Three-Point Shooting in College Basketball

[Hooper]

I wanted to see how people on this board feel about the current state of offense in the modern men’s collegiate game in terms of the prevalence of three-point shooting relative to other ways of scoring. I’ve come to feel that the three-point shot has become too prevalent nowadays to the extent that it has damaged the game and the offensive balance we’re seeing on the court.

 

I have to concede that I have not done a statistical analysis on this topic, which means that I might be suffering from confirmation bias, or simply just wrong about how much three-point shooting is actually taking place now versus, let’s say, five or 10 years ago, but it just seems that teams are relying so heavily on the three that it’s really taken over the college game. This, to me, prompts the question of whether or not the three-point line is too close and should be moved back to NBA distance in order to restore some offensive balance by increasing the risk-reward metric of a three-point shot attempt.

 

To me, a great example of what I’m talking about is the Kansas-Purdue game from last week. The Jayhawks went 15-of-28 in three-point shooting. Now, this is one of the most athletic teams in America, a team that should theoretically thrive in the dribble-drive game. Yet, the entire game mostly consisted of KU running down the court and chucking up threes. It was a remarkably successful strategy, as the Jayhawks made 53.6% of their three-point attempts. With that type of efficiency, why even bother doing anything else? Is this good for the game? I really don’t believe so.

 

Maybe I’m just a disgruntled Husker fan who’s followed one of the worst three-point shooting teams in America over the past two years, as well as one of the worst three-point defensive teams in America. I’ll admit that this may have biased my feelings on three-point shooting. It just seems to me that the college game is out of balance now, that the three is simply too easy for many teams nowadays, and that the risk-reward metric is perhaps too favorable for three-point shooters. I also suspect that Steph Curry has had a tangible impact on the popularity of the three-point shot.

 

Am I off-base here? I’d be interested to hear people’s opinions. I just can’t help but feel that the game has devolved into a three-point contest, and I don’t like it.

[Norm Peterson]

You might have offered an option to make it the same as the international rules distance.  I'm not in favor of the NBA distance for college teams, but I could probably go along with the international distance.  My vote would have been different if I'd had that option.

[Hooper]

12 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

You might have offered an option to make it the same as the international rules distance.  I'm not in favor of the NBA distance for college teams, but I could probably go along with the international distance.  My vote would have been different if I'd had that option.

 

Yeah, I should have. That would be a reasonable compromise. I truly am interested in others' opinions on this issue, especially those who feel strongly that the 3-point line is just right where it is currently and that it's not negatively impacting the diversity of scoring in the college game. I'd be very interested to see a dissenting opinion provided by some of the folks who voted 'No'.

[cipsucks]

You need a fourth option.  Get rid of the damned thing.  We didn't need it in the sixties, when jimmy was hooping it up, or in the seventies when I struggled to play high school ball.  My tongue is planted somewhat in my cheek, but not all that firmly.   But what do I know.  I just had chile with red Kidney beans....

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by cipsucks

[Bugeaters1]

1 minute ago, cipsucks said:

You need a fourth option.  Get rid of the damned thing.  We didn't need it in the fifties, when jimmy was hooping it up, or in the seventies when I struggled to play high school ball.  My tongue is planted somewhat in my cheek, but not all that firmly.   But what do I know.  I just had chile with red Kidney beans....

 

 

 

 

You were low on gas then Cip.

[HB]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

You might have offered an option to make it the same as the international rules distance.  I'm not in favor of the NBA distance for college teams, but I could probably go along with the international distance.  My vote would have been different if I'd had that option.

This for me as well.

[HuskerFever]

I would much rather have a team that is able to adapt and make adjustments around the rules of the game, as given, than to have a rule change because it's a deficiency of ours. If three-pointers are that huge of a factor in the game, recruit players who can take advantage of it. If points in the paint are key to success, then recruit to that. I'm all for arbitrage, no matter what rules are put in front of us.

[Huskerpapa]

Hmm, the NBA is supposed to be the best-of-the-best.  NBA should extend their arc and they should raise their rims.  The college game on the other hand simply needs subtle tweaks, but moving the arc is likely not one of them.

[Blindcheck]

I don't mind the three pointer and how prevalent it has become...but I would move the line out a bit...as I think that would open the lane for inside play more than it would affect three point shooting....

 

I think some of the reasons that the three pointer has become so prevalent:

 

1. Analytical reasons
   1. Coaches have realized a three pointer attempt is more efficient shot than an 18 footer or even a 10 footer
2. Long athletic teams pack the lane
   1. The can close out to the current three point line and take away shots in the lane
3. Kids love to shoot it...
   1. go to any gym in America and kids of all ages are jacking up threes
   2. And some kids have gotten pretty good at it...some have not
4. Travelling...Players are allowed to travel on the perimeter which at times allows them to create an open shot.

[brfrad]

I think the international line would be the best.  With the college game, most likely going to quarters, and fans clamoring to go to a 24 second shot clock, the college game would start to become the NBA.  I don't like the NBA.  I'll watch briefly, but will not watch an entire game.  I really hope they don't go that way.

[atskooc]

I hate the idea of dropping the shot clock any more. The shot clock isn't the problem. 

 

Teams didn't have problems scoring points in the 80's with a 45-second clock. 

[Blindcheck]

I am not a fan of the shorter shot clock...I think it is too short already..because it becomes a sixth defender once it gets under 10 seconds.

 

Some of my favorite offenses were beautiful to watch as they passed it around doing backdoor cuts for 45 seconds....and sometimes it took that long for someone to fall asleep on defense...

 

The shorter the shot clock...the more hero ball we will see...which I can't stand...I hate guys dribbling out the shot clock and jacking up a horrible shot (selection, sometimes it goes in).

 

Instead of a shorter shot clock, I would rather see a 5 second call on the dribbler in the front court...5 second call if you dribble more than 5 seconds regardless if you are closely guarded or not.....you want movement of the ball, that would force it.

 

 

[royalfan]

I don't care if the line is how it is or moved back a bit.  In theory, we should be able to use it as a weapon to close the talent gap.  Unfortunately the staff doesn't understand or doesn't care about the analytics of it.  This is making the climb much steeper.  

[hhcmatt]

3 hours ago, royalfan said:

Unfortunately the staff doesn't understand or doesn't care about the analytics of it.

 

Final 4 teams 3pa/fga

 

Team / % / NCAA rank

 

Oregon:            38.7% / 115th

South Carolina: 33.6% / 245th

Gonzaga:         32.9% / 256th

North Carolina: 30.1% / 311th

 

Our 3pt shooting problem is more of a recruiting problem than a on court strategy issue, IMO.

I don't know that we should be shooing more 3s because we haven't recruited/built many superior 3pt shooters. 

 

Heck, even Collins dialed it back this year because his team simply wasn't shooting the 3 well.

NW: 35.7% / 195th (made 34.2% of them)

 

[49r]

I also believe the staff both cares about and understands the analytics very VERY deeply.  I tend to agree with dimes, this is a recruiting issue more than a scheme issue.  

[Norm Peterson]

3 hours ago, royalfan said:

I don't care if the line is how it is or moved back a bit.  In theory, we should be able to use it as a weapon to close the talent gap.  Unfortunately the staff doesn't understand or doesn't care about the analytics of it.  This is making the climb much steeper.  

 

50 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Final 4 teams 3pa/fga

 

Team / % / NCAA rank

 

Oregon:            38.7% / 115th

South Carolina: 33.6% / 245th

Gonzaga:         32.9% / 256th

North Carolina: 30.1% / 311th

 

Our 3pt shooting problem is more of a recruiting problem than a on court strategy issue, IMO.

I don't know that we should be shooing more 3s because we haven't recruited/built many superior 3pt shooters. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, 49r said:

I also believe the staff both cares about and understands the analytics very VERY deeply.  I tend to agree with dimes, this is a recruiting issue more than a scheme issue.  

 

Just going by what royalfan said above, and not trying to speak for him, it appears his point is that we could somewhat close the talent gap that exists by shooting the 3 ball more and shooting it more effectively.  So, rank of the top 4 teams in the nation in terms of 3pt attempts to overall attempts doesn't disprove his point.  It sounds like he's saying the better teams don't need to rely so much on it, but we do in order to serve as an equalizer against teams that have more talent.

 

I'm just guessing based on the discussion here and what I've seen him post before.  I'm not defending either position or attacking either position.

[hhcmatt]

1 minute ago, Norm Peterson said:

It sounds like he's saying the better teams don't need to rely so much on it, but we do in order to serve as an equalizer against teams that have more talent.

 

A misuse of "3PA is a style, not a solution" for me.  That being said, how much more "talented" is South Carolina than us though?

[uneblinstu]

Not sure, but their top two players are seniors. Everyone else in the rotation is a freshman or sophomore.

[royalfan]

5 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

 

 

Just going by what royalfan said above, and not trying to speak for him, it appears his point is that we could somewhat close the talent gap that exists by shooting the 3 ball more and shooting it more effectively.  So, rank of the top 4 teams in the nation in terms of 3pt attempts to overall attempts doesn't disprove his point.  It sounds like he's saying the better teams don't need to rely so much on it, but we do in order to serve as an equalizer against teams that have more talent.

 

I'm just guessing based on the discussion here and what I've seen him post before.  I'm not defending either position or attacking either position.

 

Pretty much correct Norm.  And I am also very much speaking to defense as well.  The efficiency results are dreadful at both ends in relation to the arc.  Look at a team like Nevada for instance, since Mussleman was mentioned as a possible replacement if Miles were fired.  He takes the arc very seriously it seems.  41st in nation in 3 point percentage.  15th in nation at 3 point percentage allowed.  Obviously one has to dig much deeper, and I haven't.  Those are numbers I would suggest would result in winning basketball.  I will dig deeper when I have some free time to see if I am overrating this, which is quite possible. 

[brfrad]

The easiest way to look at this.  We have 4 out of 5 losing seasons under Miles.  In the 4 losing seasons we have an average 4.3% deficit in from the 3 point line.  That means we shoot 4.3% worse than our opponents.  In our 1 winning season, we shot 1.8% better from 3 than our opponents.