|
Post by gymrat67 on May 12, 2019 17:16:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on May 12, 2019 17:44:11 GMT -5
Helps mid majors. 100% support.
|
|
|
Post by diehardexplorer on May 12, 2019 19:20:58 GMT -5
Helps mid majors. 100% support. how? 3 pt shot is the equalizer when the mid-majors go up against the power conferences. if this gets approved, it becomes a harder shot.
|
|
|
Post by explorer88 on May 12, 2019 19:31:31 GMT -5
Moving the line back opens the floor for big men and high level athletes who always go to high majors. It does not help mid majors that I can see.
|
|
|
Post by jimmywhispers on May 12, 2019 20:17:27 GMT -5
Helps mid majors. 100% support. Wrong
|
|
|
Post by weston2 on May 12, 2019 22:48:50 GMT -5
Helps mid majors. 100% support. Just another knee jerk reaction. Why would u think that?
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on May 13, 2019 5:24:06 GMT -5
It's a good rule, because it makes the shot harder to make.
|
|
|
Post by coachd on May 13, 2019 11:29:15 GMT -5
The next thing you know is they will have 4-point circles just beyond that moved back trey line plus it will make it easier for when the circus comes to town!
|
|
|
Post by diehardexplorer on May 14, 2019 7:12:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on May 14, 2019 8:04:33 GMT -5
For instance, there is not a single major conference player in the Top 10 in made three-point percentage. You have to get to Number 11 (Arkansas’ Desi Sills) to find one — and even then, only three players in the top 20 are from major conferences. Incidentally, the number two player on that list, Derrik Jameson Jr., keyed a Norfolk State upset over NIT No. 1 seed Alabama.
Doesn't that prove my point?
|
|
|
Post by hykos1045 on May 14, 2019 12:41:01 GMT -5
For instance, there is not a single major conference player in the Top 10 in made three-point percentage. You have to get to Number 11 (Arkansas’ Desi Sills) to find one — and even then, only three players in the top 20 are from major conferences. Incidentally, the number two player on that list, Derrik Jameson Jr., keyed a Norfolk State upset over NIT No. 1 seed Alabama.
Doesn't that prove my point?
What it proves is that you will always double down on your arguments, especially if a majority of posters disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on May 14, 2019 12:47:18 GMT -5
No offense, but I’m not swayed by public opinion here.
My synopsis is this: Major conf teams will generally live in the taller, more athletic, less ‘skilled’ space. The major conference guys won’t, on average, work harder at being the same % shooters. Especially if the high school lines don’t move.
I could see shooters at mid-majors working on the new distance. They’ll be equally efficient and the drop in efficiency for, say, Duke will shorten that gap.
|
|
|
Post by weston2 on May 15, 2019 12:21:12 GMT -5
No offense, but I’m not swayed by public opinion here. My synopsis is this: Major conf teams will generally live in the taller, more athletic, less ‘skilled’ space. The major conference guys won’t, on average, work harder at being the same % shooters. Especially if the high school lines don’t move. I could see shooters at mid-majors working on the new distance. They’ll be equally efficient and the drop in efficiency for, say, Duke will shorten that gap. Logic tells you the farther out, the more difficult the shot, thus %s will go down. 2's will mean even more. We're talkin' more than a foot change. Maybe they should have a "spot" changing each game for a 4 or 5 pointer, like changing "hole" placements on a golf course. I can see sponsorships springing up...…….Geico's......even a caveman can make a 4 pointer...……….unlimited ad opportunities....hey, its all about the money. Kids even don't stay.
|
|
|
Post by hykos1045 on May 15, 2019 20:20:53 GMT -5
Teams that rely on the three are now going to lose up a chunk of their scoring efficiency edge. If they were shooting 39% before they're going to shoot 36.5% now on average. Another way to say that is around 7% or so of the shots they used to make, they won't now. And on fewer minutes and attempted shots, potentially, this loss of edge becomes compounded in their Points Per Game. A star shooter might go from 15 ppg on 5/13 field goal attempts to 10 ppg on 4/11 attempts, with two threes and two lay-ups.
The quoted article said the ten players this degradation will affect the most are not even in the power five conferences.
If I'm thinking about players that came through La Salle, only Darnell, Ramon, and Steven and BJ showed a propensity to hit the NBA distance three with any regularity, and we have been playing as a team that requires multiple three point threats in order to keep defenses honest, since we're usually mismatched in the paint. So how does this rule change not hurt La Salle?
|
|