always been. Second, post plays and drives don't occur 22+ feet from the basket. Third, even if having some players stand 22+ feet from the basket would effect such a salubrious "opening up", nothing prevents players from doing just that under the current rules. And they do; most half court play starts with a player or two positioned beyond 22 feet.

The more likely effect is that defenses will take a gambling advantage of the inevitably lower 3pt% and pack defenses tighter toward the paint, resulting in less space for post play and drives.


This isn't supported by the actual currently evolving effect on the game of the 3-pt line where it sits now. It makes elementary logical sense that the more that teams have efficient 3-pt shooters taking 3-pt shots, it will open up the lane under the basket. That doesn't mean forwards and centers will be playing outside around the 3-pt line all game long. It means the defending guards, wings, and small forwards who "zone" in the mid-range perimeter - so that they can collapse down on opposing bigs and steal balls from the blind side, or clog the driving lanes and the passing lanes - won't be able to do that as easily if they have to come out of that mid-range area and physically defend the outside shooters.

The statement you made above, is similar to some in collegiate football that said they didn't understand how the "spread offense" will open up the field and make defending such an offense more difficult. But today look at how many teams religiously run the spread, and have won national championships doing it.

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Finally, I see no reason why American WCBB should attune its rules to international rules. Basketball is an American game, 99.99% of American college basketball players will never play international basketball, so American colleges should just stick with rules that make sense for American players and audiences.

I see nothing of player or fan benefit coming from this rule change. It's just the product of a bureaucratic conformity impulse.


Well I am not in a position to argue your point here. It doesn't matter to me one way or another if they refer to international rules, or set different independent rules while continuing to strive to improve the game. Although while I say that, I'm not sure why there should be different rules for every league or association of the sport, when the sport is essentially the same.

Basketball is an American sport, true, but it's also very much so an international sport today. I think more than treating this as some sort of affront to American heritage, it should serve to honor and support the spirit of the sport in a way that the sport is advanced in a uniform, clean fashion for ALL corners of the Earth where it is played and represented......


huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 853
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 8:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

From 20' 9 inches to 22' 1.75 inches.

According to my nifty portable abacus/slide rule combo, that's an increase of 16.75 inches and is enough to cause a drop in accuracy.

I'm ambivalent, although I do welcome anything that will improve the midrange game, but I'm not sure this will do so.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11044



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 10:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"Opening up the paint" occurs because of the position of the help defender -- and inches matter.

With the new line, help defenders will be a foot further away, which means it's harder to help on the drive, and harder to defend entry passes to the post.

That said, standardization is good. Let's all play the same game.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 29472



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 11:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
It seems logical to me that the same fundamentals that have caused pretty much every other league (including the American WNBA league) to increase the distance, also apply to the same sport when it happens to be played by athletes who happen to be studying to get a college degree.
If a basket is going to be worth 50% more than other baskets, it should be more of a challenge. The statistics show that over time it has become less of a challenge.
Over the years, improvements in players combined with associated tactical adjustments have resulted in the game trending a lot more towards layups or threes while minimising anything in between. To me, the mid-range game dying out doesn't equate to "more interesting".
From a playing POV, the significance of the 3 point line in terms of player positioning on the court, and therefore the spaces that are available elsewhere, is very obvious. The arc is without question a critical reference point.

The game has out-grown the old line so this is a sensible and positive change.


totally agree. I also hope, perhaps in vain, that it will somewhat discourage the random chucker who should never be hoisting a shot from that distance anyway. Pure shooters will still be fine. Most of the good ones already shoot from well beyond the line anyway.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 12:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I haven't seen any serious responses that rebut my arguments.

There is no statistical doubt that 3pt percentages have fallen every time the 3pt line has been moved further away. In fact, NCAA men's basketball suffered the greatest drop in 3pt% in history when the line was moved from 20-9 to 22-1.75 in 2019.

There is also no doubt that the overall trend is that there is a reduction in 3pt accuracy when (the small handful of the thousands of) U.S. college players enter the WNBA and have careers there. There may be exceptions, but the trend is that exciting NCAA three-point shooters become average or even unexciting 3pt shooters in the WNBA. Off hand and without looking at stats, I'll just offer to compare the NCAA vs. WNBA 3pt% careers of Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi, Kelsey Mitchell, Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, Katie Lou Samuelson, Kia Nurse, Satou Sabally.

It makes sense that international rules should be consistent in international professional leagues, which U.S. college players enter after they graduate, and that in those professional leagues the men's and women's lines should be equidistant. However, I stick by my estimate that 99.99% of U.S. women's college players will never play in an international competition while they are in college.

Moreover, I'd further speculate that 99.999% of U.S. girl's high school players will never play in an international competition while they are in high school. And I think it makes eminent sense for the U.S. high school and college 3pt lines be the same distance for females. Otherwise, there will be a discontinuity and serious adjustment necessary when U.S. high school girls are recruited for and transition into the college game. (I am assuming the U.S. high school line will stay at 20-9.)

Another bad effect of this change is that it will distort all the college three-point shooting records. Everything before or after next season will have to bear an asterisk because the shots will be coming from a 16.75" different distance. Records are an important part of the interest in sports competition.

Finally, I still haven't heard a credible explanation as to why this change will "open up" or "spread" offenses or defenses. Nothing today prevents 3pt shooters from standing 22-1.75 away from the basket instead of 20-9 if the team thinks that will more significantly spread the offense or defense. The accuracy of a 3pt shooter will be the same whether she poses a shooting threat from the 22-1.75 distance by force of rule or by force of volition. In fact, the ultimate spread offense, Dean Smith's four corners offense, can be executed with a 3pt line at any distance or, as it originally was, with no 3pt line at all. Someone, please try harder with your "opening up" explanations.

In sum, I favor a consistent 3pt line for men and women in professional leagues and international competitions. However, I favor a consistent and shorter 3pt line for the tens of thousands of U.S. high school and college female players, of which far less than 1% will ever play in even one international game during their high school and college careers or go on to pro careers, so as to preserve continuity of shooting experience and records.

And, most of all, to preserve a higher and more exciting 3pt shooting percentage in a female high school and college sport that is burdened by such lousy shooting, even on layups, that it continuously suffers from disproportionate fan disinterest.

Now to completely reverse field, I am one of the 17 basketball fans left in the world who would favor the abolition of the 3pt shot. If you want to see sophisticated two- and three-man games to get drives and other layup shots, and if you want to see sophisticated back-to-the basket post play including the devastating high-knee hook shot, the way to do that is to take away the incentive to shoot from long distances and force teams to devise ways to create shooting space as close to the basket as possible.

Nevertheless, since the 3pt line is here to stay, it should stay at a distance where the average (read: mediocre) U.S. female high school and college perimeter player can hit 35%. That will never happen with a 22-1.75 line, and interest in female "clank ball" will unfortunately probably decline even further.

Professional WBB, composed of a small number of elite U.S. college players entering each year, can bear a longer distance 3pt line, but even so cannot sustain significant fan interest due primarily to a lack of exciting scoring.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6965
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 1:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I should add there is one argument in favor of the 22-1.75 3pt distance that hasn't been made, but which does make some sense to me.

Assuming 3pt shots have been increasing in the NCAA as a proportion of total shots without an increase in total scoring or overall FG%, or even a decrease in overall scoring and FG%, then it makes some sense to increase the 3pt distance to DETER 3pt shooting and thus to incentivize teams to work for closer and higher percentage 2pt shots. (As I posted above, the ultimate way to do this is to abolish the 3pt line.)

I haven't researched those statistical assumptions re WCBB, but I sure enjoy watching old time Nat Holman, Dean Smith, Pete Carril and Geno Auriemma surgical basketball far more than Karl Smesko chuck-it-up, bombs-away basketball.

But this 3pt deterrence rationale would not, by definition, be "opening up" or "spreading" the floor by virtue of 3pt shooter floor positions, but rather by forcing coaches to learn and teach space-creation-in-the-paint basketball via two- and three-man games, off-ball screens and picks, entry passing, back-door cutting, and sophisticated back-to-the-basket post moves such as the drop step, up and under, reverse up and under, jump hook, high knee (sky) hook, quick spin, back down, stab step, and cross stab step -- all ambidextrously.
PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1041



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 2:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I should add there is one argument in favor of the 22-1.75 3pt distance that hasn't been made, but which does make some sense to me.

Assuming 3pt shots have been increasing in the NCAA as a proportion of total shots without an increase in total scoring or overall FG%, or even a decrease in overall scoring and FG%, then it makes some sense to increase the 3pt distance to [b]DETER 3pt shooting [/b]and thus to incentivize teams to work for closer and higher percentage 2pt shots. (As I posted above, the ultimate way to do this is to abolish the 3pt line.)


Myrtle, literally the post before yours:

"I also hope, perhaps in vain, that it will somewhat discourage the random chucker who should never be hoisting a shot from that distance anyway. Pure shooters will still be fine. Most of the good ones already shoot from well beyond the line anyway."

Are you even reading the responses to rebut your arguments? They've actually been all over the place.



_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments. - Katya Zamolodchikova
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11044



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 6:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I did offer a reason why the increased distance will open up the lane. You may not agree, but I think it's "credible."

I do not favor moving the high school line. I do think standardizing the next-level distance makes sense.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1266
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/05/21 11:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sounds like a poster who created a thread to challenge others to give alternative viewpoints that he/she will refuse to even acknowledge if it disagrees with his/her viewpoint, which makes this thread still-born. Sorry I wasted my time with this. Leave the jejune rubes to their own devices, I always say.....


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 63608
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/06/21 7:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I created this thread to make everyone aware there would be a significant rule change next season. There are also some minor rule changes mentioned in the link. No ulterior motive was involved.



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 29472



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/06/21 11:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I should add there is one argument in favor of the 22-1.75 3pt distance that hasn't been made, but which does make some sense to me.

Assuming 3pt shots have been increasing in the NCAA as a proportion of total shots without an increase in total scoring or overall FG%, or even a decrease in overall scoring and FG%, then it makes some sense to increase the 3pt distance to [b]DETER 3pt shooting [/b]and thus to incentivize teams to work for closer and higher percentage 2pt shots. (As I posted above, the ultimate way to do this is to abolish the 3pt line.)


Myrtle, literally the post before yours:

"I also hope, perhaps in vain, that it will somewhat discourage the random chucker who should never be hoisting a shot from that distance anyway. Pure shooters will still be fine. Most of the good ones already shoot from well beyond the line anyway."

Are you even reading the responses to rebut your arguments? They've actually been all over the place.


have no idea what you mean. this is all opinion. and I gave mine. others agree or disagree as they see fit.


Stormeo



Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 3244
Location: Seattle, WA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/07/21 2:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I should add there is one argument in favor of the 22-1.75 3pt distance that hasn't been made, but which does make some sense to me.

Assuming 3pt shots have been increasing in the NCAA as a proportion of total shots without an increase in total scoring or overall FG%, or even a decrease in overall scoring and FG%, then it makes some sense to increase the 3pt distance to [b]DETER 3pt shooting [/b]and thus to incentivize teams to work for closer and higher percentage 2pt shots. (As I posted above, the ultimate way to do this is to abolish the 3pt line.)


Myrtle, literally the post before yours:

"I also hope, perhaps in vain, that it will somewhat discourage the random chucker who should never be hoisting a shot from that distance anyway. Pure shooters will still be fine. Most of the good ones already shoot from well beyond the line anyway."

Are you even reading the responses to rebut your arguments? They've actually been all over the place.


have no idea what you mean. this is all opinion. and I gave mine. others agree or disagree as they see fit.


Myrtle, I think PickledGinger was referring to your post while addressing Glenn, rather than addressing you – as if to say, "This is what Myrtle said literally the post before yours, Glenn."



_________________
"It's not a game of 'how to', it's a game of 'when to.'" –Sue Bird, on basketball but probably also life
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 4604



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/21 3:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The only objective and ineluctable effect on the game will be to lower everyone's 3pt%. Therefore, the change -- more misses -- will make the game more frustrating and less interesting to watch.



Those players who needed to have their toes an inch behind the arc will not shoot as much and since these are likely the worst 3 point shooters that will counter the lowered percentage of the rest so the number of misses might actually go down a little.

The arc can be a little like the 4 minute mile. No one could break it and some claimed it was humanly impossible until one guy did it. In the next 12 months several others broke it. Sometimes it's not the length of the shot but the belief in the mind that is important. I think that in 4 years whatever was lost in the national 3pt% due to this arc move will be regained.


Luuuc
#NATC


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21079



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/21 8:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The 3 point arc should be reduced to 1', thereby making everyone's 3 point percentages higher and the game less frustrating and therefore more interesting to watch.
Also, because it is generally tougher to score from directly under the basket, the area inside the new 1' radius 3 point arc should be worth 4 points.
Never foul a 3 point shooter they say. Well... never ever ever foul a 4 point shooter. Unless they are Alyssa Thomas.



_________________
Is there gas in the car?
Yes there's gas in the car.
PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1041



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/14/21 1:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stormeo wrote:
myrtle wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
I should add there is one argument in favor of the 22-1.75 3pt distance that hasn't been made, but which does make some sense to me.

Assuming 3pt shots have been increasing in the NCAA as a proportion of total shots without an increase in total scoring or overall FG%, or even a decrease in overall scoring and FG%, then it makes some sense to increase the 3pt distance to [b]DETER 3pt shooting [/b]and thus to incentivize teams to work for closer and higher percentage 2pt shots. (As I posted above, the ultimate way to do this is to abolish the 3pt line.)


Myrtle, literally the post before yours:

"I also hope, perhaps in vain, that it will somewhat discourage the random chucker who should never be hoisting a shot from that distance anyway. Pure shooters will still be fine. Most of the good ones already shoot from well beyond the line anyway."

Are you even reading the responses to rebut your arguments? They've actually been all over the place.


have no idea what you mean. this is all opinion. and I gave mine. others agree or disagree as they see fit.


Myrtle, I think PickledGinger was referring to your post while addressing Glenn, rather than addressing you – as if to say, "This is what Myrtle said literally the post before yours, Glenn."


Yes this is 100% what I meant. I guess that first comma should have been a colon: . This is why grammar is important on the internet, people! Cool



_________________
Unspoken expectations are just premeditated resentments. - Katya Zamolodchikova
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin