Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="MD#12Fan, post: 3966504, member: 8636"] I am forever stuck with the concept of "risk reward" pertaining to the 3-point line. The further back the line goes, IMO the better the risk is equivalent to the reward. Golfers know what I mean. In golf, trying to drive the par 4 or going for the green in 2 on a par 5 can result in a reward of possibly an eagle, minus 2. That won't happen 99.9% of the time unless you "go for it". Birdie still possible of course, not eagle. If the hole properly "penalizes" you for an errant attempt, then IMO it's a good, fair test. Could be water, deep sand traps, pot bunkers in the UK, tight out-of-bounds lines, deep rough, etc. That's the risk in the equation. An attempt at eagle can result in bogey or worse. You've got to consider if this is true for the college 3-point lines since its inception. IMO there has never been appropriate risk for taking a 3-point shot. In fact, long rebounds are generally another advantage for the offense. I believe Coach K realized it first: why not take 3's instead of 2's, they're worth more. Not rocket science. Disclaimer- no line when I played and I thought basketball was a great game then. Outside shooting has always been a big part of the game. Much purer game then. Frankly Scarlet, you get defenders out of the paint by making outside shots period. 25, 24, 23, 22.5, 18 feet, it doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter how many points they are worth. [/QUOTE]