This topic contains 5 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Kevin Kinder .
June 12, 2019 at 1:39 pm #92540
With the implementation of the shot clock , and continuing with the latest rule changes, college basketball has moved more
in the favor of the teams with the top talent!
Why would the majority of coaches favor this environment,
basically being in the minority of the talent? You would think
that the majority might like to see changes that make the
game more competitive.
Extending the 3-pt line rule, if indeed it does what the rules
committee hopes, gives which teams the most benefit?
Four and five star, pure shooters or two and three star average
Joes? Coaching makes up a little but not in the overall scheme
The greatest college basketball ever was played in the last
NCAA tournament!? What was so wrong that caused the
How many more people can be expected to watch college
basketball from the stands or on TV?
So, the rules are not making the games more competitive,
the medias are bursting, there’s no fan clamorings for
change…….exactly what is it!?
Where’s Paul Harvey?
Little, if any, of the hopes of the committee will materialize with the
Bob Hunter’s original treatise on this subject bared out the stats
that showed hardly any changes in pct shooting in the evolution
from 19-9 to the current distance!
You can only fit a parabola, not a circle, in the court!
NO changes in the corners!
Players will adjust! Great ones the most!June 12, 2019 at 2:27 pm #92544
You have good points but I have always wanted these rule changesJune 12, 2019 at 3:07 pm #92550
I actually don’t mind the rule changes, especially extending the three-point distance a bit. The hope is that adding about a foot and a half to the three-pointer, it will decrease the number of three-pointers somewhat and open up some more room for the disappearing mid-range game. I’d like to see better flow in the college game, and if this rule change can do that, I’m for it. Just my opinion.June 12, 2019 at 7:21 pm #92561
Greg, sorry for the Bob reference. Must have had the now retired
Columbus Dispatch reporter on my mind.
But these stats from your earlier piece should give the rules
committee pause in their expectations of the 3-pt change
In regards to reluctance to shoot ! And also in its relevance
to pick-and-rolls, straight line drives, screening, etc of which
there was plenty of last year!
WVU can probably attest to that!
“Teams in the 2019 NIT averaged 23.1 field goal attempts in the tournament from behind the arc, compared with 22.8 3-point attempts in the 2018-19 regular season. The 3-point shooting percentage of teams in the 2019 NIT was 33%, compared with their regular season average of 35.2%.
When the line was moved before the 2008-09 season, the distance went from 19 feet, 9 inches to 20 feet, 9 inches. The percentage of 3-point shots made during that season compared with the previous season declined from 35.2% to 34.4%. The percentage of made 3-point field goals steadily increased back to 35.2% in Division I by the 2017-18 season.”
Adding 12 or so inches at the vertex of the parabola ain’t going
to change nuttin’!June 12, 2019 at 11:11 pm #92563
They are trying their best to make it exactly like the NBA.June 13, 2019 at 3:14 am #92564
Lots of different angles to these rule changes.
My first take was that moving the line back will affect scoring a little, based on the NIT results. Over time, though you are right, it looks like players adapt.
As for being to the advantage of better players, in he raw shooting category, I understand your point. But, coaches who can get a group of players — say like Beilein’s Elite Eight team — that can run an offense and use some of the space created to get shots in the mid-range, I think could combat some of that talent.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.