Three point line...
Edward M. Kennedy
of my range. Top of the key was my comfort zone. I have a decent
chance up to another step out, but I'm changing my natural shot to
get it there. Granted Div I players are much better athletes than
I, but I'm thinking a fair number of 3 point shooters are going to
be adversely affected by this rule. Defenders will have to travel
that much further to provide help when guarding those who can make
the longer shot.
I think this is going to shake up the game. If three point shooting
tanks for a team, that will actually clog the lane. But a team with
some still viable shooters -- and the corner will still be makeable
for most -- it could really open up post play.
I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
engine, is going to suffer.
--Tedward
Ben Stewart
Stephen Curry is in 3 point range as soon as he gets off the bus.
Ben
stephenj
> I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
> the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
> engine, is going to suffer.
i'd move it back to the pro line, so i see it as a step in the right
direction. college line has always been too easy, and has skewed the gae
towards little sharpshooters.
--
for the total eradication of imperialism, the Chinese
people are willing to endure the first U.S. nuclear
strike. All it is is a big pile of people dying.
- Mao Tse-Tung, 1957
Edward M. Kennedy
>
>> I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
>> the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
>> engine, is going to suffer.
>
> i'd move it back to the pro line, so i see it as a step in the right direction. college line has always been too easy, and has
> skewed the gae towards little sharpshooters.
Like Laettner and Singler? The game has always been skewed
toward sharpshooters, and yet even at 19-9 teams can't rely
on the trey alone.
--Tedward
J.C. Watts Enslin
> > I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
> > the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
> > engine, is going to suffer.
>
> i'd move it back to the pro line, so i see it as a step in the right
> direction. college line has always been too easy, and has skewed the gae
> towards little sharpshooters.
I always found it odd that the line that is used by 5th grade
travelling basketball teams is the same one used in college.
But I would argue that a game more skewed toward sharpshooters is more
entertaining than one geared toward post play.
Jon
Goro
add a 4pt line and make the lane a 1pt shot.
Add style points for dunks.
+10pts if a <6' player dunks. +20 if he dunks on Yao Ming.
Automatically win the game if a shot is made past half-court.
-goro-
Edward M. Kennedy
Edward M. Kennedy
>> I think it favors Goliath over
>> the Davids(ons)
>
> Uh, you don't know Stephen Curry's range, do ya?
I also happen to know he wasn't Davidson's only three point
shooter, but mostly the joke was to obvious to pass up.
--Tedward
Jim Gysin
J.C. Watts Enslin sent the following on 9/30/2008 2:30 PM:
Plus a game skewed towards sharpshooters pulls the defenders out of the
paint a bit more, which then creates more drives/dunks, which is also a
Good Thing in my book.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
stephenj
disagree. college ball was more fun to watch in the 70s and 80s.
granted, the shot clock eliminated that dreadful 4-corners, but the 3
pointer added nothing to the game and just made defense obsolete.
--
.. the profiteers are a consequence not
a cause of rising prices.
- JM Keynes
i_like_...@mailandnews.com
> But I would argue that a game more skewed toward sharpshooters is more
> entertaining than one geared toward post play.
>
> Jon
It's not like these are the only two options. Some college teams are
very entertaining and win a lot of games without relying on
sharpshooters or post-play.
i_like_...@mailandnews.com
> disagree. college ball was more fun to watch in the 70s and 80s.
> granted, the shot clock eliminated that dreadful 4-corners, but the 3
> pointer added nothing to the game and just made defense obsolete.
I guess you missed last season, and the 70s and 80s for that matter.
Last season, the two finalists were the two best defensive teams in
the nation. Defense is less obsolete now than before the 3-point
line. Go watch some ESPNC.
Dennis J
crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain? Maybe it's
scrambled his molecules...
dude, that's how we played on the wrestling team.... almost as brutal
as RollerBALL....
---
"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now,
They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura
"Education is the progressive discover of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"people who read the Tabloids deserve to be lied to" -- Jerry Sienfeld
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"Don't waste a minute not being happy. If one window closes, run to the next window - or break down a door." -- Brooke Shields
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
foad
"That80sGuy" <cl...@griswold.com> wrote in message
> Naked cheerleaders? WHERE?!?!?!?!
Check the interwebs, I hear there's nude pictures on it.
Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
>>>> the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
>>>> engine, is going to suffer.
>>> i'd move it back to the pro line, so i see it as a step in the right
>>> direction. college line has always been too easy, and has skewed the gae
>>> towards little sharpshooters.
>>
>>
>> I always found it odd that the line that is used by 5th grade
>> travelling basketball teams is the same one used in college.
>>
>> But I would argue that a game more skewed toward sharpshooters is more
>> entertaining than one geared toward post play.
>
> disagree. college ball was more fun to watch in the 70s and 80s. granted, the shot clock eliminated that dreadful 4-corners, but
> the 3 pointer added nothing to the game and just made defense obsolete.
At times Duke's best offensive weapon is its defense.
--Tedward
stephenj
these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
Edward M. Kennedy
>>>>>> I'm not much liking this rule myself. I think it favors Goliath over
>>>>>> the Davids(ons), and parity, the lubricant of the March Madness
>>>>>> engine, is going to suffer.
>>>>> i'd move it back to the pro line, so i see it as a step in the right
>>>>> direction. college line has always been too easy, and has skewed the gae
>>>>> towards little sharpshooters.
>>>>
>>>> I always found it odd that the line that is used by 5th grade
>>>> travelling basketball teams is the same one used in college.
>>>>
>>>> But I would argue that a game more skewed toward sharpshooters is more
>>>> entertaining than one geared toward post play.
>>> disagree. college ball was more fun to watch in the 70s and 80s. granted, the shot clock eliminated that dreadful 4-corners, but
>>> the 3 pointer added nothing to the game and just made defense obsolete.
>>
>> At times Duke's best offensive weapon is its defense.
>
> these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982, ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
I guess you're right. I should quit watching every single game
Duke plays.
--Tedward
i_like_...@mailandnews.com
> these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
> ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
>
Three teams over a twenty year period.. not bad. In any case, defense
is a lot different now. Back then, most teams could pack in the zone
and make teams beat them with low-percentage two pointers. The reason
that the teams you mentioned were so special back then is that they
extended their defense and pressured the ball. In other words, they
played like a lot of teams play now. However, in the 70s and 80s,
most teams didn't play defense like the teams you listed did. Also,
teams today tend to have bigger perimeter players, which helps with
the extended, pressure defense. For example, in 1984, Georgetown's
perimeter players seemed like bullies who could pressure the ball and
force turnovers almost at will. It seemed that way, because they were
playing in 1984. However, if they had to face the 2008 Kansas
Jayhawks or Memphis Tigers using 2008 rules, then their perimeter
defense wouldn't be nearly as effective. Of course, Ewing would still
be a monster, but he wasn't the only reason that those old Hoyas team
were so good on D. I really can't see Michael Jackson (the one
without the glove), Gene Smith, or Horace Broadnax harassing Derrick
Rose or Mario Chalmers the way they harassed point guards back then.
David Wingate's strength and athleticism really stood out back then,
but CDR and Kareem Rush could more than hold their own against him.
Everyone wants to think things were better "back then". In many ways
college basketball was better in the 70s and 80s, mainly because
players stuck around longer. However, defense is one area were modern
basketball (both NCAA and NBA) exceeds any earlier era.
Because of the 3-pt line, defense is harder now. However, in spite of
that, defensive is better now (overall... not with just a few elite
teams), and that is because the players, particularly on the
perimeter, are bigger, stronger, and faster.
Defense is hardly obsolete.
Goro
> In message news:abdeb5bf-176e-45af-b69d-
> 9c3b635ca...@64g2000hsu.googlegroups.com, Goro <evilnin...@yahoo.com> done
> wrote:
>
> > +20 if he dunks on Yao Ming.
>
>
> http://collegehoopsnet.com/clip-day-hansbrough-dunking-kenny-george-1...
+25 pts for a white guy dunking!
-goro-
Edward M. Kennedy
>> these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
>> ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
>>
>
> Three teams over a twenty year period.. not bad. In any case, defense
> is a lot different now. [Snip]
Contrarian assertions without justification = trolling.
--Tedward
i_like_...@mailandnews.com
> <i_like_sock...@mailandnews.com> wrote
Why did you snip the justification part? I'm starting to think that
you have been the troll all along. Please to be stop bateing me.
Edward M. Kennedy
>> >> these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
>> >> ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
>>
>> > Three teams over a twenty year period.. not bad. In any case, defense
>> > is a lot different now. [Snip]
>>
>> Contrarian assertions without justification = trolling.
>>
>> --Tedward
>
> Why did you snip the justification part? I'm starting to think that
> you have been the troll all along. Please to be stop bateing me.
I was talking about the other guy claiming modern defenses are
nothing.
--Tedward
i_like_...@mailandnews.com
> <i_like_sock...@mailandnews.com> wrote
Oh, in that case, bate away... and next time reply to HIS post.
Edward M. Kennedy
>> >> >> these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
>> >> >> ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
>>
>> >> > Three teams over a twenty year period.. not bad. In any case, defense
>> >> > is a lot different now. [Snip]
>>
>> >> Contrarian assertions without justification = trolling.
>>
>> >> --Tedward
>>
>> > Why did you snip the justification part? I'm starting to think that
>> > you have been the troll all along. Please to be stop bateing me.
>>
>> I was talking about the other guy claiming modern defenses are
>> nothing.
>>
>> --Tedward
>
> Oh, in that case, bate away... and next time reply to HIS post.
Well, I was trying to point out that you wasted all that time
writing up an intelligent post complete with logical reasoning
and glossy pictures that have diagrams and labels on them
(submitted in triplicate), while the troll doesn't really care
one whit about it.
--Tedward
Except an Alice
mimus
I agree with both the preceding posts.
And make it four if it's from beyond half-court.
--
The Usenet voice of the Kentucky Wildcats!
(Please ignore.)
_Raw Recruits_ and _Undue Process_ for all,
Welcome to college basketball!
Charles Board
What he said.
Donnie Barnes
> Everyone wants to think things were better "back then".
They were. But not because of the skill levels or three point lines or
shot clocks or whatever. Because refs called fouls. They don't do that
now.
(I agreed with everything else you said about this topic.)
--Donnie
Donnie Barnes
> And make it four if it's from beyond half-court.
I've been saying this since about a year after the three point line came
out, I think. DO IT! Heck, go five if you're inside the OTHER three point
line.
--Donnie
Edward M. Kennedy
>> And make it four if it's from beyond half-court.
>
> I've been saying this since about a year after the three point line came
> out, I think. DO IT! Heck, go five if you're inside the OTHER three point
> line.
I'm sympathetic to the idea, but it throws a huge element of luck into
the outcome of the game. You'd never attempt a half court shot except
at the end of a half. Even if you're down by 500 points, the half court
shot has such a low percentage you'd never try it. You'd only try if in
the final seconds when you are down by four or can't even get near the
three point line.
It'd be one hell of a way to win or lose a game though, I'll give you that
much.
--Tedward
mimus
That's exactly the appeal, that it opens the last-second desperation-shot
up that much more . . . .
And talk about the crowd holding their collective breath . . . .
Whoop.
You might also actually have some low-lifes capable of making the shot
often enough that it would be a remunerative regular play for them, along
the lines of it generally being a good idea to shoot the three if you can
make it at least 33% of the time . . . .
Boy, talk about extending the defense . . . .
Edward M. Kennedy
> You might also actually have some low-lifes capable of making the shot
> often enough that it would be a remunerative regular play for them, along
> the lines of it generally being a good idea to shoot the three if you can
> make it at least 33% of the time . . . .
>
> Boy, talk about extending the defense . . . .
Show me a player who can make a half court shot 25% of the
time[1]. Good luck with that.
A lot of defenses pressure the ball all the way up the court
even if you could pull off the ridiculous. The only thing
this would change is the defense in the final seconds of a
game where the opponent is down 4 points. Going for 4 when
down three would be stupid, and only tried if you couldn't
get the ball up the court, which is sorta the way things
already are, except it's only a trey.
1. Jerry West is long retired.
--Tedward
hughes
mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No. This is stoopid.
How about two point free throws if you stand with your back to the
basket and chuck the ball over your shoulder without looking?
Circus shots are exciting to see, but changing the scoring to
accommodate them will not make for a better game.
-- jsh
mimus
Last-second desperation-shots are an accepted thrill of the game.
And it's not like you're going to find that many four-shooters running
around.
A team's a very lucky one to have two reliable _three_-shooters-- I mean
dead shots, let 'em get loose with the ball out there and you might as
well just signal to the scorer to tot 'em up.
And that's in the NCAA, which is a lot bigger than the NBA, and does its
best to scarf up all the best college-age players on the planet . . . .
hughes
mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I never said that last second desperation shots from half-court aren't
thrilling. I just don't think they should change the rules to make them
worth four points.
OK, so you want to reward it more for being such a difficult shot to
make. Fine, but you can watch almost any game between two decent teams
and see shots that, for various reasons, are _phenomenally_ difficult.
Often more so, in my opinion, than a half-court shot. Why shouldn't some
of those shots be worth more than two or three points?
Rewarding it preferentially over other equally difficult shots doesn't
make sense to me, even when it means you might have a game winning/tying
shot that wouldn't occur now. Do you think there'd be more of them
overall than what we see now with just the three-point shot?
-- jsh
estebanJ
> On Oct 2, 10:57 am, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
>
> > these modern defenses are nothing. Georgetown 1984, Louisville 1982,
> > ucla 1975 - those were defenses.
>
> Three teams over a twenty year period.. not bad. In any case, defense
> is a lot different now. Back then, most teams could pack in the zone
> and make teams beat them with low-percentage two pointers. The reason
> that the teams you mentioned were so special back then is that they
> extended their defense and pressured the ball.
Yes, they all could apply pressure, full court.
> In other words, they
> played like a lot of teams play now. However, in the 70s and 80s,
> most teams didn't play defense like the teams you listed did. Also,
> teams today tend to have bigger perimeter players, which helps with
> the extended, pressure defense.
I don't see a lot of extended, pressure defense today, particularly
not the full-court variety. Teams do play less "packed in" zone, like
the 2-3 (though syracuse has been an exception), because the 3 pointer
is so easy to hit. So the zones are a bit looser today than 25 years
ago, but i'd say teams play less full-court pressure now than then.
Without a shot clock, you really did have to pressure the ball,
particularly if you were behind. Nowadays, teams defend the 3 point
line and that's it, because you know a shot is coming, soon.
> For example, in 1984, Georgetown's
> perimeter players seemed like bullies who could pressure the ball and
> force turnovers almost at will. It seemed that way, because they were
> playing in 1984.
I think it "seemed that way" because ... well, that's what they were
doing.
> However, if they had to face the 2008 Kansas
> Jayhawks or Memphis Tigers using 2008 rules, then their perimeter
> defense wouldn't be nearly as effective.Of course, Ewing would still
> be a monster, but he wasn't the only reason that those old Hoyas team
> were so good on D. I really can't see Michael Jackson (the one
> without the glove), Gene Smith, or Horace Broadnax harassing Derrick
> Rose or Mario Chalmers the way they harassed point guards back then.
Why not? Those guys aren't very big. What, about 6'1" to 6'3"? Mike
Jackson was a small guy, but he wasn't part of the defensive package.
Broadnax and Smith were about 6'4", IIRC. Bigger than Chalmers/Rose.
> David Wingate's strength and athleticism really stood out back then,
> but CDR and Kareem Rush could more than hold their own against him.
Don't forget reggie williams - 6'7" and very wiry, athletic, and mike
graham was a very muscular, yet quick, 6'9".
> Everyone wants to think things were better "back then". In many ways
> college basketball was better in the 70s and 80s, mainly because
> players stuck around longer. However, defense is one area were modern
> basketball (both NCAA and NBA) exceeds any earlier era.
Chuck Daily revolutionized defense in the NBA, and between say 1989
and 2003, the NBA was in its golden age of defense (though it often
wasn't much fun to watch). Now, we're back in more of a matador-D era.
As for the NCAA, surely today's athletes have the ability to play
great D, but not the mindset (it's all about dunking and heaving 3s),
and the 3-pt rule makes it very difficult, which IMO is why it (good
D) is so rare.
> Because of the 3-pt line, defense is harder now. However, in spite of
> that, defensive is better now (overall... not with just a few elite
> teams), and that is because the players, particularly on the
> perimeter, are bigger, stronger, and faster.
Bigger, stronger, faster? In the 80s, a team like georgetown or
houston could put an absolute monster like ewing or olajuwon back in
the paint, and with that secured deploy a bunch of athletic 6'4"+ guys
to attack the perimeter. No team in the 2000s has had that capability.
It's just a bunch of 6'6" swingmen trying to be lebron and mcgrady by
running up and down heaving 3s and dunking. There's considerably less
talent on the college court these days, because the cream either goes
to the pros straight out of HS (now) after a year in college. We're
left with second-tier players who just don't have the capabilities
that existed back then.
mimus
There'd be more of 'em worth tryin'.
Say, when you're _four_ points down at the buzzer.
Or even _five_, as you try to hit it _and_ draw the foul <snork> . . . .