Thoughts on moving the 3 point line back....

[Lou]

NCAA will move the three point line back one foot, to make it 20 feet 9 inches. Anyone think this will make a difference in scoring? I for one believe that it helps the bigger teams that like to go inside, like UNC. Anyone think this will hinder teams like Davidson?

Doesn't UM like to go inside more than other teams from their conference? Maybe this will help them?

 

[Mslacat]

NCAA will move the three point line back one foot, to make it 20 feet 9 inches. Anyone think this will make a difference in scoring? I for one believe that it helps the bigger teams that like to go inside, like UNC. Anyone think this will hinder teams like Davidson?

Doesn't UM like to go inside more than other teams from their conference? Maybe this will help them?

I think UM was historically more of a pound it inside kind of team but that has changed a lot in the last 5-6 years. I think they still have an advantage with a stable of very good big men - kind of a side benefit of having head coaches who in the 6-9 range. Still though even the Griz big men are starting to wander more and more out to perimeter. Hasquest, Sharp, and Strait were never afraid to launch it up from out side, and wait til Selvig gets into the mix. The Griz simply do not have the stay inside pure banger of past, Qvale is an exception. That is not exactly a bad thing but more of a reflection of their coach. I think Tinkle was the first true big man, all conference player type, who would have rather launch a three than bang.

I also think next year the Griz will be a much better 3 point shooting team with McGillis, Johnson and Taylor coming on board.

 

[WashGriz]

I think this could be a big year for Griz..and the three will be a part of it. I see better team work, with
'Qvally in the post more..better inside out action.

The Griz held there own last year with three ball, even with the line further back the Griz could lead
the Big sky this year with the three stat .

in looking at the stats below Martin must have been under the 37 % mark...I think Jack and the new gaurds can do better than that !... and Stauds could improve as a junior to lead the way...watch out Big sky !

3-POINT FG PCT (Min. 1.0 made per game)
## Player-Team Cl G 3FG FGA Pct
----------------------------------------------------
1.Coston, Kyle-PSU......... 16 25 48 .521
2.Taibi, Sean-UNCO......... 15 34 67 .507
3.Staudacher, Ryan-UM...... 16 41 87 .471
4.Harris, Dezmon-WSU....... 16 30 64 .469
5.Figures, Will-UNCO....... 16 19 41 .463
6.Dominguez, Jeremiah-PSU.. 16 46 102 .451
7.Filzen, Zach-NAU......... 16 24 55 .436
8.Wilson, Josh-NAU......... 16 17 41 .415
9.Taylor,Carlos-MSU........ 16 38 93 .409
10.McGhee, Vinnie-SAC....... 16 32 80 .400
11.Murray, Andre-PSU........ 16 24 61 .393
12.McCoy, Kellen-WSU........ 16 19 50 .380
13.Hasquet, Jordan-UM....... 16 29 77 .377
14.Rundles, Cameron-UM...... 16 16 43 .372
15.Woods, Clark-SAC......... 16 29 78 .372


3-POINT FG MADE
## Player-Team Cl G 3FG Avg/G
----------------------------------------------
1.Dominguez, Jeremiah-PSU.. 16 46 2.88
2.Staudacher, Ryan-UM...... 16 41 2.56
3.Taylor,Carlos-MSU........ 16 38 2.38
4.Taibi, Sean-UNCO......... 15 34 2.27
5.Stanojevic, Milan-EWU.... 16 35 2.19
6.Geiser, Nate-NAU......... 16 32 2.00
McGhee, Vinnie-SAC....... 16 32 2.00
8.Kilpatrick, Austin-ISU... 16 31 1.94
9.Harris, Dezmon-WSU....... 16 30 1.88
Durham,Casey-MSU......... 16 30 1.88
11.Woods, Clark-SAC......... 16 29 1.81
Hasquet, Jordan-UM....... 16 29 1.81
Martin, Matt-UM.......... 16 29 1.81
14.DeLeon, Adris-EWU........ 14 24 1.71
15.Coston, Kyle-PSU......... 16 25 1.56

 

[citygriz]

the three-point shot has been the great equalizer in college basketball. though it's never equalized a one seed versus a 16, it has enabled any number of huge upsets at the big dance. if television is the big dance's hypodermic needle of publicity, the three-point shot is its juice. for an innovation that was so controversial at its inception, i can't imagine college basketball without the three-point shot.

so who benefits if you move the line back? easy--the big schools. the same schools that stole the money in college football. it stands to reason: move the line back, percentages go down. when percentages go down, it favors the big schools with the stronger quicker more athletic inside players. recent example: montana vs. boston college two years ago. three of their inside kids are playing pro ball now. they took a star player from montana, strait, and completely shut him down. were it not for the hope that a martin or a dhlouy would get hot from three, we simply would have had no chance against b.c. (and remember, we were down but a point or two at the half, thanks to our three-point shooting.)

so if you're a gonzaga, you should favor this move, or even the removal of the three point shot altogether. but if you're a montana, you want that line right where it is. it's our only hope against the big schools.

 

[MrG]

humph!
Interesting point city!

 

[mporter]

I'm all for the elimination of the three point line. Won't happen, but it would really change the game back to pure basketball.

 

[Lou]

the three-point shot has been the great equalizer in college basketball. though it's never equalized a one seed versus a 16, it has enabled any number of huge upsets at the big dance. if television is the big dance's hypodermic needle of publicity, the three-point shot is its juice. for an innovation that was so controversial at its inception, i can't imagine college basketball without the three-point shot.

so who benefits if you move the line back? easy--the big schools. the same schools that stole the money in college football. it stands to reason: move the line back, percentages go down. when percentages go down, it favors the big schools with the stronger quicker more athletic inside players. recent example: montana vs. boston college two years ago. three of their inside kids are playing pro ball now. they took a star player from montana, strait, and completely shut him down. were it not for the hope that a martin or a dhlouy would get hot from three, we simply would have had no chance against b.c. (and remember, we were down but a point or two at the half, thanks to our three-point shooting.)

so if you're a gonzaga, you should favor this move, or even the removal of the three point shot altogether. but if you're a montana, you want that line right where it is. it's our only hope against the big schools.

That's kid of what I was thinking city. I would much rather see the line stay where it is. The big dance is a lot more fun to watch when there are a few small schools that start shooting lights out from three and are able to stay with the UNC's and Duke's. Much like Davidson did last year, Butler, a couple years ago, and how the Zags did back in the day.

 

[citygriz]

I'm all for the elimination of the three point line. Won't happen, but it would really change the game back to pure basketball.

one man's "pure" is another man's "boring."

i grew up on utah "running redskin" (now "running utes") basketball. i loved showtime with magic, worthy and the lakers. fast-break basketball says, the minute i grab a defensive rebound, i'm on offense. it's an open-court game. it's exciting.

in fact, two of the greatest innovators in college basketball became innovators simply by opening up the court. john wooden recognized that most kids were slow and couldn't go to their opposite hand, so he recruited quick kids, pressed full-court and created a dynasty.

paul westhead at loyola marymount was the first coach to fully exploit the three-point shot. he too pressed all over the court, but on offense, told his kids to jack up the first open shot, no matter where it was. result was, he created a wildly exciting brand of basketball, got loyola marymount on tv almost every week, and upset an alabama team in the ncaa tournament that featured future nba stars latrell sprewell and robert horry. that he failed in the pros may have had more to do with a personality conflict with magic johnson than with the system itself.

i think in the future, we'll see a further "opening out" of the full-court game. during the ncaa tournament this year, i saw a feature on kevin love of ucla, who has learned to make a full-court heave that is remarkably accurate. it's no secret teams practise last-second, half-court scenarios, and many kids have become adept at the half-court shot. i personally would like to see a true "home run" in basketball, where any shot from backcourt counts for four points. this would add a lot of excitement, and force teams to defend everywhere. that to me is exciting basketball.

but "pure"? "pure" is peach baskets. i want to be on the side of evolution.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Was Westhead responsible for the run LMU had, or was it Bo Kimble and Hank Gathers who transferred from USC? Westhead was called the "guru of go", and rightly so, but his lack of defense ultimately was his demise. Nevertheless his teams were fun to watch.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

The other theory is that moving the line back favors schools who rely on skilled sharpshooters as a higher percentage of these kids will be able to make these longer shots than the kids at the big schools who play a more balanced game. I'm not sure I agree but it's worth considering.

 

[BDizzle]

Now-a-days the kids are jacking up threes 2 feet beyond the arc anyways so it won't make much difference.

 

[Mslacat]

Now-a-days the kids are jacking up threes 2 feet beyond the arc anyways so it won't make much difference.

Maybe but I would prefer too see the 6-10 guy who can just hit a 3 pointer now realise that he would be better off hanging down low where he might be able to get a rebound or two.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Now-a-days the kids are jacking up threes 2 feet beyond the arc anyways so it won't make much difference.

Maybe but I would prefer too see the 6-10 guy who can just hit a 3 pointer now realise that he would be better off hanging down low where he might be able to get a rebound or two.

Heh, it'll be interesting to see what effect this has on the mid-range and inside games of jordo and selvig.

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

Now-a-days the kids are jacking up threes 2 feet beyond the arc anyways so it won't make much difference.

Maybe but I would prefer too see the 6-10 guy who can just hit a 3 pointer now realise that he would be better off hanging down low where he might be able to get a rebound or two.

Heh, it'll be interesting to see what effect this has on the mid-range and inside games of jordo and selvig.

I doubt it will affect Jordan as much. Many of his 3 pointers were made from 1 to 2 feet beyond 3 point line anyway.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

I don't think that's gonna matter that much. When people are guarding three point shooters, I think they'll stand in roughly the same spot in relation to the three point line. So when he's run off screens or falling off balance it'll probably be 1-2 feet past the new line.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I doubt it will effect Hasquet at all. He has good form from 30 ft. It will be interesting to see how it effect Staudacher being most of his 3's have been from the baseline. I have no doubts he has the range further out. My experience though your better baseline 3 shooters have trouble finding conistency from the wing and top of the key though. Staudacher is very much a catch and shoot rythym shooter. With that said though, his form and release is too good for him to have struggles for long stretches. When he does struggle it will not be for long.

 

[mporter]

I'm all for the elimination of the three point line. Won't happen, but it would really change the game back to pure basketball.

one man's "pure" is another man's "boring."

i grew up on utah "running redskin" (now "running utes") basketball. i loved showtime with magic, worthy and the lakers. fast-break basketball says, the minute i grab a defensive rebound, i'm on offense. it's an open-court game. it's exciting.

in fact, two of the greatest innovators in college basketball became innovators simply by opening up the court. john wooden recognized that most kids were slow and couldn't go to their opposite hand, so he recruited quick kids, pressed full-court and created a dynasty.

paul westhead at loyola marymount was the first coach to fully exploit the three-point shot. he too pressed all over the court, but on offense, told his kids to jack up the first open shot, no matter where it was. result was, he created a wildly exciting brand of basketball, got loyola marymount on tv almost every week, and upset an alabama team in the ncaa tournament that featured future nba stars latrell sprewell and robert horry. that he failed in the pros may have had more to do with a personality conflict with magic johnson than with the system itself.

i think in the future, we'll see a further "opening out" of the full-court game. during the ncaa tournament this year, i saw a feature on kevin love of ucla, who has learned to make a full-court heave that is remarkably accurate. it's no secret teams practise last-second, half-court scenarios, and many kids have become adept at the half-court shot. i personally would like to see a true "home run" in basketball, where any shot from backcourt counts for four points. this would add a lot of excitement, and force teams to defend everywhere. that to me is exciting basketball.

but "pure"? "pure" is peach baskets. i want to be on the side of evolution.

Does watching a game where 50-60 3 pointers are attempted between both teams make it exciting? Or only if half of those shots go in?

The 3 ball does add a level of excitement to the game. Say, you're down 8 with two minutes to go, hit a couple and within the span of 45 seconds you're back in the game.

However, teams seem to live and die on the 3 point shot now and for those that follow their schools, it can be downright frustrating to see a terrible percentage from beyond the arch on a bad shooting night when you maybe have a position mismatch that you would have maybe had more success at.

 

[BelierPeaux]

However, teams seem to live and die on the 3 point shot now and for those that follow their schools, it can be downright frustrating to see a terrible percentage from beyond the arch on a bad shooting night when you maybe have a position mismatch that you would have maybe had more success at.

True. It was frustrating having to listen to 3 after 3 taken against PSU last year during our blowout. They kept heaving them like if they made just one it would make everything all better. Painful.

 

[MT Jack]

I'll agree with Citygriz.

The middle/end of March just got a little bit darker.

Damn near every single upset in the NCAA's that has provided hours of joy for me as a viewer will be null and void in this scenario. This move caters to the slow down, grind it out, "slug each other in the mouth" style of play seen in the Big 10/Big East or whatever other BCS conference you want to include. This does nothing to even the field and will ensure that there are fewer "Davidson's" making it a long way in the tourney than in the past. The rich get richer with this implementation. The smaller schools have been locked out of the chance of competing for a national championship in football so now it's time for NCAA basketball to skew the chances in basketball as well.

I'm an NAU alum and their "recruit to shoot" approach in basketball may take a major hit with this. Bigs such as recently graduated Kyle Landry have been few and far between in Flagstaff. They've gotten by for years by getting guys who could hit the 3 and to keep em in the game.

A big thumbs down to the NCAA from this fan.

MTJack

By the way, thanks to all who contribute to Griz/Big Sky basketball here. I've enjoyed the insight and coverage since I've been back in MT. I hope to make it to Missoula for the Griz-Jacks basketball game in early January.

 

[weberwildcat]

I'm all for the elimination of the three point line. Won't happen, but it would really change the game back to pure basketball.

one man's "pure" is another man's "boring."

i grew up on utah "running redskin" (now "running utes") basketball. i loved showtime with magic, worthy and the lakers. fast-break basketball says, the minute i grab a defensive rebound, i'm on offense. it's an open-court game. it's exciting.

in fact, two of the greatest innovators in college basketball became innovators simply by opening up the court. john wooden recognized that most kids were slow and couldn't go to their opposite hand, so he recruited quick kids, pressed full-court and created a dynasty.

paul westhead at loyola marymount was the first coach to fully exploit the three-point shot. he too pressed all over the court, but on offense, told his kids to jack up the first open shot, no matter where it was. result was, he created a wildly exciting brand of basketball, got loyola marymount on tv almost every week, and upset an alabama team in the ncaa tournament that featured future nba stars latrell sprewell and robert horry. that he failed in the pros may have had more to do with a personality conflict with magic johnson than with the system itself.

i think in the future, we'll see a further "opening out" of the full-court game. during the ncaa tournament this year, i saw a feature on kevin love of ucla, who has learned to make a full-court heave that is remarkably accurate. it's no secret teams practise last-second, half-court scenarios, and many kids have become adept at the half-court shot. i personally would like to see a true "home run" in basketball, where any shot from backcourt counts for four points. this would add a lot of excitement, and force teams to defend everywhere. that to me is exciting basketball.

but "pure"? "pure" is peach baskets. i want to be on the side of evolution.

Does watching a game where 50-60 3 pointers are attempted between both teams make it exciting? Or only if half of those shots go in?

The 3 ball does add a level of excitement to the game. Say, you're down 8 with two minutes to go, hit a couple and within the span of 45 seconds you're back in the game.

However, teams seem to live and die on the 3 point shot now and for those that follow their schools, it can be downright frustrating to see a terrible percentage from beyond the arch on a bad shooting night when you maybe have a position mismatch that you would have maybe had more success at.

Yes, I love tons of 3's, I like having a difference between pro and college. I hate pro...

How about move the 3pt line closer! lol

It will be a disadvantage for the small conferences like the Big Sky...overall.

The 3pt line helps Weber win against in-state opponents - BYU/Utah/USU.