+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Would basketball be better if... (/thread-844721.html)
Pages: 1 2
Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-06-2018 08:39 PM
The 3-point line was roughly 30 feet out? That way it is a realistic shot to make but doesn't impact the game all that much. Or would players still practice and shoot it too much?
Between that and the floor size, which worked way better in Naismith's day than today, it might be something that improves the game. Jacking up 3's is so passe.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - arkstfan - 03-06-2018 09:52 PM
(03-06-2018 08:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote: The 3-point line was roughly 30 feet out? That way it is a realistic shot to make but doesn't impact the game all that much. Or would players still practice and shoot it too much?
Between that and the floor size, which worked way better in Naismith's day than today, it might be something that improves the game. Jacking up 3's is so passe.
NBA is 22. At 30 it probably becomes closer to a desperation heave.
Really its about what you want to accomplish. The idea was counter the dominance of centers and strong power forwards and increase the value of smaller guys who could hit from distance.
Before the 3 point line there was a lot of people calling to raise the goal to 12 feet to accomplish the same thing.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-06-2018 09:55 PM
Okay, then 25-27 feet? My point is to make it less of a factor.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - arkstfan - 03-06-2018 09:59 PM
(03-06-2018 09:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote: Okay, then 25-27 feet? My point is to make it less of a factor.
I like the NBA game at 22 but my first thought is centers become more valuable and maybe we see more shots taken at 15 to 18 feet.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Wedge - 03-06-2018 10:37 PM
To be precise about the distances:
NBA line is 23 feet and 9 inches as measured from the center of the hoop (not the end line) to the peak of the 3-point line that is directly behind the top of the key, or 23 feet from the front of the rim to the line. From the corner, it's 22 feet from the line to the center of the hoop.
Can't make the line 25 feet away in the corners because the sideline is 25 feet from the center of the hoop. (In other words, the width of the court is 50 feet.)
NCAA men's line is 20 feet and 9 inches away from the center of the hoop, or 20 feet from the rim.
At 25 feet, I think many NBA shooters would adjust to shooting as well as they do from 23-9, but college players in general would shoot poorly from 25 feet.
Obviously if you put the line at 30 feet you'd have only Steph Curry and a few others regularly taking 3s.
But between the NBA line and the NCAA line, the most important thing affecting shooting percentage, by far, is not the distance, but whether the shooter is open. One of the highest percentage locations for jump shots is the corner 3 for two reasons: The shooter is more likely to be open there, and the guys who shoot from there tend to be good shooters. Poor outside shooters don't stand in the corner waiting for passes.
![[Image: 3-pt-line-moves-back.jpg]](https://rushthecourt.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/3-pt-line-moves-back.jpg)
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-06-2018 11:11 PM
You don't need the corners, just a line or partial arc that ends at the sidelines.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-06-2018 11:12 PM
Even a straight line will do.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Wolfman - 03-07-2018 12:07 AM
No. You are right that it would lead to less 3-point attempts and fewer made. Before the 3-point line, a team that could score 60 points was considered a high powered offense. There were plenty of 40 point games too. Way too many. As Arksfan noted, you had a bunch of tall guys standing around the basket beating each other up while the guards were off somewhere eating popcorn.
Sure, some teams shoot too many 3s but it can be a great equalizer. Especially for a smaller school whose big guy is 6'6"
Prior to the 3, it was easier to slow the game down. Dean Smith used to go to the 4-corners stall 5 minutes into the game. If you are a decent 3-point team, they can't do that.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Wedge - 03-07-2018 12:27 AM
(03-06-2018 11:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote: You don't need the corners, just a line or partial arc that ends at the sidelines.
The corner 3s help with spacing on the court. When offensive players go to the corners and hit shots from there, defensive players are less likely to pack the lane.
There was an article awhile back that agreed with you, though - the writer disliked corner 3s and suggested an NBA 3-point arc that would intersect the sidelines to eliminate corner 3s. I don't see the need for that, though it would be doable in the NBA. In college, a line at the NBA distance would all but take away 3s for many college teams.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - quo vadis - 03-07-2018 12:30 AM
I prefer college basketball before the 3-point shot, and pro basketball before the 2000s, when they started getting really good at the 3-point shot. I liked the game better when the top players were big men like Kareem and Moses and Hakeem, not swingmen like Michael and Kobe and Lebron, and rue that now more of the best have gotten even smaller - Steph and Westbrook and Harden.
But it's like saying you liked the NFL better when corners could beat up the receivers all they wanted before the ball was in the air, and when 250 yards passing was a huge day for a QB; or you liked college football better when 300 yards rushing was way more likely to happen than 300 yards passing.
You're spitting into the wind.
Would basketball be better if... - Jjoey52 - 03-07-2018 12:42 AM
Leave it alone unless you move the shot clock back to 35. The 30 second click is why you have all these team chucking 3s as it takes longer to set up good underneath plays.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Wedge - 03-07-2018 12:53 AM
I don't want to go back to the pre-merger 1970s NBA where point guards stood in one place and dribbled for 10 seconds before throwing the ball into a scrum of big men, or back to the pre-shot clock days of college hoops. No thanks.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-07-2018 01:20 AM
(03-07-2018 12:07 AM)Wolfman Wrote: No. You are right that it would lead to less 3-point attempts and fewer made. Before the 3-point line, a team that could score 60 points was considered a high powered offense. There were plenty of 40 point games too. Way too many. As Arksfan noted, you had a bunch of tall guys standing around the basket beating each other up while the guards were off somewhere eating popcorn.
Sure, some teams shoot too many 3s but it can be a great equalizer. Especially for a smaller school whose big guy is 6'6"
Prior to the 3, it was easier to slow the game down. Dean Smith used to go to the 4-corners stall 5 minutes into the game. If you are a decent 3-point team, they can't do that.
That had as much to do with the lack of a shot clock as it did with the lack of a 3-point line. Maybe teams will take higher percentage shots without the allure of the 3-point line and actually reinvent the mid-range game.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-07-2018 01:25 AM
Again, don't take away the 3, fully or figuratively, just make it less of a factor.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - TOPSTRAIGHT - 03-07-2018 01:55 AM
The NBA line should be used in the NCAA .Try it for two or three years-if they don't like it-change it.
The OP was correct that the three effect on games is a little too strong.Unless you want to have the shot count for 2.5 points.
Another change(crazy or exciting) would be to make all shots behind the half court line worth four points.I know it would rarely happen but it would be worth trying for a year or two.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-07-2018 02:00 AM
I've proposed that before. Why not, it would rarely come into play anyways?
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Wedge - 03-07-2018 02:48 AM
(03-07-2018 01:25 AM)_C2_ Wrote: Again, don't take away the 3, fully or figuratively, just make it less of a factor.
It's already less of a factor than you think it is.
Top college teams this season are making an average of 7 to 10 3s per game.
You think the top NBA teams are raining down 3s at a higher rate? Not really. The Warriors have all these guys who do nothing but shoot 3s? Nope. The Warriors are averaging only 11.8 made 3s per game, fewer than 3 per quarter, or fewer than 1 for every 4 minutes of game time. The Celtics make about the same number of 3s per game.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - C2__ - 03-07-2018 03:31 AM
I'd say 7 to 10 is a lot. A better stat to bring up is how many do they shoot? You could also look for the median number, as 3-point averages can be brought down by bad (shooting) teams.
Also, how much is their average brought down by garbage time? I'd assume you'd shoot fewer 3's when you're up 20 at the end of the third quarter for many of your games.
Bottom line, I think the number shot is much more telling. I'm too sleepy to look it up now.
RE: Would basketball be better if... - tigerjamesc - 03-07-2018 12:50 PM
No...viewership and popularity is at an all time high. Much of that is due to the outstanding shape the NBA game is in with the best shooting we’ve ever seen. Don’t try to fix success
RE: Would basketball be better if... - Hokie Mark - 03-11-2018 06:42 AM
(03-06-2018 08:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote: The 3-point line was roughly 30 feet out?
No, it would be worse.
The 3 point line serves a valuable purpose in modern basketball. As the average player became taller, bigger, and stronger, the ability to simply "muscle" your way to a close range basket became more difficult - and scoring suffered.
The objective of the 3 isn't to supercede the 2, but rather, to spread the floor so that 2s become easier to get. To accomplish that goal, the 3-point shot needs to be easy enough to force the defenders to come out and cover those shooters. At 30 feet, the defense could simply ignore most shooters, thus defeating the purpose.