Thursday, May 3, 2007

It's about Time

When I read that the NCAA was finally moving the men’s 3-point shot back a foot, the first thought that came to my mind was, “It’s about time.”

The 3-point shot should have been moved back long ago. This will be a great change for college basketball for a variety of reasons.

The mid-range jump shot

The current line at 19 feet, 9 inches has destroyed the importance of the mid-range jump shot. The line is close enough that it diminishes the mid-range game. Teams shoot a 3 or they get a lay up. There is very little else in the game. Moving the 3-point line back will decrease this disparity and will hopefully decrease the amount of 3-point shots attempted in a game.

Too many players can shoot the 3 at the current distance

If you go to your local gym and play in a pick-up game I guarantee there will at least one or two guys there that love to shoot the 3-ball but do nothing else. These players do not even step inside the 3-point line. They love the fact that they can shoot it. You make them take one dribble and they are no longer a threat. These same guys cannot hit a 17 footer to save their lives.

Now I realize that the change will not affect these guys. However, it will have the same effect on the college game. There are just too many guys that are considered 3-point shooters in college. Everyone shoots it. Hopefully this change will separate the pretenders from the pure shooters in college basketball.

The change will spread the floor


The college game has become cramped. The players have gotten bigger through the years but the zone of the floor that is used in the half-court has not. The distance change will create better spacing and allow athleticism to shine. It will bring back some finesse to the game and reduce some of the physicality that has increased in the game.


If I could have changed one thing about college basketball this would be it. I only wish the change would occur next season instead of waiting until 2008. It’s a shame we’ll still have to wait yet another year for a change that should have occurred over a decade ago.

No comments: