Change Is A Foot
As the NCAA Moves the Men's Three-Point Line Back, Teams Brace for a Change in The Way the Game Is Played
By Eric Prisbell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 9, 2008; D01
It lived a short but meaningful life. Resting 19 feet 9 inches from the basket, it allowed small college basketball programs to become unlikely national contenders, 7-footers to become dangerous outside shooters and one Kansas guard to become a hero who will long live in NCAA tournament lore. Most current college players never have seen a basketball court without it.
But after drawing periodic criticism and creating indelible moments for two decades, the 22-year-old three-point arc is no longer, passing with only some mourning. When the season tips off tomorrow, the sport will introduce a new arc, lying a foot farther from the basket, a line less controversial but perhaps more confounding than its predecessor.
"It will have a major impact on the game, on the teams playing and how they are coached," Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski said. "You have more decisions to make."
The specific effects of the deeper arc depend on whom you ask. Some coaches say it will discourage average shooters from attempting three-pointers; others say it won't. Some say it will create more open space, as was intended; others say the opposite. Some say it will resurrect the midrange game; others are not so sure.
Regardless of impact, coaches generally applauded the NCAA basketball rules committee's decision in May 2007 to move the arc for men's basketball, a far more positive reaction than the introduction of the old line received before the 1986-87 season. After experimenting with different arcs in different conferences, the move 22 years ago to adopt a universal arc marked a seismic change. The late Jim Valvano, then North Carolina State's coach, offered a three-word characterization: "Stupid. Awful. Horrible." Reggie Miller, then at UCLA, was so giddy about the short distance he felt he could shoot it underhanded.
Over the years, compelling evidence mounted to suggest the shot was too close and overused. Teams attempted 9.2 three-pointers per game during the 1986-87 season. Last season, teams attempted 19.07 three-pointers per game. For Butler, the successful small school from Indiana, 40.9 percent of its points came on three-pointers.
A study of more than 4,000 games over the past five years confirmed the well-established notion that the midrange game has been on life support and the game has evolved into a contest of three-pointers and close-range shots. Ken Pomeroy, a college basketball statistician, concluded that less than half as many shots were taken between 10 and 15 feet than were taken between 20 and 25 feet. And the accuracy for midrange shots was less than it was for short three-pointers.
Adding one foot, less than the average length of a player's sneaker, is not expected to affect the best shooters because they routinely shoot from a few feet behind the old arc. Boston College's Tyrese Rice, who made eight three-pointers in a game last season, said he is comfortable taking shots as deep as 26 feet.
Alabama-Birmingham's Robert Vaden, who was third nationally with 4.3 three-pointers per game, typically practices shots as deep as 24 feet. During the summer, he made more than 500 three-pointers per day, including many much deeper than the new three-point distance.
"After you start playing with the new line, you don't even notice it," said North Carolina's Wayne Ellington, who had three games last season with five three-pointers.
That said, Wake Forest Coach Dino Gaudio delved into history to look at data each time the line moved. After the ACC experimented with a 17-foot 9-inch line for the 1982-83 season, Gaudio said shooting percentages dropped when the sport adopted a universal line four years later. He expects percentages to drop this season as well.
"You know what?" Gaudio said. "Kids don't shoot the ball right at the line. They shoot six inches, a foot, a foot and a half, two feet behind the line. I told our guys last year, 'Shoot threes, not fours.' For those kids who use a little extra push with their shot, it will matter."
Oregon Coach Ernie Kent believes the new arc will turn average three-point shooting teams into poor ones. The logic: Just because average shooters should not shoot from the new distance does not mean they won't think they can.
"They still want to shoot it," Missouri Coach Mike Anderson said. "They don't make it much, but they want to shoot it."
Players can tout their shooting abilities all they want, Krzyzewski said, but ultimately "talk to the coaches who control the playing time of the players who think they can hit the shots they can't really hit. Once that element is put into the equation, you get a whole new set of actions. There isn't a player alive who doesn't think they can shoot. There are a smaller percentage who can actually hit."
It will create more quandaries for defenses. Leave a good shooter open beyond the new arc, and he will still make it. Cover him tightly, and he will have more space to penetrate. If defenses need to extend a foot farther on the perimeter, it also will create more opportunities for interior players, which plays to the strengths of the nation's top teams.
Top-ranked North Carolina got only 18.8 percent of its points from three-pointers last season, the lowest percentage of any NCAA tournament team. Connecticut, the nation's second-ranked team, had the second-lowest percentage.
But some believe defenses will counter, congesting the half court.
"You'll see more teams use a zone, pack things in, and that makes the game boring," UCLA Coach Ben Howland said. "When you play against zones, you have to be more patient on offense; you're going to see slower-paced games because it takes time to break down a zone."
One unintended consequence could be confusion. Because the women's game will retain the old arc, two three-point lines are now painted on the courts. Washington State Coach Tony Bennett and several prominent players across the country said they have already seen players step on the new line while shooting.
"When you have nonessential lines on the court, then you ask, 'What the hell are those lines doing there?' " Krzyzewski said. "That was a mistake. If a football team was playing, you think they would put an 8-yard line down and say, 'Well, you should know'? The speed with which you do the game, a lot of times you are not thinking of color, you are thinking that there is something on the court."
And if a player gets confused and shoots on the line, it becomes the worst shot attempt on the court: a 20-foot two-pointer. When Kansas played exhibition games in Canada, Coach Bill Self watched his team take a lot of those "bad shots" or, as he said, "2 1/2 -pointers because they did not know the geography of the court."
Miami sharpshooter Jack McClinton said his coaches already have scolded him for taking a 20-footer, which used to be the most popular shot on the court. In the eyes of some, the three-point arc may change, but the 22-year-old philosophy remains the same.
"You don't want to shoot that far to shoot a two," Maryland guard Greivis Vasquez said. "You are either going to shoot real close or you are going to shoot a three."
