If the NCAA hadn't introduced the 3-point shot in the 80's, would SU's zone be unbeatable??

[OttosBestFriend]

If the NCAA hadn't introduced the 3-point shot in the 80's, would SU's zone of the last 4-5 years be unbeatable??

It seems Cuse only loses when some kid goes off for the game of his life.

Not sure SU would've lost a game last season. And pretty sure only Duke beats Cuse this year.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Hell yeah.

 

[HoustonCuse]

It would be close to unbeatable but also a lot more teams would play zone and offenses would be better at attacking it as result.

My question, which is more likely to happen: If the NCAA adopted an NBA distance 3 point shot, would it help or hurt Syracuse?

 

[MCC]

If the NCAA hadn't introduced the 3-point shot in the 80's, would SU's zone of the last 4-5 years be unbeatable??

It seems Cuse only loses when some kid goes off for the game of his life.

Not sure SU would've lost a game last season. And pretty sure only Duke beats Cuse this year.

I really think the line's too close: 3 feet shorter than NBA and 2 feet shorter than FIBA. That's a 13% delta. Imagine if the NCAA rims were 13% lower (8.7 feet). It's ridiculous, frankly.

The restricted arc is also significantly smaller, which means it's riskier for players to drive or employ physical post moves.

All of this minimizes the value of post play, interior scoring and driving. I was a very skilled post scorer and undersized, so I had to develop a kaleidoscopic array of moves (I tried to emulate Dantley and Olajuwon) and many of my moves had a high degree of difficulty; I had about a dozen for each side of the block. Is making a 20' jumper worth 3 points whereas an up and under after a series of fakes and drawing a double team is not? Unfrickinbelievable.

Clearly as a post scorer I'm biased, but the NCAA 3 is wayyyyy too easy. IMO it's made for a less enjoyable game and led to the near extinction of skilled post players.

 

[mike32768]

I originally thought the "three", in general, added an interesting dynamic to the game. However it has definitely reduced the practicality of the 12-to-15-foot jumper, especially in CBB where the 3pt line is so close. And *that* is a major shortcoming to the current "three".

It's all a conspiracy to limit JB's zone's effectiveness.

 

[Knicks411]

Think they should move the 3 point line out another foot or so. Maybe not all the way to the NBA line.

Not sure how unbeatable it would be; I believe when they moved out the line from 19-9 to 20-9 the 3 point% didn't change all that much.

 

[JrodCuse]

If I won the lottery and married a super model how awesome would my life be right now?!

 

[HoustonCuse]

If I won the lottery and married a super model how awesome would my life be right now?!

Not very because she'd be cheating on you with me!

 

[OttoMets]

Seems to me that most of our season-enders (and many of our losses last season) are caused by our own long scoring droughts rather than an opponent's hot hand.

 

[Eagles20]

I really think the line's too close: 3 feet shorter than NBA and 2 feet shorter than FIBA. That's a 13% delta. Imagine if the NCAA rims were 13% lower (8.7 feet). It's ridiculous, frankly.

The restricted arc is also significantly smaller, which means it's riskier for players to drive or employ physical post moves.

All of this minimizes the value of post play, interior scoring and driving. I was a very skilled post scorer and undersized, so I had to develop a kaleidoscopic array of moves (I tried to emulate Dantley and Olajuwon) and many of my moves had a high degree of difficulty; I had about a dozen for each side of the block. Is making a 20' jumper worth 3 points whereas an up and under after a series of fakes and drawing a double team is not? Unfrickinbelievable.

Clearly as a post scorer I'm biased, but the NCAA 3 is wayyyyy too easy. IMO it's made for a less enjoyable game and led to the near extinction of skilled post players.

Teams don't shoot that great from the 3 point line now, moving the 3 point out wouldn't make teams extend their defense that much if at all. Less dribbling and better ball movement would open things up for post players.

 

[MCC]

Teams don't shoot that great from the 3 point line now, moving the 3 point out wouldn't make teams extend their defense that much if at all. Less dribbling and better ball movement would open things up for post players.

Sure, but not my point. To wit, rewarding a 20'9" jumper with 3 points induces teams to take a ton of them. Very little passing into the post, lots of weaves out above the line to get a shooter open. Why not just jack 3s (even if you only hit 30%) rather than work to develop the skills (and be willing to take a pounding) to score in the post?

I think purposeful dribbling is fine: drive, draw and dish. Much dribbling now is wasted outside the line waiting for a shooter to come off a screen, etc. rather than forcing the defense to react or beating your man.

Making the 3 more difficult would in theory incentivize teams to seek scoring via other means. Packed in defenses could only be scored on with purposeful dribbling, crisp passing and solid post and midrange scoring.

 

[Coach Orange]

It would be close to unbeatable but also a lot more teams would play zone and offenses would be better at attacking it as result.

My question, which is more likely to happen: If the NCAA adopted an NBA distance 3 point shot, would it help or hurt Syracuse?

It would help. Overall, there would be less players who would be truly effective three-point shooters. As a result, the zone could stay "packed in" since the threat of damage being inflicted by shooters would decrease.

Coach Boeheim has said that the team now utilizes zone to stop three-point shooters, not to take away the post. This is the opposite of his original reason for playing zone 30 years ago. He feels that teams actually shoot the three better against man-to-man than against active zones. If you buy this philosophy, then logically it follows that lowering the amount of effective three-point threats that the team may face would increase the ability of the zone to adjust to those shooters. One would assume that the zone would be more effective as a result.

Truthfully, opponents often take (and occasionally hit) shots from 25+ feet now because they can't get many clean looks against the zone at the current distance of the arc. Imagine where they would have to shoot from if we were defending the the NBA three-point arc.