The Basketblog

Celebrating the love of the Game.

I need a soapbox (regarding college three pointers)

I have begun to hate college teams that shoot a lot of threes.  The shot is way too easy at the current line.  The top 50 shooting teams all hit at least 38.2% of their three-point attempts.  That is equal to 1.14 points per shot.  To do that from inside the three-point line, a team would have to shoot 57%.  I can’t find any stats for two-point percentage, but only four teams shoot better than 50% from the field.  I checked the two-point percentage for those four teams and found only one hit 57% inside the line; I can’t imagine many others did the same.  There’s certainly not 50+ teams that did it.

It’s also easier to get “hot” from beyond the line.  When a team hits over 60% inside the line, they are getting mostly dunks and layups (i.e. working for their points or taking advantage of mistakes more than making shots), but teams regularly make 50% of their three-point shots in a single game.  That’s like making 75% of their two-pointers!  How often does that happen?  It should be just as rare for a team to hit 50% of their threes.

Some teams shoot more than others, and that’s fine, but when you look at a lot of the biggest upsets or near upsets, the underdog either hit 50% or better or attempted more than 20 threes.  Look at the biggest wins by good teams and you’ll see that they didn’t shoot many threes.  The close three-point line is an equalizer unlike anything else seen in sports and allows teams to win despite not playing as well as the losing team.

But the good news is that the line is being moved a foot farther back for next year.  It will bring percentages down, but will it bring them down enough?  If not, I’m close to giving up on college basketball as a legitimate sport.

March 28, 2008 Posted by | Basketball, NCAA, Sports | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

NCAA Tournament: Round 1 review

Wow…Let’s look at what we know after today.

  • Duke’s chances of winning the tournament are decreased quite a bit. Each of the last ten national champions have won their first round game by double-digits. Champions don’t struggle in the opening round, which means Tennessee and Xavier probably won’t win either.
  • Connecticut and Vanderbilt definitely will not be winning the tournament.  (For the record, I said San Diego would be the team most likely to get a big upset.)
  • 1-seeds are better than 16-seeds.
  • A 12-seed beats a 5-seed in the first round every year. (The first round last year never happened.)
  • Brackets are pretty tough to pick accurately.
  • Stephen Curry is pretty good.
  • The next round should be great!

[I had some Internet problems the last couple days, which is why I didn’t have any posts before now.  I don’t promise anything except that I’ll post when I can.]

March 21, 2008 Posted by | ACC, Basketball, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, CUSA, MVC, NCAA, Pac-10, SEC, Sports | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who played their way out today?

I expected to be blogging tonight about bubble teams losing and hurting their chances or about small-conference favorites losing and taking away a bubble spot. You know–the things that have been happening all week.

None of that happened today though. Arkansas and St. Joseph’s both won, basically ensuring they’ll be in. Virginia Tech and Temple won, keeping themselves alive. Kent State, Memphis, UNLV, and BYU all won, protecting the bubble.

That’s not to say today was any less exciting. Today was one of the most exciting days of basketball I’ve seen since…March of 2006. Tornadoes screwing up the SEC tournament, close games in all tournaments, great buzzer-beaters…even the Big Ten had exciting games after Wisconsin/Michigan ended.

Continue reading

March 15, 2008 Posted by | Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, CUSA, NCAA, SEC | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment