Should the NCAA 3 point line be moved back?

[whitesoxfan101]

My vote goes to international. I think it's obvious the current 3 point distance (which is the same as junior high and high school) has outgrown the NCAA, and the line needs to be moved back. I think you start gradual, and move it back to FIBA distance, and people would be surprised how big a difference those extra 9 inches make. Also, you could always move it back further. The NBA line is 23'9", but in the corners is only 22' due to the proximity of the sidelines, so as time goes on, maybe the NCAA could move the line back again to where it is 22' all the way around. That would be the same as the NBA in the corners, but quite a bit shorter on the wings and straight on.

 

I thought this would be an interesting discussion and that's my opinion, so what do you think?

Edited February 14, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[Rowand44]

I'm probably one of the few who like it the way it is. To be honest, I don't want a thing changed in the college game, absolutely perfect if you ask me.

[ZoomSlowik]

I personally think it's a little too easy to make. Teams shoot around 50% from the arc way too often, and it's not just the better players that are hitting them at a high rate. It's becoming a deciding factor in a lot of games, when it really shouldn't be. I'd move it back to the international line and see how that goes. It shouldn't affect the really good shooters, but hopefully some of the borderline shooters will see their percentages dip a little. A lot of teams that aren't the greatest at shooting are relying too heavily on the 3 (Memphis and the Illini come to mind), and moving it back should change that a little. It also should leave a little more room for players to move inside the arc, since teams would have to cover the player a little farther out.

[whitesoxfan101]

Well said Zoom. My main reasons for wanting it moved back are that a longer 3 point line leaves more room for movement inside the arc to run offense, and that the short 3 point line takes away from the game itself, as teams just pass around the perimeter looking for a 3, rather than trying to just get a good open shot. Plus, the thing that many people like about march madness is that anybody can beat anybody. Well IMO the main reason for that is the current 3 point line is so short, that anybody can get hot and beat anybody on a certain day. Now I know a lot of people like that, but I think it's pretty lame and I'd rather see the best BASKETBALL TEAM win, not the one who gets hot on mid range jumpers worth 3 points.

Edited February 14, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[Felix]

I'm all for moving it back to the NBA's distance. This way, players will not be as overhyped as a big 3 point threat coming right out of college, and will lessen the 'disappointments' coming from college into the pros.

[Goldmember]

it should be at a distance between the high school and nba levels, so somewhere between international distance and 22' seem pretty fair to me...

Edited February 14, 2006 by Goldmember

[WilliamTell]

If it gets changed, you won't see as many cinderella upsets in the big dance. But I also thing it should be moved back a couple of feet, not NBA length though.

[witesoxfan]

Well said Zoom.  My main reasons for wanting it moved back are that a longer 3 point line leaves more room for movement inside the arc to run offense, and that the short 3 point line takes away from the game itself, as teams just pass around the perimeter looking for a 3, rather than trying to just get a good open shot.  Plus, the thing that many people like about march madness is that anybody can beat anybody.  Well IMO the main reason for that is the current 3 point line is so short, that anybody can get hot and beat anybody on a certain day.  Now I know a lot of people like that, but I think it's pretty lame and I'd rather see the best BASKETBALL TEAM win, not the one who gets hot on mid range jumpers worth 3 points.

 

But without the short 3, how could anybody ever get PITTSNOGLE'D?

[whitesoxfan101]

But without the short 3, how could anybody ever get PITTSNOGLE'D? 

 

Oh man that's a bad example. That guy fires s*** up from half court and it still goes in, that's how he got his own term in the first place.

[CanOfCorn]

Definitely international range, if you ask me. As said before, it'll open up more of an inside game and may reintroduce the mid-range jumper.

[ZoomSlowik]

Oh man that's a bad example.  That guy fires s*** up from half court and it still goes in, that's how he got his own term in the first place.   

 

Two better examples are guys like Rich McBride and Colin Falls. Over 3/4 of their shot attempts come from behind the arc, and while McBride might play decent defense, Falls offers pretty much nothing else. These are also two guys that never seem to be more than a couple of inches past the arc when they shoot. They can get away with it when they are shooting 39.4 and 41.3 percent respectively, but could they do that if it was more like 35-37 percent? Or even lower? I'm not so sure. You don't see a whole lot of guys with their skill set in an NBA rotation. Yes, there are a few, but Reggie Miller and Peja are the only two I can think of that are major factors, and both of them are exceptional.

Edited February 14, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[greasywheels121]

I think the game's perfect as it is.

[Rowand44]

If it gets changed, you won't see as many cinderella upsets in the big dance.

This is one of the main reasons I'd be opposed. The more you move the line back, the less upsets you get come tourny time which is one of the cooler aspects of the game imo.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Rowand44

[sayitaintso]

I think it is was to easy to make, move it back at least to international distance.

[ZoomSlowik]

This is the main reason I'd be opposed.  The more you move the line back, the less upsets you get come tourny time which is one of the cooler aspects of the game imo.

 

I think there are still enough suspect higher seeds and enough strong lower seeds that it wouldn't affect it that much. For some reason it doesn't seem like there are that many upsets that are the direct result of 3-point binges in the NCAA tourney (West Virginia is the one major exception). Plus once you get past the first round most of the teams are more closely matched anyways. I really don't think a deeper 3 is going to eliminate that many upsets, except maybe the 5 seed and higher losses in the first round. Even then, a team with major flaws like Florida and Alabama last year still are susceptible to the upset. Plus I don't really think moving it back 9 inches would drastically affect the top notch shooters like the Nova guards, Redick, or Pittsnoggle (I don't watch the mid-majors enough to come up with good examples from that group).

Edited February 14, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[whitesoxfan101]

This is one of the main reasons I'd be opposed.  The more you move the line back, the less upsets you get come tourny time which is one of the cooler aspects of the game imo.

 

Losing some upsets would suck, but I am willing to give that up for a better game. A longer 3 pointer will make the game more balanced, make the mid range jumper relevant, and make the game less about just shooting 20 footers, and I'm all for that. Plus, there will still be some upsets, since there are a lot of legit good mid major teams.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm probably one of the few who like it the way it is.  To be honest, I don't want a thing changed in the college game, absolutely perfect if you ask me.

 

Same here. My love for the NBA is nowhere near what it used to be. The last thing I wanna see is them mess with the college game.

[Rex Hudler]

My vote goes to international.  I think it's obvious the current 3 point distance (which is the same as junior high and high school) has outgrown the NCAA, and the line needs to be moved back.  I think you start gradual, and move it back to FIBA distance, and people would be surprised how big a difference those extra 9 inches make.  Also, you could always move it back further.  The NBA line is 23'9", but in the corners is only 22' due to the proximity of the sidelines, so as time goes on, maybe the NCAA could move the line back again to where it is 22' all the way around.  That would be the same as the NBA in the corners, but quite a bit shorter on the wings and straight on.

 

I thought this would be an interesting discussion and that's my opinion, so what do you think?

 

I would have no problem keeping it where it is or moving it back some. The NBA line is way too far back and I think the last thing college basketball needs to do is become more like the NBA.

 

The only thing I would say is that if you move it, it has to stay. You can't ease it back. Moving it will immediately change how you can compare records from the past. You already have the current era vs the pre-3pt era. Consistency is very important. So if they move it, move it ONCE only.

[Chisoxfn]

Same here.  My love for the NBA is nowhere near what it used to be.  The last thing I wanna see is them mess with the college game.

The s***ty officiating and the babying of the players has really turned me off the NBA. I used to follow it much more but now I watch Bulls games and thats about it (although I have been watching more basketball in general lately, but most of it has been college ball).

[Chisoxfn]

I would have no problem keeping it where it is or moving it back some.  The NBA line is way too far back and I think the last thing college basketball needs to do is become more like the NBA.

 

The only thing I would say is that if you move it, it has to stay.  You can't ease it back.  Moving it will immediately change how you can compare records from the past.  You already have the current era vs the pre-3pt era.  Consistency is very important.  So if they move it, move it ONCE only.

I agree...college ball is so much more enjoyable than the NBA. I wouldn't mind moving it to the international line, simply because shooters are so much better now, but NBA would be too far out and the 3 point game in college helps create upsets which are usually pretty exciting (unless your teams getting upset).

[Jordan4life_2007]

The s***ty officiating and the babying of the players has really turned me off the NBA.  I used to follow it much more but now I watch Bulls games and thats about it (although I have been watching more basketball in general lately, but most of it has been college ball).

 

Yup. Another thing I can't stand is how players today are paid before proving themselves. Makes me sick that guys like Kwame Brown could retire today and be set for life.

[witesoxfan]

Oh man that's a bad example.  That guy fires s*** up from half court and it still goes in, that's how he got his own term in the first place.   

 

I just could not turn down an opportunity to use the term Pittsnogle'd.

 

It's just awesome to say.

[Phuck the Cubs]

If it were moved back to NBA distance, it would only help the teams whose big men can shoot from the outside. They could spread the floor better.

[ZoomSlowik]

If it were moved back to NBA distance, it would only help the teams whose big men can shoot from the outside. They could spread the floor better.

 

I can't think of a whole lot of teams that have big guys that can hit NBA 3's. Outside of Pittsnoggle, Vukusic, and maybe McRoberts (he doesn't shoot enough to get a great feel for his range), I'm drawing a blank.

[Chisoxfn]

I can't think of a whole lot of teams that have big guys that can hit NBA 3's. Outside of Pittsnoggle, Vukusic, and maybe McRoberts (he doesn't shoot enough to get a great feel for his range), I'm drawing a blank.

Ben Allen for IU is supposed to be a pretty good shooter, but he's not one of the better players on the Hoosiers (at least not yet).