"In June, the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel voted to move the three-point line from 20 feet, 9 inches to the international distance of 22 feet, 1.75 inches starting next season.

According to the committee, moving the line back will (a) open up the lane for drives and cuts to the basket and additional low-post play and (b) slow the trend of threes becoming too prevalent by making them more challenging.
"After gathering information over the last two seasons, we feel it's time to make the change," said Colorado coach Tad Boyle, the committee chair. "Freedom of movement in the game remains important, and we feel this will remove some of the congestion on the way to the basket."
Note: The new three-point line will go into effect next season for Division I but will wait until 2020-21 for Divisions II and III.
Why it matters: Like the NBA, the three-pointer has revolutionized college basketball. Now, all of a sudden, players must adjust to a new distance. Considering how much muscle memory is involved in shooting a basketball, that's a big deal.

Also, think about the logistics. "For a school like ours, we don't even have the new lines down on our courts yet," Old Dominion men's basketball coach Jeff Jones told me earlier this summer. "Due to camps and different things, we can't change them until August."
Jones thinks the quick turnaround could lead to less threes next season, especially as players who were borderline three-point shooters last season go back to shooting long twos. "But in time, everybody will adjust," he adds.
The big picture: The committee considered multiple proposals to address freedom of movement before ultimately landing on this one. Another option was to widen the free throw lane from 12 to 16 feet the dimension used in the NBA.

That, too, would have opened up the lane for drivers and cutters. But it would have also required players to post up two feet further from the basket.
Many coaches, including Jones, feared that would have eventually led to the disappearance of the traditional low-post center and are happy that the committee didn't go that direction.
The bottom line: This story flew under the radar this summer but looks poised to play a role next season as teams adjust to their new reality.

P.S. Who changes the lines on a college basketball court? Is it the janitorial staff? Does each school hire an outside company? Is it expensive? Does the NCAA help pay for it?

I'm suddenly extremely curious about this and can't stop picturing the athletic department intern at Big State University googling "company in area to change lines on basketball court" the day after this change was announced." Axios

Three point shot is a joke.

Good decision (can't believe I said that about something the NCAA did).

Too late

Just think if they had done it when Jaylen and Wallace was here

Court delineation (lines) must pass inspection for line width and court configuration, and receive the GHSA. Oski and friends out on a drunk can do the painting; however, that's risky.

It will be interesting to compare 2019-20 with last season, as far as...
3 pt %
3 pt FGs made
2 pt %
2 pt FGs made
overall scoring

Removing some of the congestion is an admirable goal. I'm not sure this rule change will do that right away, as it will take some time for shooters to become nearly as accurate from the longer range. Until that happens, players on average will be shooting a lower percentage, and as such, defenders won't be following their man farther out from the basket, until the shooters prove they can shoot well from the longer range, and the congestion would remain the same. If a team has marginal three point shooters, ones who last season shot with barely acceptable percentage on threes, might eliminate themselves from being considered a threat at all from deep by the defenders.

Basketball, a game I love, continues to be the most artificial of games, first with the shot clock, as the only sport I know of where each play must be completed in a certain number of seconds. Baseball is thinking of doing this, and I guess golf does it a little by assigning penalties for slow play. Second, adding arbitrary lines on the playing surface to define areas where a goal results in more scoring than in another area, or lines defining areas where defenders can't go or stand. It is almost farcical the way that players often have to look down at their feet to see if they are on the right side of the painted line while they are supposed to be looking at their man or the basket or the other players. The powers that be yearly adjust rules to govern or manipulate the style of play, how the play looks, often based on keeping the product marketable, juggling the rules so as to not look like they are favoring offense and scoring too much, followed by juggling them again if the game becomes too much of a defensive struggle. There are so many lines on the floor now, along with all the artistic designs of mascots and the like, that the court barely looks like the one I grew up on. It looks more like Disneyland than a place where serious athletic combat takes place.

HoopDreams said:

---

Too late

Just think if they had done it when Jaylen and Wallace was here

---

I'm not sure it would have helped them. Neither one could make a three to save his life, and everyone in the arena knew that almost any time they got the ball, they would be driving to the basket. And they were so good at finishing those drives, with very different styles, it didn't seem to matter if the lane was congested or not.

SFCityBear said:

---

Removing some of the congestion is an admirable goal. I'm not sure this rule change will do that right away, as it will take some time for shooters to become nearly as accurate from the longer range. Until that happens, players on average will be shooting a lower percentage, and as such, defenders won't be following their man farther out from the basket, until the shooters prove they can shoot well from the longer range, and the congestion would remain the same. If a team has marginal three point shooters, ones who last season shot with barely acceptable percentage on threes, might eliminate themselves from being considered a threat at all from deep by the defenders.

Basketball, a game I love, continues to be the most artificial of games, first with the shot clock, as the only sport I know of where each play must be completed in a certain number of seconds. Baseball is thinking of doing this, and I guess golf does it a little by assigning penalties for slow play. Second, adding arbitrary lines on the playing surface to define areas where a goal results in more scoring than in another area, or lines defining areas where defenders can't go or stand. It is almost farcical the way that players often have to look down at their feet to see if they are on the right side of the painted line while they are supposed to be looking at their man or the basket or the other players. The powers that be yearly adjust rules to govern or manipulate the style of play, how the play looks, often based on keeping the product marketable, juggling the rules so as to not look like they are favoring offense and scoring too much, followed by juggling them again if the game becomes too much of a defensive struggle. There are so many lines on the floor now, along with all the artistic designs of mascots and the like, that the court barely looks like the one I grew up on. It looks more like Disneyland than a place where serious athletic combat takes place.

---

SFCity:

I agree with you regarding the constant rule changes in basketball; however, other sports do have some of the same rules. Water polo has a shot clock (30") and defined areas (even though there aren't any lines, so refs and players kind of have to guess). Hockey has lines that you can't cross under certain circumstances (e.g., it's offside if you cross the blue line before the puck); Same with soccer.

stu said:

---

I like moving the 3-point line to the international distance for consistency if nothing else. And international players we recruit will be familiar with it.

Having endured too many slow down, stall ball games in the distant past I'm a big fan of the shot clock. I've also come to appreciate the 3-point shot as I'd rather see a game of movement than close quarter combat. I now see basketball without a 3-point shot like football without the forward pass.

---

I was saying the game has become artificial, not necessarily a bad or undesirable thing. I agree with you on the shot clock. Even Newell, who coached and played in the era where some teams tried to play slow far too often, was highly in favor of a shot clock.

I feel differently about the 3-point shot. It is ironic that I don't like it now, when as a kid growing up, the long range shot was the most exciting thing for me, as a fan and a player. Being short and not very athletic, I couldn't get a lot of open looks, so I moved farther from the basket to take shots. I practiced them until my arms were ready to fall off, and got good enough shooting them that it gave me a chance to play. Because they were only worth two points, I had to get myself so good at shooting them, that I could make my first shot in most any game, and then coaches let me play more minutes. I had mid range shots and hook shots, but I scored 80% of my baskets from long range. I scored most or all my points in the first half. After halftime, defenders would play me very tight or double me, so I couldn't get a shot.

So why don't I like the three now? I see no reason why one shot should be worth more than another. In my case, as a short unathletic player, the layup in a crowded lane was the hardest shot for me, so I could see see a case for players like me to get awarded 3 points for making such a layup. (For me, a dunk should have been worth 4 or 5 points - I made one in high school, and none after that.) I have ex-teammates who think the dunk should be one point, not two, because it is the simplest shot in the game if you can jump high enough.

The three has greatly diminished most pattern plays and has all but eliminated post play, the position of center, the hook shot, and the mid-range jumper, and replaced it with the single skill of shooting the long range bomb. It has eliminated much of the need to handle the ball well enough in traffic to be effective with it and not lose it, and the ability to make different kinds of shots, like hooks and short jumpers, and it has eliminated some types of passes as well.

Larry Bird, one of the greatest clutch three point shooters of all time, once complained that all kids want to do today is practice shooting the three. Every time he goes into a gym, he said, that is all he sees, kids shooting threes. I suspect it helps turn these kids into introverts, because you don't need a defender to practice shooting threes, you don't need to interact with teammates and defenders to score a bucket. Cell phones are already turning our kids into introverts who can't socialize normally - we don't need basketball to do this as well. Just my opinion.

For me, I'd rather see a perfectly executed pick and roll with two players, or that curl play that Montgomery used to set up a 10 footer behind a double screen for Crabbe, Cobbs, or Jorge. That takes practice and teamwork to perfect. Making a three needs practice to perfect, but comparatively it is a piece of cake, unless you are Domingo or Verneisel, who gave their best but sadly struggled. The three is mental as well, and players go into slumps shooting them. Hard to go into slumps if you are shooting layups. I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. It doesn't matter. The three is here to stay.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Removing some of the congestion is an admirable goal. I'm not sure this rule change will do that right away, as it will take some time for shooters to become nearly as accurate from the longer range. Until that happens, players on average will be shooting a lower percentage, and as such, defenders won't be following their man farther out from the basket, until the shooters prove they can shoot well from the longer range, and the congestion would remain the same. If a team has marginal three point shooters, ones who last season shot with barely acceptable percentage on threes, might eliminate themselves from being considered a threat at all from deep by the defenders.

Basketball, a game I love, continues to be the most artificial of games, first with the shot clock, as the only sport I know of where each play must be completed in a certain number of seconds. Baseball is thinking of doing this, and I guess golf does it a little by assigning penalties for slow play. Second, adding arbitrary lines on the playing surface to define areas where a goal results in more scoring than in another area, or lines defining areas where defenders can't go or stand. It is almost farcical the way that players often have to look down at their feet to see if they are on the right side of the painted line while they are supposed to be looking at their man or the basket or the other players. The powers that be yearly adjust rules to govern or manipulate the style of play, how the play looks, often based on keeping the product marketable, juggling the rules so as to not look like they are favoring offense and scoring too much, followed by juggling them again if the game becomes too much of a defensive struggle. There are so many lines on the floor now, along with all the artistic designs of mascots and the like, that the court barely looks like the one I grew up on. It looks more like Disneyland than a place where serious athletic combat takes place.

---

SFCity:

I agree with you regarding the constant rule changes in basketball; however, other sports do have some of the same rules. Water polo has a shot clock (30") and defined areas (even though there aren't any lines, so refs and players kind of have to guess). Hockey has lines that you can't cross under certain circumstances (e.g., it's offside if you cross the blue line before the puck); Same with soccer.

---

Thanks for your post. I drifted off-topic, by mentioning other sports without knowing much. I've never seen a water polo game and didn't know they had a clock. I have seen a hockey game and a few soccer games. I cringe a bit in basketball when a shooter looks down to see where his feet are, or when a defender has to look down to see where that little semicircle is when he guards someone. Areas like the paint or the key are easier to see with peripheral vision because they are large areas painted in a different color from the floor.

The three-pointer has definitely changed the game, for better or worse depends on your taste ...

The biggest thing, I think, is that it has opened up the post and made the game less physical.

The post: When a long jumper was worth the same as a layup, the odds favored sagging back on any entry pass and digging down on the block. By the same token, the odds favored working the ball from side to side until a good post entry opened up and then banging the ball down there one way or another.

Now, however, defenders have to move away from the basket, thus clearing space for, in today's game, drives and dumps to the weakside post. The classic big-bully post has not thrived in the new order, despite more room to operate, because ...

Finesse: He has to guard someone at the other end. In the past, you could live with a post giving up jump shots worth two points if he could counter at the other end. Now, that lumbering post has to step out to the three-point line after a pick-and-roll and is basically helpless.

So the three-pointer makes the game more athletic and less physical by making defenders guard more space.

And as for the pick-and-roll, it's even more effective with a three-point line. We'd see less of it without the line, as then the punishment for going under a screen is much less, and you can protect the roll much easier.

The combination of the three-point shot, pick-and-roll and weakside down screens makes the game much more fluid. There's no percentage in watching most big buys bang bodies to get position, get that entry pass and power the ball up. If the big guy is good enough, sure, but there's now another path to winning games.

And of course, the three-point line opens up minutes for certain players. They replace the big, strong, slow players who thrived in the previous era, and though they can be slow as well, generally they're more athletic.

In the end, though, the game is much the same ... get better shots than the other team and generally you win.

ClayK said:

---

The three-pointer has definitely changed the game, for better or worse depends on your taste ...

The biggest thing, I think, is that it has opened up the post and made the game less physical.

The post: When a long jumper was worth the same as a layup, the odds favored sagging back on any entry pass and digging down on the block. By the same token, the odds favored working the ball from side to side until a good post entry opened up and then banging the ball down there one way or another.

Now, however, defenders have to move away from the basket, thus clearing space for, in today's game, drives and dumps to the weakside post. The classic big-bully post has not thrived in the new order, despite more room to operate, because ...

Finesse: He has to guard someone at the other end. In the past, you could live with a post giving up jump shots worth two points if he could counter at the other end. Now, that lumbering post has to step out to the three-point line after a pick-and-roll and is basically helpless.

So the three-pointer makes the game more athletic and less physical by making defenders guard more space.

And as for the pick-and-roll, it's even more effective with a three-point line. We'd see less of it without the line, as then the punishment for going under a screen is much less, and you can protect the roll much easier.

The combination of the three-point shot, pick-and-roll and weakside down screens makes the game much more fluid. There's no percentage in watching most big buys bang bodies to get position, get that entry pass and power the ball up. If the big guy is good enough, sure, but there's now another path to winning games.

And of course, the three-point line opens up minutes for certain players. They replace the big, strong, slow players who thrived in the previous era, and though they can be slow as well, generally they're more athletic.

In the end, though, the game is much the same ... get better shots than the other team and generally you win.

---

Post is right on.
And for slashers, those rim protectors will be in worse position to block shots if they have to defend a stretch 4

I definitely agree that it is a matter of taste. For me, there was nothing more boring than watching Shaq back down a defender for 10 sec. until he had shoved him under the basket and then dunking. It felt like a combo of basketball and WWE. I agree that the game is more fluid now--for better or worse.

ClayK said:

---

The three-pointer has definitely changed the game, for better or worse depends on your taste ...

The biggest thing, I think, is that it has opened up the post and made the game less physical.

The post: When a long jumper was worth the same as a layup, the odds favored sagging back on any entry pass and digging down on the block. By the same token, the odds favored working the ball from side to side until a good post entry opened up and then banging the ball down there one way or another.

Now, however, defenders have to move away from the basket, thus clearing space for, in today's game, drives and dumps to the weakside post. The classic big-bully post has not thrived in the new order, despite more room to operate, because ...

Finesse: He has to guard someone at the other end. In the past, you could live with a post giving up jump shots worth two points if he could counter at the other end. Now, that lumbering post has to step out to the three-point line after a pick-and-roll and is basically helpless.

So the three-pointer makes the game more athletic and less physical by making defenders guard more space.

And as for the pick-and-roll, it's even more effective with a three-point line. We'd see less of it without the line, as then the punishment for going under a screen is much less, and you can protect the roll much easier.

The combination of the three-point shot, pick-and-roll and weakside down screens makes the game much more fluid. There's no percentage in watching most big buys bang bodies to get position, get that entry pass and power the ball up. If the big guy is good enough, sure, but there's now another path to winning games.

And of course, the three-point line opens up minutes for certain players. They replace the big, strong, slow players who thrived in the previous era, and though they can be slow as well, generally they're more athletic.

In the end, though, the game is much the same ... get better shots than the other team and generally you win.

---

Good post, and to me all of that makes the game better. Much better. Quicker, more athletic, more skilled.

Professional Lacrosse (there is such a thing) has a two point shot 15 yards out from the goal. They also have a 52 second shot clock. People are trying to make certain sports more fun.

Clearly we need a two point goal in Soccer - say from the 30 yard line. Totally change the game.

Imagine if in football they turned over the ball if there was no score in 5 minutes of clock time. That would change the game as well.

Oski87 said:

---

Professional Lacrosse (there is such a thing) has a two point shot 15 yards out from the goal. They also have a 52 second shot clock. People are trying to make certain sports more fun.

Clearly we need a two point goal in Soccer - say from the 30 yard line. Totally change the game.

Imagine if in football they turned over the ball if there was no score in 5 minutes of clock time. That would change the game as well.

---

Or just make the whole game like OT: start each possession on the opponent's 25.

ClayK said:

---

The three-pointer has definitely changed the game, for better or worse depends on your taste ...

The biggest thing, I think, is that it has opened up the post and made the game less physical.

The post: When a long jumper was worth the same as a layup, the odds favored sagging back on any entry pass and digging down on the block. By the same token, the odds favored working the ball from side to side until a good post entry opened up and then banging the ball down there one way or another.

Now, however, defenders have to move away from the basket, thus clearing space for, in today's game, drives and dumps to the weakside post. The classic big-bully post has not thrived in the new order, despite more room to operate, because ...

Finesse: He has to guard someone at the other end. In the past, you could live with a post giving up jump shots worth two points if he could counter at the other end. Now, that lumbering post has to step out to the three-point line after a pick-and-roll and is basically helpless.

So the three-pointer makes the game more athletic and less physical by making defenders guard more space.

And as for the pick-and-roll, it's even more effective with a three-point line. We'd see less of it without the line, as then the punishment for going under a screen is much less, and you can protect the roll much easier.

The combination of the three-point shot, pick-and-roll and weakside down screens makes the game much more fluid. There's no percentage in watching most big buys bang bodies to get position, get that entry pass and power the ball up. If the big guy is good enough, sure, but there's now another path to winning games.

And of course, the three-point line opens up minutes for certain players. They replace the big, strong, slow players who thrived in the previous era, and though they can be slow as well, generally they're more athletic.

In the end, though, the game is much the same ... get better shots than the other team and generally you win.

---

This post is interesting, and hard to disagree with the details, as you have eloquently laid out. However I think it may hold true for comparisons with the game of 2 or 5 years ago, or maybe more, but for me it does not hold true for comparisons with the game pre-three point shot and pre-shot clock.

I guess I'd like to hear your definition of "fluid" as well. Fluid to me means a smoothly operating offense, that looks smooth and all the moving parts are clicking on all cylinders. The closest thing today to that has been the Warriors when they are at their best in long stretches of a game. The three may get the credit for whatever fluidity there is in the modern game, but that fluidity pales in comparison to the fluidity present in the game in the 1970s, which was the best and best looking offensive basketball in the college game in my lifetime. In 1971 and 1972, college offenses averaged 78 points per game, the highest average scoring in history. That was 15 years before the shot clock was introduced in college, and 16 years before the three point shot was introduced in college. By 2015, the latest season where the NCAA published stats, the average scoring had dropped to 67 points. My personal view is "fluid" means more shots, more baskets made with the least amount of effort. Today's offense still looks all clogged up and bogged down to me. The other stats are similar:

The most average FG attempts in history: 1952, 70 FGA per game. In 2015, 54 FGA
The highest FG% in history: 1984, 48%. By 2015, it had dropped to 43%.
The highest average number of FG made: 1976, 32 per game. By 2015, it was 24 FGM
All of these records were made well before the introduction of the clock and the three.

What did teams of the '70s look like? Think John Wooden. His UCLA teams won 10 championships in 12 years from 1964 to 1975. Most of the other teams were trying to play like his teams, even for years after he retired. His championship teams averaged 88 points while all the D1 teams averaged 76 points. UCLA's opponents in those seasons averaged 67 points. So to me fluid means lots of shots, lots of buckets, more than your opponents. Basketball means being fluid on offense and disrupting your opponent's offense so it doesn't look fluid. Bill Walton's soph season, UCLA averaged 95 points per game, and gave up 64.

Another thing that indicates less fluidity in offense today is the drop in assist totals for a game. In 1993, the first year that stats were kept, teams averaged 14.5 assists. It dropped steadily to 12.5 assists in 2015, and this was in an era when an assist was given for a three point shot, which was probably not done for long range shots prior to the invention of the three.

The NBA has fared much better in terms of keeping their statistics up to prior levels after the introduction of the three. In 1979, the first year of the NBA three:

Three point attempts were 2.8 per game. In 2019, that had risen to 32 attempts per game.
Three point FG% was 28% in 1979, and is 36% in 2019
Overall FGA was 91 in 1979, and is 90 in 2019
Overall FG% was 48% in 1979, and is 46% in 2019
Points per game was 109 in 1979, and is 111 in 2019.

Finally, I would disagree that players or teams play with more skill today. I think it is much less. Players are prone to devote most of their practice time shooting threes, and not spending much time on the other shots. The post has opened up, not so much with the three, but with the area near the basket being restricted for defenders, it means defenders can not block the path of the offensive player, and he does not need the variety of shots he used to need to score near the basket. Many players have to come to a stop and jump for every shot, and don't realize that taking off on one foot is a faster way to get to the hoop. Because defenses today depend on so much helping, players don't develop good individual defensive skills. Many don't even know the correct stance for playing man-to-man defense. With all the three point shots now, and the misses often being a long carom, boxing out for a rebound is almost becoming a lost art. Passing skills are much less than in say the 1970s with Wooden's teams, or even average teams back then, not just for point guards but all players.

That's a great reply ....

So I was around in the '60s and '70s, and was a much bigger college basketball fan then than now -- but it's pretty hard to recall anything specific about the style of play in 1971.

The stats show that uptempo was the style, and apparently a lot of people were trying to use the Wooden style, but as I recall, he didn't use that 2-2-1 full court press much after Alcindor arrived. (You needed the right kind of athletes to make that work.)

For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that 1970-72 was the pinnacle of fluidity and scoring. Let's also remember, though, that there were only 16 berths in the NCAA tournament (with the accompanying financial rewards) so revenue came from the gate. (Local TV was not a big factor.)

And after 1972, offense declined, as the cyclic wheel of competition shifted to defense. And as getting to the tournament became more important, especially after the expansion to 32 and then 64 teams, the focus of teams shifted -- and the revenue increased.

One thing that happens when you have more revenue is that winning becomes more important; another is you can afford more staff. When you have more staff, and more emphasis on winning, you watch more video, focus more on defending (witness the change in the NBA when the money started pouring in) and scoring becomes more difficult.

In any event, the decline of offense led to the implementation of the three-point rule, as apparently the return to the offensive explosion of 1970-71 wasn't going to happen otherwise.

As for the various statistical markers, they do indicate a shift in style of play. Assists are down, in part, because there are fewer entry passes to the post, but mainly, I think, because one-on-one skills have improved. Stars have a lot of ways to score, and the opening up of the court has also made it easier for stars to just attack the basket.

Less fluid? Certainly.

But I never found pounding the ball into the block that interesting, and that wasn't all that fluid either. It led to a lot of zones and a lot of contact.

Now maybe the game was better in 1952, when there were a lot of shots, and 1971, when there was a lot of scoring. I can't recall, but the numbers certainly back your claim. That said, I still prefer today's game to the college game of the '90s, as the opening of the court makes the game more fluid, in my estimation, and allows more movement and activity than when the game is dominated on the block.

Again, great post ...

Clay and SFCity:

Excellent exchange. While I agree with SFCity that the game was more fluid and interesting in the early 70's, it is also true that the shot clock was introduced because it became stultified. The four corners offense and other abominations led to games in the 50's. The winner of the tournament from '80 to '83 scored 59, 63, 63, and 54 points respectively.

ClayK said:

---

One thing that happens when you have more revenue is that winning becomes more important; another is you can afford more staff. When you have more staff, and more emphasis on winning, you watch more video, focus more on defending (witness the change in the NBA when the money started pouring in) and scoring becomes more difficult.

---

This is a good point. NBA coaching and player development improved a lot after teams started hiring more staff, especially staff other than bench coaches, to work with players outside of games and team practices, and to work with coaches on planning and strategy. Also, more training staff to keep players going over a much-too-long regular season.

Seems like they also increased the size of the arc below the basket