Women's 3-point line has been moved

[Carnac]

But they probably shoot less effectively the farther they go back.

True, some players do, some don't. Check out Steph Curry and Damian Lillard. Two of the NBA's most deadly long range shooters. The NBA could move the line back 12", it wouldn't bother them. Last night (Sat May8), the Warriors set a franchise record by making 27 three-pointers, with nine of their 10 healthy players connecting from deep (only Kevon Looney failed to get in on the action). Curry scored 49 points, and didn't play the 4th quarter. Anything inside the half-court line is within their range.

There are some women players that have this same moxie and mindset. Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis thought the ball was going in EVERYTIME she launched it regardless of where she shot it from. Would moving the line back 2" have caused her to take less 3's? I think not.

Of course any time you shoot farther from the basket your percentage may go down, just as it will go up the closer you get. I don't expect to see less 3 pt. shots taken in WCBB next season because the line was moved back.

My point is......................the small change in the new distance IS NOT significant enough to make a difference. Shooters gonna shoot. Their confidence in their ability to knock down 3's will not be deterred.

A rule change I'd really like to see is adding a 6th foul in ALL levels of men's and women's basketball from AAU, high school and college. That would allow the best players on every team to stay on the floor a little longer, especially late in close and overtime games. The WNBA has a 6 foul rule. It works well for all the players and coaches. This rule would have kept ONO and Edwards in the game longer in the first half of games they picked up two fouls.

 

[Bigboote]

The contest was held in a HS gym and the 3 point line is the same for both boys and girls at 19.75 feet. Basketball Court Dimensions and Hoop Height: A Quick Guide Of course that means the women will be adjusting to 22.15 feet in college now.

This isn't aimed at your post, just a general remark. I wish they'd give the dimensions in metric (at least in addition to the English dimensions). The new 3-pt distance wasn't arrived at from wanting to pick some weird distance like 22' 1-3/4 -- it's 6.75 m/675 cm. The high-school distance of 19' 9" is English as is the American free-throw line at 15'. The international FT line is at 4.6 m; about an inch long of the American distance. We need to start using metric somewhere besides engine displacements -- might's well be where there's some passion, like sports.

[/rant mode]

 

[Waquoit]

A rule change I'd really like to see is adding a 6th foul in ALL levels of men's and women's basketball from AAU, high school and college. That would allow the best players in every team to stay on the floor a little longer, especially late in close and overtime games.

It was tried and they couldn't change it back to 5 fast enough. Games became unwatchable hack fests. Players can stay on the floor late by not fouling early.

 

[Carnac]

It was tried and they couldn't change it back to 5 fast enough. Games became unwatchable hack fests. Players can stay on the floor late by not fouling early.

Who is “they”? No argument, just curious. What level was this tried at and for how long?

 

[CL82]

Who is “they”? No argument, just curious. What level was this tried at and for how long?

The Big East is the they. 90-92 is the when.

 

[Woof 101]

I wonder about Dawn’s take on this?

"I wanna know!" "Is this gonna be known as the Nike or the Wilson line?"

 

[CL82]

"I wanna know!" "Is this gonna be known as the Nike or the Wilson line?"

Maginot Line?

 

[Bald Husky]

But they probably shoot less effectively the farther they go back.

Except for Zia Cooke, they really don't have a lot of 3 pt range in their line up. May change this year with Raven coming in.

 

[Bald Husky]

It was tried and they couldn't change it back to 5 fast enough. Games became unwatchable hack fests. Players can stay on the floor late by not fouling early.

Fouls are part of the game, and in the minds of some coaches, strategy.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Except for Zia Cooke, they really don't have a lot of 3 pt range in their line up. May change this year with Raven coming in.

Cooke was the second best shooter on the team.

 

[Carnac]

I usually agree with you Carnac. But are you saying women shooters shoot from beyond the men's 3pt line (sometimes well beyond) to avoid stepping on the women's 3 pt line?

I’m saying that proficient 3 pt. shooters are at their best and most confident when they are “in rhythm.” When they are, they will put it up from behind the line no matter how close or far back they are. If they have an open look, they will set their feet and launch it because they feel it’s going in no matter what.

Again I’m suggesting that moving the line back won’t have any affect on 3 point shooters. You know they all practice shooting well behind the arc anyway. Not one player is going to stop shooting 3’s because they’re moving the line back 2”. 2 feet maybe, not 2 inches. I made note of some of the shots Aari McDonald took our last game. Some where well behind the line. Same with Dangerfield during her days at UConn. Some of her made 3’s would have been good in the NBA.

 

[MooseJaw]

This isn't aimed at your post, just a general remark. I wish they'd give the dimensions in metric (at least in addition to the English dimensions). The new 3-pt distance wasn't arrived at from wanting to pick some weird distance like 22' 1-3/4 -- it's 6.75 m/675 cm. The high-school distance of 19' 9" is English as is the American free-throw line at 15'. The international FT line is at 4.6 m; about an inch long of the American distance. We need to start using metric somewhere besides engine displacements -- might's well be where there's some passion, like sports.

[/rant mode]

Why, with no effect on the game lets just change to metric. Going to metric was tried in this country at one time it failed miserably so lets than push it for no good reason. So far for the common person the only popular areas metric are used, tools and tracks. most aren't even aware it's the case. So lets just screw with us, go metric, everyone speak Spanish add any number of things the so called experts tell us are better for us, not buying it. I'm happy the way things are, if any want a BB court dimensions in metric they can convert in their heads. Please leave my head alone.

 

[Bald Husky]

Cooke was the second best shooter on the team.

Outside shooter, not counting Boston, unless I'm mistaken and forgetting someone.

 

[BobbyJ]

I’m saying that proficient 3 pt. shooters are at their best and most confident when they are “in rhythm.” When they are, they will put it up from behind the line no matter how close or far back they are. If they have an open look, they will set their feet and launch it because they feel it’s going in no matter what.

Again I’m suggesting that moving the line back won’t have any affect on 3 point shooters. You know they all practice shooting well behind the arc anyway. Not one player is going to stop shooting 3’s because they’re moving the line back 2”. 2 feet maybe, not 2 inches. I made note of some of the shots Aari McDonald took our last game. Some where well behind the line. Same with Dangerfield during her days at UConn. Some of her made 3’s would have been good in the NBA.

I believe they’re moving the line back 16.75 inches not 2. Going from 20 feet 9 inches to 22 feet 1 3/4 inches.

 

[ccwarrior]

Why, with no effect on the game lets just change to metric. Going to metric was tried in this country at one time it failed miserably so lets than push it for no good reason. So far for the common person the only popular areas metric are used, tools and tracks. most aren't even aware it's the case. So lets just screw with us, go metric, everyone speak Spanish add any number of things the so called experts tell us are better for us, not buying it. I'm happy the way things are, if any want a BB court dimensions in metric they can convert in their heads. Please leave my head alone.

The effort in the 1970's was a combination of poor planning, implementation, and lack of education of Americans.
You do realize that we are one of three (3) countries in the world that doesn't use the metric system of weights/measures Just the economic impact (converting/confusion/time/paperwork/etc) of just our international trade is wasting billions of dollars per. So, if you think of nothing beyond $ the change would still be worthwhile.

 

[BBallF]

I believe they’re moving the line back 16.75 inches not 2. Going from 20 feet 9 inches to 22 feet 1 3/4 inches.

Yes that's correct. As was stated before by Old Dude, the change in the line for the men's college game resulted in only a 1% decline in 3 point shooting percentages. We took 565 3s last year, a change in 1% for the UCONN women means approximately 18 less points over the course of a season from the 3 range without factoring in other shots taken instead. Hardly significant in total but potentially significant in a specific close game. However, I don't see that same 1% deviation applying to the women in the first year. 16" is not insignificant and I would not be surprised with a 5% drop off in the number of 3s as a matter of national averages in women's basketball and a 3% drop off in 3 ball shooting percentages in the first year. Strong counterpoint for us is that Paige, Azzi and Ducharme have great range and Evina and CW are also viable shooters from the new mark.

 

[MooseJaw]

The effort in the 1970's was a combination of poor planning, implementation, and lack of education of Americans.
You do realize that we are one of three (3) countries in the world that doesn't use the metric system of weights/measures Just the economic impact (converting/confusion/time/paperwork/etc) of just our international trade is wasting billions of dollars per. So, if you think of nothing beyond $ the change would still be worthwhile.

Never good to waste billions, my take is that if you want to talk confusion switch to metric. Those of us around when it was tried in the 70's refused to go along then, we flat out for the most part wanted no part of it and if forced on us now would hate it even more today. If you like it you are free to convert to metric in your head, I'm fine with that, but I bet you don't do it. My guess is that every one of you metric lovers get along just fine the way things are. Back to the billions, I would like to see the numbers as to where the $'s in waste come from. Lets talk money, what do you think it would cost to change every facet of our lives to metric. Every book, chart, map, speed sign & distance sign using our current method would have to be redone. Wasteful I think. Re-educate hundreds of millions of us, the vast majority who are long removed from school. In theory it may have been better if we had started with metric, but we didn't. I'm fine with that and guess that most people would agree with the status quo.

 

[Carnac]

Yes that's correct. As was stated before by Old Dude, the change in the line for the men's college game resulted in only a 1% decline in 3 point shooting percentages. We took 565 3s last year, a change in 1% for the UCONN women means approximately 18 less points over the course of a season from the 3 range without factoring in other shots taken instead. Hardly significant in total but potentially significant in a specific close game. However, I don't see that same 1% deviation applying to the women in the first year. 16" is not insignificant and I would not be surprised with a 5% drop off in the number of 3s as a matter of national averages in women's basketball and a 3% drop off in 3 ball shooting percentages in the first year. Strong counterpoint for us is that Paige, Azzi and Ducharme have great range and Evina and CW are also viable shooters from the new mark.

I totally agree. It's my belief that shooters are going to shoot no matter how far back you move the line. They will look at the new line as a challenge. They will practice for the next 5.5 months shooting behind the new line. Come November, they'll be ready.

 

[Carnac]

Never good to waste billions, my take is that if you want to talk confusion switch to metric. Those of us around when it was tried in the 70's refused to go along then, we flat out for the most part wanted no part of it and if forced on us now would hate it even more today. If you like it you are free to convert to metric in your head, I'm fine with that, but I bet you don't do it. My guess is that every one of you metric lovers get along just fine the way things are. Back to the billions, I would like to see the numbers as to where the $'s in waste come from. Lets talk money, what do you think it would cost to change every facet of our lives to metric. Every book, chart, map, speed sign & distance sign using our current method would have to be redone. Wasteful I think. Re-educate hundreds of millions of us, the vast majority who are long removed from school. In theory it may have been better if we had started with metric, but we didn't. I'm fine with that and guess that most people would agree with the status quo.

I think if the powers that be want to convert the USA to the metric system, it will be best done G-R-A-D-U-A-L-L-Y. Perhaps over a 30 year period. A journey of a thousand miles.......... Start teaching metrics at the elementary/junior and high school level now. Let THEM grow up learning the metric system. Unlike us, they have more days in front of them than behind them. You're right, it's too late for us baby boomers. We "ain't" changing!!! We've been using that system of measurement all of our lives. Don't try and confuse us now. We're comfortable with what we have.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Outside shooter, not counting Boston, unless I'm mistaken and forgetting someone.

She was the Second best outside shooter on the team.

Henderson shot 41%.

 

[HuskylnSC]

Lots of chatter on shooters percentages and potential impact of the line move. I don't think the percentages will change. If not then the larger effect of the move is to have the offenses set up further from the rim to draw the defenses out and create more space for cuts and slashes to the rim. Geno pushed for the change because it would free up the offenses.

 

[Waquoit]

Fouls are part of the game, and in the minds of some coaches, strategy.

I took a class way back when at UConn, Philosophy of Sports. One topic was "is intentional fouls cheating"? I went in thinking of course not and left thinking it was. Fouls are a breaking of the rules. What is cheating if not a deliberate breaking of the rules for personal gain? That there are situations where the punishment for the infraction isn't enough to discourage intentional fouls is a flaw of the game.

 

[ccwarrior]

Never good to waste billions, my take is that if you want to talk confusion switch to metric. Those of us around when it was tried in the 70's refused to go along then, we flat out for the most part wanted no part of it and if forced on us now would hate it even more today. If you like it you are free to convert to metric in your head, I'm fine with that, but I bet you don't do it. My guess is that every one of you metric lovers get along just fine the way things are. Back to the billions, I would like to see the numbers as to where the $'s in waste come from. Lets talk money, what do you think it would cost to change every facet of our lives to metric. Every book, chart, map, speed sign & distance sign using our current method would have to be redone. Wasteful I think. Re-educate hundreds of millions of us, the vast majority who are long removed from school. In theory it may have been better if we had started with metric, but we didn't. I'm fine with that and guess that most people would agree with the status quo.

Yes, change is bad ?