New 3-point line

[wsu97]

NCAA approves moving 3-point line back a foot
May 25, 2007

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA on Friday approved moving the men's 3-point line back 1 foot in 2008 -- from 19 feet, 9 inches to 20 feet, 9 inches.

The decision by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel marks the first major alteration to the 3-point shot since its adoption in 1986-87.

The men's basketball rules committee recommended the measure May 3.

"In recent years, the rules committee has conducted a great deal of research and held many discussions regarding the court markings," said Rob Halvaks, chairman of the panel and senior associate commissioner of the Big West Conference. "The panel supports this action and hopes it has the committee's intended effect on the game."

The move comes after more than a decade of debate about whether to extend the line. The extended line has been used on an experimental basis in some early season tournaments and has shown no dramatic change in shooting percentages, but it never previously had passed the rules committee for all regular-season and postseason games.

The 3-point line will remain unchanged in women's basketball.

The new men's rule is for all three college divisions.

The panel sent back to the men's committee for study a proposal to allow a manufacturer's logo on either the game jersey or the game pants. The current rule, which allows a single manufacturer's logo on the game pants, will be maintained for the 2007-08 season.

www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10197475

[wsu97]

A Step Back: Longer distance won't make threes disappear
Tuesday May 15, 2007

When the NCAA installed the 19-foot, 9-inch three-point arc for the 1986-87 season, no one used it to greater advantage than Providence coach Rick Pitino, whose Friars shot their way to an unlikely berth in the Final Four. Yet Pitino was one of the loudest voices in support of the basketball rules committee's proposal earlier this month to move the line to 20-9 beginning in 2008-09. "The shot is way too easy," says Pitino, now the coach at Louisville. "It's good for high school but not for college, and it makes the spacing to the post too congested."

Teams had gone from taking a trey once out of every 6.4 field goal attempts in 1986-87 to a record high of once every 2.9 last season. The committee believes that moving the line back will not only discourage players from launching so many threes but also stretch defenses, which would decongest the lane and cut down on the banging inside. Says rules committee member Charlie Brock, the coach of Division III Springfield (Mass.) College, "Our hope is that by moving the line out a foot, [it will] move both the offense and the defense one more step out and open things up."

Don't bet on it. Tennessee coach Bruce Pearl, whose team buried 9.3 threes per game last season (11th best in the nation), was among the 56 percent of Division I coaches opposed to redrawing the arc, according to the results of the annual survey conducted by the rules committee. "I think players are going to back off, let people shoot the three and double down on the post," he says. "There will be only one or two guys out there you have to cover. Zone defenses are going to become even more effective."

Moreover, the farther distance may not be that much of a deterrent for players inclined to fire away. When the rules committee experimented with the three-point line at 20-9 during preseason games in 2005-06, it found that teams attempted just 2.9 fewer three-point shots and converted just 1.4 percent less than in those games that used the standard distance. There was even less difference in games that used the international arc of 20-6, which is why the committee chose to move the line a full foot back even though coaches preferred the international distance.

The committee considered another -- and more surefire -- way to open up half-court offenses and limit physical play: widening the lane from 12 feet to 14 or 15 feet, which would pull big men outside and clear more paths to the basket. The group ultimately chose not to adopt that measure because it was concerned about instituting too much change at once. (When a previous committee voted to install both the international three-point line and a wider, trapezoid-shaped lane in 2003, the uproar from coaches was so great that the decision was later reversed by an oversight committee.) The current committee also had to take into account the aesthetic ramifications of having so many different lines on the court, especially since the women's arc will remain at 19-9 for the foreseeable future.

Wake Forest coach Skip Prosser, who will become chair of the rules committee in the fall, voted in favor of widening the lane. He says it's "likely but not inevitable" that change will eventually be adopted. First, however, the committee will need to discern what effect, if any, the new three-point line is having on the college game. "The refs have made rough post play a big point of emphasis, yet we were still seeing games where it was like a sumo match down there," Prosser says. "When the line was first put in, a lot of guys hated it. Coaches and players will adjust to this new line." If that adjustment comes quickly and easily, what is being hailed as a major change won't change much about the game after all.

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/seth_davis/05/15/cbk0521/index.html

[wsu97]

Extra foot may mean bigger changes for defenses
By Andy Glockner
ESPN.com
May 24, 2007

Change is afoot. Or rather, a foot. But is it a good thing?

After the initial announcement earlier this month that the men's basketball rules committee had endorsed pushing the 3-point arc back to 20 feet, 9 inches, the party line was twofold: (1) we're going to see fewer 3s taken because of the increased distance; and (2) upsets will become less frequent because it won't be as easy for teams to rain 3s to compensate for size and skill deficits.

In reality that probably won't be the case, not if you look at recent history and listen to the coaches whose teams should theoretically be impacted the most by this change. In fact, the net results may be the opposite of what was originally suggested. The biggest adjustment might actually come on the defensive end.

It doesn't seem like the extra foot itself will stop teams from taking the outside shot, at least initially. The NCAA ran a test case two seasons ago when the 20-9 line was used in some early-season tournaments. The percentage of shots taken and shots made from behind the arc in those games was slightly less than the other games that year. The overall impact was marginal.
As such, coaches of some of the nation's most prolific 3-point shooting teams this past season don't expect the longer shot to change their philosophies ... or others'.

"It won't really deter us," said Bradley head coach Jim Les, whose Braves were in the top two nationally in both 3s made per game and 3-point percentage this past season. "I'm not going to say we'll shoot more, but I think we'll probably shoot the same amount, and I'll be surprised if it changes too much our way of thinking."

"I don't know whether [teams] will take [fewer]," said new Denver coach Joe Scott, who will be installing the Princeton offense he ran at Air Force and Princeton. "I think people will just step back. ... For us, I don't think it's going to change anything."

Since the greater distance -- three inches farther than the international 3-point line -- should impact marginal shooters more than elite shooters, smaller schools could find more of an advantage from the deeper line.

This past season, there were 28 players who took at least 200 3s and made at least 40 percent of them. Only nine of them were from BCS schools. Eleven of the 15 teams that shot 40 percent or better from the arc last season were from outside the "big six" conferences. Granted, the level of play in some of the smaller conferences can help bolster shooting percentages, but the numbers are undeniable.

This potential advantage will be important for teams like Denver, which will be heavy on layups and 3s with very little in between.

"I think it's going to help our offense," Scott said. "...It should open [the game] up to skillfulness. It can only help if you can make the shot."

How people choose to guard the 3-point line may be the biggest challenge under the new rule -- and could create game conditions very different from what proponents of the change expect. (The line will stay the same 19-9 in women's basketball.)

While the arc is only moving a foot farther from the basket, it increases the area inside the arc by about 11 percent. That means it will be harder to close out on shooters at the 3-point line, especially if a team makes an extra pass and a defender is forced to rotate and cover the greater distance. This should create more wide-open looks from a 3-point line that's only nominally longer.

Since the lane won't be widened to accompany this rule change, making smothering the paint an alternative, a number of coaches already foresee the future defensively. It won't resemble Southern Illinois' sticky man-to-man.

"What I don't understand is that they're talking about the [new rule change] opening the lane and creating more space," said Samford coach Jimmy Tillette, whose Bulldogs took a higher percentage of shots from 3 than any other team in the country last season. "I don't see that. We play all matchup zone, and I think people will simply play more zone. They won't chase you. I don't see the lane opening up at all. I see sagging man-to-man, I see zone, I see nobody being able to get into gaps."

The bottom line? What is being represented as a change to offensive basketball likely will create more changes on the defensive end. As such, the 3 will become more the domain of good shooters who still will be able to find the "zone" -- and they'll have to, because starting with the 2008-09 season, they'll probably find themselves facing a zone much more.

Andy Glockner is a regular contributor to ESPN.com's college basketball coverage and is the host of the ESPNU College Basketball Insider podcast.

sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2881584

[Willie]

Does anyone think this will impact our offensive philosophy? We utilized three point shooting a great deal more in Brownell's system then we ever had in the past.

[Doliboabros]

willie said:

Does anyone think this will impact our offensive philosophy? We utilized three point shooting a great deal more in Brownell's system then we ever had in the past.

No. We are bringing in good enough shooters that another foot isn't going to matter.

[Nutt House]

Another foot won't matter to Todd. The boy can drain it from anywhere.

[Wolf]

Our offense revolves around using motion to create open shots. If anything I thinks this helps us. The new 3 point line is going spread defenses out more and create more space.

[Big D]

littlegreg said:

Our offense revolves around using motion to create open shots. If anything I thinks this helps us. The new 3 point line is going spread defenses out more and create more space.

I agree. I think this will be a good thing for us.