boutons_
03-04-2007, 12:03 AM
March 3, 2007
Sports of The Times
After 20 Years, College 3-Point Line Gets Failing Grade
By WILLIAM C. RHODEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/columns/williamcrhoden/?inline=nyt-per)
This season marks the 20th anniversary of the 3-point shot’s debut in college basketball. Virtually a layup today, in 1986-87 the 3-point attempt was the shot heard ’round the college basketball world.
Feelings still run deeply.
“I still hate it,” Syracuse Coach Jim Boeheim said in a telephone interview yesterday afternoon before his team took the court for practice. Boeheim’s Syracuse team reached the national championship game in 1987, when it was beaten by the hot 3-point shooting of the Indiana Hoosiers and their guard Steve Alford.
“It hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would be — in fact it helped us this year,” Boeheim said. “I never liked it, but it’s here to stay, so there’s no use in talking about it.”
Largely because of the United States’ dismal performances in recent global basketball competition, the talk is actually escalating — and it should.
The pageantry and roller-coaster emotion of the Final Four and the intensity of the N.B.A. playoffs have obscured the reality that the sports landscape has changed. When it comes to international competition, the United States, for all its resources and basketball moxie, is a fish out of water.
We’re not getting worse. Everyone else is getting better.
Two weeks ago, coaches, administrators and officials at all three levels of the N.C.A.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_collegiate_athletic_assn/index.html?inline=nyt-org) received a questionnaire from the N.C.A.A.’s men’s basketball rules committee. The questionnaire asked how the respondents felt about a proposed measure to move the 3-point line back and widen the lane.
One option would move the 3-point line from its current distance of 19 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 20 feet 6 inches. Another would move the line back an entire foot.
There is also a proposal to widen the lane by one foot on each side.
Boeheim says he wants to move the 3-point line back a foot and widen the lane. “It’ll take the banging out of the game and clean up the game,” he said. “It’ll put the finesse back in.”
The 3-point shot was the subject of bitter debate from the moment it was adopted.
Larry Keating, chairman of the rules committee, said that from the beginning, respected coaches complained that the line was too close to the basket. The committee now agrees.
According to the N.C.A.A., in the first year of the 3-point rule, Division I men’s basketball teams averaged 3.5 3-point field goals on 9.2 attempts. Last season, an average of 6.4 of 18.4 3-point attempts were converted.
“The percentage of shooting on the men’s side has gotten too high,” Keating said. “The imbalance is too much in favor of the 3-point shot. A higher percentage of total shots are 3-point attempts, and the success percentage is higher.”
•
In the beginning, the 3-point shot was the tool of the underdog. But now, even those coaches who benefited early on from the 3-pointer are calling for a significant modification.
“I’m a big proponent of moving it back,” Rick Pitino (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/rick_pitino/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Louisville’s coach, said yesterday by telephone. “We talked about once it got to one in every four shots taken was a 3, we would move it back. Well, certainly we’ve surpassed that.”
Pitino’s 1986-87 Providence team became the surprise story of that college basketball season largely because of the 3-point shot. Providence led the nation in 3-point shooting that season and reached the Final Four.
“When the line was first put in, I was looking for a gimmick,” Pitino said. “We didn’t have a very good basketball team and I knew we could press and possibly turn people over, but offensively we were going to have a difficult time scoring.
“Everything we did, from the way we ran our offenses to the way we dribble penetrated, the fact that when we grabbed an offensive rebound we were going to throw it back out, was catered to the 3-point line,” he said.
Moving the line back is the only way the United States can compete on the global court. The proposed modifications recognize the competitive environment in which the United States has been operating, without success.
The larger question is whether moving the 3-point line back and widening the lane will catapult the United States back to global dominance.
I’d like to see the 3-point line pushed back and the lane widened at the high school level as a way to initiate young players to the new global realities of the game. We shouldn’t hold our breath.
“We’re not changing a rule to accommodate the small percentage of players who will play at the Olympic level,” said Bruce Howard, the director of communications for the National Federation of State High School Associations.
•
The United States is the promised land for athletes around the globe who play basketball, baseball and hockey. We offer millions of dollars to shoot a jumper, throw a strike or slap a puck. But the athletes who come here do not lose their love for their own countries. They play in the United States for money, then play on their national teams for love and pride.
For American athletes, whose allegiance is often to their college or professional team, the challenge comes from embracing the often hazy concept of “patriotism” - playing for one’s country.
The problem is not 3-point lines and widened lanes, but speaks to a peculiarly American problem. Commitment.
E-mail: [email protected]
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/sports/basketball/03rhoden.html?em&ex=1173070800&en=30b388046a10e4df&ei=5087%0A
Sports of The Times
After 20 Years, College 3-Point Line Gets Failing Grade
By WILLIAM C. RHODEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/columns/williamcrhoden/?inline=nyt-per)
This season marks the 20th anniversary of the 3-point shot’s debut in college basketball. Virtually a layup today, in 1986-87 the 3-point attempt was the shot heard ’round the college basketball world.
Feelings still run deeply.
“I still hate it,” Syracuse Coach Jim Boeheim said in a telephone interview yesterday afternoon before his team took the court for practice. Boeheim’s Syracuse team reached the national championship game in 1987, when it was beaten by the hot 3-point shooting of the Indiana Hoosiers and their guard Steve Alford.
“It hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would be — in fact it helped us this year,” Boeheim said. “I never liked it, but it’s here to stay, so there’s no use in talking about it.”
Largely because of the United States’ dismal performances in recent global basketball competition, the talk is actually escalating — and it should.
The pageantry and roller-coaster emotion of the Final Four and the intensity of the N.B.A. playoffs have obscured the reality that the sports landscape has changed. When it comes to international competition, the United States, for all its resources and basketball moxie, is a fish out of water.
We’re not getting worse. Everyone else is getting better.
Two weeks ago, coaches, administrators and officials at all three levels of the N.C.A.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_collegiate_athletic_assn/index.html?inline=nyt-org) received a questionnaire from the N.C.A.A.’s men’s basketball rules committee. The questionnaire asked how the respondents felt about a proposed measure to move the 3-point line back and widen the lane.
One option would move the 3-point line from its current distance of 19 feet 9 inches to the international distance of 20 feet 6 inches. Another would move the line back an entire foot.
There is also a proposal to widen the lane by one foot on each side.
Boeheim says he wants to move the 3-point line back a foot and widen the lane. “It’ll take the banging out of the game and clean up the game,” he said. “It’ll put the finesse back in.”
The 3-point shot was the subject of bitter debate from the moment it was adopted.
Larry Keating, chairman of the rules committee, said that from the beginning, respected coaches complained that the line was too close to the basket. The committee now agrees.
According to the N.C.A.A., in the first year of the 3-point rule, Division I men’s basketball teams averaged 3.5 3-point field goals on 9.2 attempts. Last season, an average of 6.4 of 18.4 3-point attempts were converted.
“The percentage of shooting on the men’s side has gotten too high,” Keating said. “The imbalance is too much in favor of the 3-point shot. A higher percentage of total shots are 3-point attempts, and the success percentage is higher.”
•
In the beginning, the 3-point shot was the tool of the underdog. But now, even those coaches who benefited early on from the 3-pointer are calling for a significant modification.
“I’m a big proponent of moving it back,” Rick Pitino (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/rick_pitino/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Louisville’s coach, said yesterday by telephone. “We talked about once it got to one in every four shots taken was a 3, we would move it back. Well, certainly we’ve surpassed that.”
Pitino’s 1986-87 Providence team became the surprise story of that college basketball season largely because of the 3-point shot. Providence led the nation in 3-point shooting that season and reached the Final Four.
“When the line was first put in, I was looking for a gimmick,” Pitino said. “We didn’t have a very good basketball team and I knew we could press and possibly turn people over, but offensively we were going to have a difficult time scoring.
“Everything we did, from the way we ran our offenses to the way we dribble penetrated, the fact that when we grabbed an offensive rebound we were going to throw it back out, was catered to the 3-point line,” he said.
Moving the line back is the only way the United States can compete on the global court. The proposed modifications recognize the competitive environment in which the United States has been operating, without success.
The larger question is whether moving the 3-point line back and widening the lane will catapult the United States back to global dominance.
I’d like to see the 3-point line pushed back and the lane widened at the high school level as a way to initiate young players to the new global realities of the game. We shouldn’t hold our breath.
“We’re not changing a rule to accommodate the small percentage of players who will play at the Olympic level,” said Bruce Howard, the director of communications for the National Federation of State High School Associations.
•
The United States is the promised land for athletes around the globe who play basketball, baseball and hockey. We offer millions of dollars to shoot a jumper, throw a strike or slap a puck. But the athletes who come here do not lose their love for their own countries. They play in the United States for money, then play on their national teams for love and pride.
For American athletes, whose allegiance is often to their college or professional team, the challenge comes from embracing the often hazy concept of “patriotism” - playing for one’s country.
The problem is not 3-point lines and widened lanes, but speaks to a peculiarly American problem. Commitment.
E-mail: [email protected]
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/sports/basketball/03rhoden.html?em&ex=1173070800&en=30b388046a10e4df&ei=5087%0A