Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
HoosierPal

3 Point Line Possibly Moving to International Line

Recommended Posts

Bauman, smart I am or was, as I grow older I have my senior moments, the memory is not what it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Old guy said:

So, according to the Wiz, the Divine pronouncement coming from Cheeseman is proven to be historically incorrect. Par for the course, nothing new here.

Comparing what happened  30  and 12 years ago is not that relevant.  Players then were not as accustom to taking the shot.  Wiz is correct that once players and coaches saw the benefit they then adjusted to making it a big part of the game.  Lets just wait and see how it plays out before you continue wetting your pants over trying to prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeseman, when you are my age, you have to expect occasional leakage here and there.

Seriously now, I agree wait and see is the best way to deal with this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jimerson video shows he already has a touch past the new line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cheeseman said:

I am sorry you have such an inferiority complex.  The number of 3 point shots taken not decreasing from this proposed change does not mean that more will be missed.  72 is correct, the players will adjust.  This is a posting board where people give their thoughts and impressions - no one ever believes that they are God.

You don't speak for Me, but I forgive you, My child.

(Kidding!) 😬🌩️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Wiz said:

The NCAA is trying to keep the 3 pt shot from overtaking the game. This year the 3 pt  shot was taken 37.5% of the time up from the 16%  in 86-87, the first year it was adopted by the NCAA as a whole.  Coaches and players have figured out that a 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a regular shot...a high premium...probably too high . The 3 has gone from an oddity in the 80s to a game winning strategy in the last few years....from 1 shot in 6 attempted  to 2 of 5 (NCAA  has estimated that in the 2019-2020 season 40% of the shots would be 3s).  Since it is not practical to make the value of a 3 only 2.5 pts....the next best thing  to slow the growth is to lengthen the distance of the shot. This is what happened in 08-09.... when the distance was increased the number of shots dropped....for a while and then started to increase again....this time approaching 40%

.In the lab experiment for this change...this year's NIT ...the NCAA implemented the proposed change.  ...and the results were ugly....In the first round numbers dropped to 31% made (vs a normal 36%) and 35% attempt ratio of all shots  (vs 37.5%) Yet by the end of the tourney, the numbers had risen to 34% made  and 36% attempted.

Bottom line....When the 3 pt shot was instituted the "premium" of a 3pt shot (50% more ) was too much but it worked for a while. It took about 20 years for teams to figure that out....After the next increase in distance (08-09) it took another 6-7 years to figure it out again.  Is 22 ft 1 3/4 in the right distance?  Who knows...But the the NCAA knows that it will slow down the rate of increase on 3 pt attempts ....at least for now.

Regarding the issue I've highlighted in bold, couldn't that partially be explained by improvement in the level of talent of the teams advancing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Regarding the issue I've highlighted in bold, couldn't that partially be explained by improvement in the level of talent of the teams advancing?

I watched a few NIT games.  Some of the players were going into their normal 3 point shot, then having to step back to get over the line....it wasn't where their instincts told them it was. Yes a foot is a big deal.  I saw numerous step back three pointers that were short.  Perhaps once they had games under their belt, they went to the new line more instinctively and were able to get in their normal shooting mechanics quicker.  For a pick and pop, the screener had to think about where he should be with the increased distance, again adding uncertainty to the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My senior memory is that it kind of screwed us when implemented. We were progressing with Douglass and Gray then Bonner and all the sudden we're playing a new game. I can't believe how slow some were to grasp what a game changer it would become. Grawer seemed to warm to hit slower than most. It seemed to have  "pull the goalie vibe" to many. It has certainly changed the game and I now welcome this although don't think it will change much. The Bess's of the world won't lean toward NBA range shots when behind the arc anymore. In The NBA it's unreal how deadly those guys guys are. Will be a treat if our "top 5 shooter" is that for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

I watched a few NIT games.  Some of the players were going into their normal 3 point shot, then having to step back to get over the line....it wasn't where their instincts told them it was. Yes a foot is a big deal.  I saw numerous step back three pointers that were short.  Perhaps once they had games under their belt, they went to the new line more instinctively and were able to get in their normal shooting mechanics quicker.  For a pick and pop, the screener had to think about where he should be with the increased distance, again adding uncertainty to the shot.

They will have plenty of time to adjust to the change.  The NIT experiment was kind of not a fair example given that the players had a very short time to adjust.  Given your description of what they were doing it doesn't surprise me that it was a bit ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Regarding the issue I've highlighted in bold, couldn't that partially be explained by improvement in the level of talent of the teams advancing?

The NCAA is trying to keep the 3 pt shot from overtaking the game. This year the 3 pt  shot was taken 37.5% of the time up from the 16%  in 86-87, the first year it was adopted by the NCAA as a whole.  Coaches and players have figured out that a 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a regular shot...a high premium...probably too high . The 3 has gone from an oddity in the 80s to a game winning strategy in the last few years....from 1 shot in 6 attempted  to 2 of 5 (NCAA  has estimated that in the 2019-2020 season 40% of the shots would be 3s).  Since it is not practical to make the value of a 3 only 2.5 pts....the next best thing  to slow the growth is to lengthen the distance of the shot. This is what happened in 08-09.... when the distance was increased the number of shots dropped....for a while and then started to increase again....this time approaching 40%

.In the lab experiment for this change...this year's NIT ...the NCAA implemented the proposed change.  ...and the results were ugly....In the first round numbers dropped to 31% made (vs a normal 36%) and 35% attempt ratio of all shots  (vs 37.5%) Yet by the end of the tourney, the numbers had risen to 34% made  and 36% attempted.

Bottom line....When the 3 pt shot was instituted the "premium" of a 3pt shot (50% more ) was too much but it worked for a while. It took about 20 years for teams to figure that out....After the next increase in distance (08-09) it took another 6-7 years to figure it out again.  Is 22 ft 1 3/4 in the right distance?  Who knows...But the the NCAA knows that it will slow down the rate of increase on 3 pt attempts ....at least for now.

 

 

Yes it could partially explain the improvement from the 1st round to the end of the tourney.  As teams are eliminated, the better teams play better.  Another partial explanation is the players start to adjust as the tourney goes on and they  start to figure out the new distance...yes, even in a short tourney.

BUT....

In the end,  the NCAA accomplished its goal...to slow the 3P Att  and 3P% . Which brings up the following questions....Will the NCAA implement  the rule change on June 5?...Probably, ...  in that their experiment was a success....After they make the changes will  they be done meddling in the 3 pt range?...Only for awhile,....When will they meddle again?  When 3Pt atts approach 40% again. Then what? ...They will probably move it out to NBA range (23ft 9in). There is though a weird quirk...The NBA distances taper as the line swings out to  the corner.   In the corner the distance is only 22 ft....In the international rules (propose to be adopted by NCAA) the line is a uniform 22ft all the way around....so that when an NCAA player goes into the corner he will actually take a longer shot than an NBA player (by 1 3/4 in)  Should the Bills still try to get 3Pt shooters?  Yes ...while it will be a  more difficult shot , the 50% premium for 3s is still a good deal and teams will invest in shooters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Wiz said:

The NCAA is trying to keep the 3 pt shot from overtaking the game. This year the 3 pt  shot was taken 37.5% of the time up from the 16%  in 86-87, the first year it was adopted by the NCAA as a whole.  Coaches and players have figured out that a 3pt shot is worth 50% more than a regular shot...a high premium...probably too high . The 3 has gone from an oddity in the 80s to a game winning strategy in the last few years....from 1 shot in 6 attempted  to 2 of 5 (NCAA  has estimated that in the 2019-2020 season 40% of the shots would be 3s).  Since it is not practical to make the value of a 3 only 2.5 pts....the next best thing  to slow the growth is to lengthen the distance of the shot. This is what happened in 08-09.... when the distance was increased the number of shots dropped....for a while and then started to increase again....this time approaching 40%

.In the lab experiment for this change...this year's NIT ...the NCAA implemented the proposed change.  ...and the results were ugly....In the first round numbers dropped to 31% made (vs a normal 36%) and 35% attempt ratio of all shots  (vs 37.5%) Yet by the end of the tourney, the numbers had risen to 34% made  and 36% attempted.

Bottom line....When the 3 pt shot was instituted the "premium" of a 3pt shot (50% more ) was too much but it worked for a while. It took about 20 years for teams to figure that out....After the next increase in distance (08-09) it took another 6-7 years to figure it out again.  Is 22 ft 1 3/4 in the right distance?  Who knows...But the the NCAA knows that it will slow down the rate of increase on 3 pt attempts ....at least for now.

 

 

Yes it could partially explain the improvement from the 1st round to the end of the tourney.  As teams are eliminated, the better teams play better.  Another partial explanation is the players start to adjust as the tourney goes on and they  start to figure out the new distance...yes, even in a short tourney.

BUT....

In the end,  the NCAA accomplished its goal...to slow the 3P Att  and 3P% . Which brings up the following questions....Will the NCAA implement  the rule change on June 5?...Probably, ...  in that their experiment was a success....After they make the changes will  they be done meddling in the 3 pt range?...Only for awhile,....When will they meddle again?  When 3Pt atts approach 40% again. Then what? ...They will probably move it out to NBA range (23ft 9in). There is though a weird quirk...The NBA distances taper as the line swings out to  the corner.   In the corner the distance is only 22 ft....In the international rules (propose to be adopted by NCAA) the line is a uniform 22ft all the way around....so that when an NCAA player goes into the corner he will actually take a longer shot than an NBA player (by 1 3/4 in)  Should the Bills still try to get 3Pt shooters?  Yes ...while it will be a  more difficult shot , the 50% premium for 3s is still a good deal and teams will invest in shooters.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I think the main reason to move the line is to just conform. Why have a different line from the rest of amateur basketball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...