I think that extending the arc is a good thing for the college game. It seemed like every game in the Big 12 this past season the Aggies had an opponent who at the time was the best 3 point shooting team in the league. I remember Texas, ISU, Tech, and others being mentioned on broadcasts. I do remember that A&M did not live or die by the three so I think this won't hurt us. I think it will be better for college basketball. The men and women have the same 3 point line, the men's needed to be extended.

Here's the excerpt from the DMN.

quote:

---

The men's and women's basketball rules committees agreed Wednesday to experiment with several court dimension changes in games before Jan. 1, 2006. The men will extend the 3-point arc three inches to 20 feet, 9 inches, and widen the lane from 12 to 14 feet. The restricted-area arc also will be extended from two to three feet. Women will extend their 3-point arc to 20 feet, 6 inches, and they also will experiment with a 10-second backcourt rule.

---

Several questions...

Why don't they coordinate the distance of the new 3 point line for men and women. The're only going to be a 3 inch difference between the two. Isn't that going to make it tough to get both 3 point lines on the courts, considering the lines are about 2-2.5 inches thick?

It says the women are extending their arc to 20'6". It also says the men are extending theirs 3 inches to 20'9", which would mean it was previously 20'6". Men and women previously used the same line. This doesn't make sense.

What is the "restricted area arc"?

Did women really not have a 10 second backcourt rule?

Women did not previously have a 10-second back court rule. I always found this weird and annoying.

Is the restricted arc the one under the basket? It's all I could think of.

I really don't understand making the line 3 inches longer. Who the hell cares and what damn difference is that going to make?

Whoever wrote that DMN article is a dumbarse. The men's line is at 19'9", so going to 20'9" would be moving back 1 foot. My understanding is that they will experiment with the new 3 and lanes for the preseason NIT, the Maui Invitational, and a few other preseason type tourneys. However, the rule overall wouldn't change for 05-06. They did experiment with it at 20'6" before (which is also what the international line is), so they would be moving it back 3" from the prior experiment. Maybe that's what the DMN guy was trying to say.

[This message has been edited by Bob the Enzyte Guy (edited 5/5/2005 2:18p).]

the restricted area arc is what the NBA has, where if the defender is inside the arc then a potential charge would be considered a blocking foul instead. i guess they experimented with that previously as well, so he's saying the experiment will change from 2 to 3 feet. i like the restricted arc. i can't stand it when a defender draws a "charge" by standing right under the basket. If you couldn't get in front of the guy before he was already dunking on your head, then you shouldn't be rewarded with a charge being called. Duke teams in the early 90's used to be the master of running under the basket to get this bogus charge called.

I figured that's what the restricted area arc was referring to, but it didn't make sense because they haven't used it before. I didn't realize that they had experimented with it. That was a very poorly written article.

This is a bad idea for the game IMHO. It will make the games less exciting, and lend better to throwing the ball down into the paint and slogging it out on the inside. It should also take away from some of exciting second half comebacks. Given our historical lack of dominance on the inside, I don't know how this is a good thing for the Ags.

The line should be far enough back so that only legitimate shooters can make the shot regularly. For example, Brown, Williams, and perhaps Head could've made the shot for Illinois. However, Roger Powelll had no business out there. Moving the line out will give coaches a chance to design reasonable defenses.

This really shouldn't change the game very much at all. I've thought for a while that they should go ahead and move the NCAA line out to the NBA line so this will be closer.

The only thing that is major would be if college were to adopt the under the basket arc which would be great for the college game.

I wish they'd hurry up and adopt the longer three point line, that would make Dominique Kirk the best 3 pt shooter ever, it seemed like every one he missed last year missed off the back of the rim.

The dumbest rule had to be the no 10 second violation in the backcourt for women. Many teams would just hold the ball on their half of the court until about 8-10 seconds left to slow the game down. I believe that's how Uconn lost their streak when they had one going.

agreed about the women's rule. i think we will see college switching to international dimensions. that will give a huge boost the the foreign players coming in, and really hurt the americans who would probably continue to play high school ball from the current dimensions.

i think moving the 3 to either 20-6 or 20-9 would be a good change. while the 3 brings some excitement, i don't enjoy games where 40-50% of the FGA's are 3's. the nba line is too far for the college game.

At least we can look forward to more 41-39 college basketball games, fewer 3-pointers and even more charging fouls underneath.