View Full Version : Analysis of the new 3 point line

Zag 77
03-26-2008, 08:02 AM
Maybe these are "Jerry Krause" type questions, but I read elesewhere on this board about the change in the 3 point line next season. I have not seen much discussion anywhere on how it might affect the college game.

_ what are the new dimensions and how does it compare with the existing line, the international line and the NBA line?

- How close to the existing line is it in the corners?

-is it going to be the same line for HS kids?

-is this the first time the line has been changed since it was established? I am wondering how shooting percentages were affected the last time a line got moved.

How do people think it will affect the WCC in general and GU in particular? Will it mean a return to a rougher, "inside" game the line was supposed to alleviate?

03-26-2008, 08:24 AM
Current NCAA/High School 3 point line = 19 feet, 9 inches
New NCAA 3 point line = 20 feet, 9 inches
International 3 point line = 20 feet, 6 inches
NBA 3 point line = 23 feet, 9 inches

More on the 3 point line throughout basketball =


As far as I know, high school will be sticking with the current version.

This is the first time the 3 point line, in college, has formally changed across the board since it was first implemented in the 80's. It has never been at any other distance.

I think the new 3 point line's greatest effect on college ball will be to create more space on the floor for slashers and cutters. The slashers and cutters in college basketball right now are, in many cases, taking too many 3 point shots. Coaches will be tightening their green light when it comes to which players on their roster should be shooting the 3...which will encourage the slashers and cutters to score in the ways that they should.

I know people have various theories about who will benefit more...the BCS or non-BCS teams. I think everyone is going to benefit. The new line allows teams everywhere to play to their strengths more. The teams with great shooters like Drake and Butler will still be hucking up 3 balls and benefitting from the extra points that come with those buckets, but the teams who might have more athletes or size in the middle will have more space to operate. The greatest benefit will be for the fan in the stands (or in front of the TV set). The game is going to be more aesthetically pleasing because players will putting greater focus on what they do best. There should be more player movement on the floor. In essence, I agree with the decision to move the line.

Now if we can just clean up some of the bad officiating that's rampant in college basketball right now by putting impartial supervisors of officiating in place (as opposed to retired refs), we'd be in business.

03-26-2008, 09:34 AM
A slightly different topic...I'd really like to see a blocking/charging line under the hoop, like in the the NBA. So many calls just shouldn't be made the way its set up now.

03-26-2008, 09:57 AM
I think college basketball refs should have to undergo training to relearn what is and what is not a player control foul. This will put an end to all the flopping that's going on. As Mike Decourcy of the Sporting News put it this last weekend on radio, the charging call in the college game has become like the strike zone for MLB umpires. The rule book is being ignored due to several egotistical refs trying to make their own, personal impact on the game instead of being invisible like good game officials always are.

Just look at how the refs these days make their charging calls in games compared to even just a few years ago. Like a MLB baseball ump calling a 3rd strike, the charging call for many refs has become a theatrical performance to convey their personal power over the game. It's become a joke.

03-26-2008, 10:44 AM
What will be the best way to actually draw it on the court? The women, as I understand it, will still use the old 19' 6" line while the men use the new 20' 6" line.

Do you paint a one-foot thick line or two separate thinner lines?

03-26-2008, 10:57 AM
One could be a green line

And the other a blue line

03-26-2008, 11:48 AM
I like the idea. A lot. It may give a guy like LG more of a chance to play because he is a slasher. But the bottom line is that in order for a team to win big games it will need 3 point shooters. So 3's will continue to be a must. It will just be a little more challenging. I may hurt Pargo. But I think Gray, Daye and Downs are all capable of canning 3 pt's from the new distance with consistency.

03-26-2008, 05:46 PM
As he said on ESPN the other night, the best place for the three point shot is "in the dressing room". Basketball has always been a great game, we just keep finding ways to louse it up.

03-26-2008, 06:07 PM
Zagco is bemused and puzzled by the various differences in distance for the 3-point line in college and international ball. There is simply no reason for a different distance for the International and College line. None. Zagco can understand arguments for the NBA distance at that level, but he's very tempted to believe that the line should be the same for college.

The women's game can have a shorter line. That's okay and makes some sense given that, on average, women are not as big or strong.

Zagco HATES the current college 3-point distance. HATES IT. Too many teams that are beaten and crappy get hot from it and hit shot after shot, like layups. Too many teams base their entire offensive plan and alignment around the 3-point line. If that doesn't work, they bullrush into the key and try to dunk it, kiss it off the glass, and/or get a foul. Zagco yearns for a more subtle game involving 2-point jump shots.

The next thing the game needs to do is apportion timeouts, so that you lose a timeout every 5 minutes if you don't use it. He cannot stand games that get down to the end, where one team starts fouling, using their timeouts that they've stockpiled (who needs a timeout when you get TV and media timeouts every 4-5 minutes?!?) and other clock stoppages to extend games that should be over.

03-26-2008, 07:06 PM
18 time outs in a 40 minute game is way too many.