I'm not quite sure why it's behind the paywall, but the New York Times today features a column by William Rhoden marking the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the three-point shot to college basketball. It's not anything terribly ground-breaking-- complaints from the usual suspects, like perpetual optimist Jim Boeheim ("'It hasn't been as bad as I thought it would be -- in fact it helped us this year,' Boeheim said. 'I never liked it, but it's here to stay, so there's no use in talking about it.'"), and the usual calls for reform of the rule:
Two weeks ago, coaches, administrators and officials at all three levels of the N.C.A.A. received a questionnaire from the N.C.A.A.'s men's basketball rules committee. The questionnaire asked how the respondents felt about a proposed measure to move the 3-point line back and widen the lane.
One option would move the 3-point line from its current distance of 19 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 20 feet 6 inches. Another would move the line back an entire foot.
I'm kind of dubious about this.
I mean, I agree that the three-point shot has changed college basketball forever, and not necessarily for the better, but I don't think that moving the line back a foot will be a significant improvement. I'd love to see some numbers of this, but I doubt very much that the shooting percentage for a decent shooter is significantly worse at 20'9" than 19'9". It might reduce the number of three-point attempts just because there will be less room between the three-point line and the sidelines, but it's not like a guy shooting 40% from the current college line is going to shoot 20% from one foot farther back. At least a third of the three-point shots taken now are probably taken from a foot or more behind the line.
The problem with the three-point shot is psychological, not physical. It's had a bad effect on the game because players get fixated on the three-pointer, whether they can hit it or not. You see this most clearly in late-game situations, when a team that's down by two with a minute to go will start chucking up long-range shots, without even looking for a two-point shot. Basketball moves fast enough that you don't need to take a three-pointer until the clock is under thirty seconds or so-- prior to that, the sensible thing to do is to work for a high-percentage two-point shot, and count on getting the ball back at least one more time. Players raised on SportsCenter highlights and "Mix Tape" basketball are too often blinded by the glamour of the three-pointer, though, and will chuck it up when they don't have to.
This is one of those fundamental psychological issues like Gregg Easterbrook is always pointing out in football-- the right play is frequently the conservative play, taking the field goal, or rushing for no gain to keep the clock running. It's not a question of the physics of the shot-- as long as there's the possibility of getting three points, some players will jump at that, rather than making the smart play. You could push the line all the way back to the NBA distance, and some guys will still go for three rather than the safe two. Hell, some players (Mike Jones, Eric Devendorf, I'm looking at you) will take ill-advised NBA-range threes even with the college line where it is now.
Really, the only reason to move the line back is to bring the college game into line with international basketball. This argument wanders in and out of Rhoden's column (the real reason for putting it behind the paywall may be that it's a rambling mess...), but it's not clear why that should really matter. After all, if the idea is to help the US to do better in international competitions, why not advocate moving the NBA line in to the international distance, so the best players get more practice from that range?
I really don't think that any of the plans to shuffle the lines around will make a fundamental difference in the way the college game is played. Pushing the line back a foot might cause shooting percentages to drop a bit for a year or two, but coaches and players will adjust in short order, and we'll be right back where we are now. The only way to really change the fundamentals of the game would be to eliminate the three-point shot altogether, and that's not even on the table.
- Log in to post comments