Women's 3-point line has been moved

[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 😉