Wofford goes 17-21 from 3 pt range | Syracusefan.com

Wofford goes 17-21 from 3 pt range

STEVEHOLT

There are FIVE letters in the name BLAIN.
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
16,648
Like
24,566
The line is a joke. It needs to be moved back to the NBA distance. It needs to be made more difficult to justify the fact its worth fifty percent more than a two pointer.

dude on that team , Fletcher Magee (sounds like a dude from Happy Gilmore) has hit 16 for his last 18

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/3918760/fletcher-magee

Magee!! The kid may be the next Steph Curry. Donna did a post article a few years ago talking about the importance of shooting percentage in the NBA. You really have to be a very good shooter to have successful career in the NBA.
 
The line is a joke. It needs to be moved back to the NBA distance. It needs to be made more difficult to justify the fact its worth fifty percent more than a two pointer.

dude on that team , Fletcher Magee (sounds like a dude from Happy Gilmore) has hit 16 for his last 18

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/3918760/fletcher-magee
The overall 3-point shooting percentage in college basketball has remained pretty steady over the last 20 years at somewhere between 34 and 35%. The shooters aren't getting better at it as a group, but there seem to be more very good shooters at the top end. It looks like about 1 in 3 shot attempts is a 3-pointer, and this ratio has held pretty steady for about the last dozen years. So while it may seem that shooters are getting better at it and it is becoming a bigger part of the game, the numbers really don't bear that out.

Screenshot_2016-02-09-07-54-52.png
 
The line is a joke. It needs to be moved back to the NBA distance. It needs to be made more difficult to justify the fact its worth fifty percent more than a two pointer.

dude on that team , Fletcher Magee (sounds like a dude from Happy Gilmore) has hit 16 for his last 18

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/3918760/fletcher-magee

Agreed. It would improve court spacing and offensive flow as well. It's a no-brainer.

The issue I have with the value of the 3 is that is doesn't take any work to obtain that court position. Earning a high percentage shot like a layup requires execution. Guarding an entire 3-point line is very difficult and the court position isn't hard to find, yet it's rewarded as such.
 
Agreed. It would improve court spacing and offensive flow as well. It's a no-brainer.

The issue I have with the value of the 3 is that is doesn't take any work to obtain that court position. Earning a high percentage shot like a layup requires execution. Guarding an entire 3-point line is very difficult and the court position isn't hard to find, yet it's rewarded as such.

I get what you're saying, but can only partly agree. The fact that 3 pointers have by far the highest assist rate indicates that it takes some teamwork and execution to get them in decent position. There are very, very few players who can get themselves a quality 3 point look off the dribble. Midrange jumpers on the other hand are a dime a dozen. Layups generally take even more execution, but that's why they're the best shots in the game.

Regarding moving the 3 point arc back, I'd probably be fine with that, although you can't move the arc on the sides, which is why the corner 3 is the 2nd best shot in the game.
 
Agreed. It would improve court spacing and offensive flow as well. It's a no-brainer.

The issue I have with the value of the 3 is that is doesn't take any work to obtain that court position. Earning a high percentage shot like a layup requires execution. Guarding an entire 3-point line is very difficult and the court position isn't hard to find, yet it's rewarded as such.

Yikes, 17-20? That's what those games against Wisconsin and Michigan State felt like. And why does everyone remember those games? Because they were a hell of a lot more exciting than "pound it inside, throw it toward the rim and everyone crash boards," games ever were. Those were the basketball equivalent of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" football, which was boring beyond description. I have much more interest in watching players play than coaches coach.

If the arc is moved out to where it's less of an option, a few things will happen. First, teams will enter the ball to the post a lot more. More post play leads to more fouls, more short rebounds and putbacks (see also: more fouls), more whistles, longer games. The real advantage of the 3 point line is that it balanced the field of play, without having to build bigger gyms. Also with the arc, post play actually benefits because teams can't just pack the lane on D anymore. There are also a lot more 6-2 players out there than 7-0, so the premium on them with recruiters is raised by at least an order of magnitude. More competition for a smaller pool of players will lead to more recruiting violations, more foreign players, and more separation between the marquee schools (Duke, UNC, etc), and the rest of us, and we'll soon be right back in the dark ages. Then someone will probably want to eliminate the shot clock and bring back the stall :) ...

Just IMHO. Not a shot at you, Scotch, just speaking to the same topic.
 
Last edited:
Magee!! The kid may be the next Steph Curry. Donna did a post article a few years ago talking about the importance of shooting percentage in the NBA. You really have to be a very good shooter to have successful career in the NBA.
how is a 6'4" kid who shoots like that at Wofford?
 
Holy schnikees!! That is unbelievable!

Hmmm ... Southern Conference: U. Tenn-Chattanooga, The Citadel, E. Tenn State, Furman, Mercer, Samford, UNC-Greensboro, VMI, Western Carolina. For this season at the arc, he's shooting 46% However, in OOC games he was 1-5 vs UNC, 0-3 vs Georgia Tech, 0-2 vs Vandy, 2-5 vs Clemson, 0-5 vs Harvard ...
 
I guess he got lasik surgery too late in his career to get recruited by a big program.

He was a 2-star recruit, offered by UCF and Kansas State. I'm sure his dad, who played 2 years at Vanderbilt, was able to tell him how much he would play and where.
 
Yikes, 17-20? That's what those games against Wisconsin and Michigan State felt like. And why does everyone remember those games? Because they were a hell of a lot more exciting than "pound it inside, throw it toward the rim and everyone crash boards," games ever were. Those were the basketball equivalent of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" football, which was boring beyond description. I have much more interest in watching players play than coaches coach.

If the arc is moved out to where it's less of an option, a few things will happen. First, teams will enter the ball to the post a lot more. More post play leads to more fouls, more short rebounds and putbacks (see also: more fouls), more whistles, longer games. The real advantage of the 3 point line is that it balanced the field of play, without having to build bigger gyms. Also with the arc, post play actually benefits because teams can't just pack the lane on D anymore. There are also a lot more 6-2 players out there than 7-0, so the premium on them with recruiters is raised by at least an order of magnitude. More competition for a smaller pool of players will lead to more recruiting violations, more foreign players, and more separation between the marquee schools (Duke, UNC, etc) and we'll soon be right back in the dark ages. Then someone will probably want to eliminate the shot clock and bring back the stall :) ...

Just IMHO. Not a shot at you, Scotch, just speaking to the same topic.

Good post, and I see your points. I didn't realize that moving the line back would in fact, cause WWIII :) Kidding!

I guess I fundamentally disagree that teams would take significantly less threes. You already see guys taking shots well behind the line - moving it back to the international distance would maintain its value as an offensive strategy while improving floor spacing, IMHO. and I'd like to see more creative/skilled post play than watching jump shooting contests.

The current distance balances play and creates parity, but it does so artificially. The difficulty of the shot just doesn't warrant 3 pts. It's strange that hitting a jump shot behind this arbitrary line has become the best shot in basketball outside of layups/dunks. And I don't love the fact that average teams regularly beat better teams in the NCAA tournament using this strategy exclusively.
 
SO how long will it take the NCAA to move the line back again? 10 years' worth of data?
 
Hmmm ... Southern Conference: U. Tenn-Chattanooga, The Citadel, E. Tenn State, Furman, Mercer, Samford, UNC-Greensboro, VMI, Western Carolina. For this season at the arc, he's shooting 46% However, in OOC games he was 1-5 vs UNC, 0-3 vs Georgia Tech, 0-2 vs Vandy, 2-5 vs Clemson, 0-5 vs Harvard ...

I'm more impressed at the team as a whole shooting 81% from 3 for a game. I'm not sure I understand the desire to run down this accomplishment in any event. It makes you look like the guy who said Roy Hobbs was a flash in the pan.
 
I'm more impressed at the team as a whole shooting 81% from 3 for a game. I'm not sure I understand the desire to run down this accomplishment in any event. It makes you look like the guy who said Roy Hobbs was a flash in the pan.
op was just trying to say it's too easy, no more, no less
 
My 5th grade daughter is hitting over 35 percent from three. Granted, its the high school line which is a bit closer than the college line but I could not agree with you more. For the value of 50% more than a two pointer, the three point line should be back way further. Even JB said a while back that college basketball today is just threes and drives to the rack.
 
The line is a joke. It needs to be moved back to the NBA distance. It needs to be made more difficult to justify the fact its worth fifty percent more than a two pointer.

dude on that team , Fletcher Magee (sounds like a dude from Happy Gilmore) has hit 16 for his last 18

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/3918760/fletcher-magee
My 5th grade daughter is hitting over 35 percent from three. Granted, its the high school line which is a bit closer than the college line but I could not agree with you more. For the value of 50% more than a two pointer, the three point line should be back way further. Even JB said a while back that college basketball today is just threes and drives to the rack.
I don't think decreasing scoring is exactly what people have in mind when it comes to ways to improve college basketball.
 
I'm more impressed at the team as a whole shooting 81% from 3 for a game. I'm not sure I understand the desire to run down this accomplishment in any event. It makes you look like the guy who said Roy Hobbs was a flash in the pan.

I didn't say anything judgmental, I just put some stats out there, and put them into their proper context. Besides, it was statistically inevitable that some team, somewhere, would do that in a game some time.. They're shooting .418 as a team on the season, which is a nice number, not spectacular, but they're still obviously a decent shooting team. We'll see how they're doing at the end of the season. If they're still over 40% and go two deep in the NCAA, then I'll be impressed.
 
I don't think decreasing scoring is exactly what people have in mind when it comes to ways to improve college basketball.
Moving the line back won't decrease scoring... there might be fewer designated shooters who have the green light, depending on how far back it moves. More emphasis on spreading the floor and better angles. It will hopefully improve spacing for the mid-range and post game.

Then again, the line will move back 2 inches in 2018. Then again in 2024. By 2030 we'll have a bonafide FIBA distance that actually impacts the flow of the game.
 
Agreed. It would improve court spacing and offensive flow as well. It's a no-brainer.

The issue I have with the value of the 3 is that is doesn't take any work to obtain that court position. Earning a high percentage shot like a layup requires execution. Guarding an entire 3-point line is very difficult and the court position isn't hard to find, yet it's rewarded as such.
moving it back would not create more spacing. just the opposite. If it is tougher to make the shot, the more the defense will pack it in.
 
Decreasing scoring? We could just make each basket worth 3 points and a three pointer worth 6 point and that would make scoring skyrocket. Its not about the absolute number of points, its about watching teams execute a well rounded offensive attack that includes a healthy mix of twos, threes, inside / outside.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,411
Messages
4,890,217
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
269
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,912


...
Top Bottom