Oh boy, maybe 4 more undeserving acc teams can get in if they do this.
Yep, that’s certainly the goal behind that particular proposal.
Neither proposal seems unreasonable to me. How many teams have been added since the field expanded to 64 thirty plus years ago. At least 50+ I bet. It’s already went to 68 first four, honestly what’s four more teams going to matter really. It’s probably justified as many new teams have been added and with the NIT cutting their field and adding auto bids.
As far as the three point line this isn’t 1990, the shooters of today are more skilled and put them up in greater volume. They already moved it back to the international line 10 + years ago. not having a standard line that matches the NBA line doesn’t really make much sense when clearly that is the goal of most college players and the quality of shooter has constantly improved over time. Many centers shoot them like guards did 25 years ago.
Not having standardized rules that actually prepare you for the NBA like 12 minute quarters, NBA 3 pointers, 24 second shot clocks at some point might matter if the put more money in the Gleague and attract a few top prospects. They are talking about it right now and making steps towards a real money there. NCAA has a lot of conflicts to currently.
FWIW, in spite of headlines, ACC made several proposals - not all hoops related - in addition to other discussions, at its annual Spring meeting in Florida
Why would a tournament to determine the best team in college basketball need to include more teams from the bottom half of the ACC’s regular season standings? With the new ACC that will play 20 conference games, any team with a 10-10 conference record, or worse, doesn’t need to be in the NCAA Tournament.
clt proposes that Charlotte receives the #1 seed in the next five tourneys. This is fun
Gary Parrish says that while he understands the ACC’s stance on expanding the Big Dance, it’s not a good idea.
I want .500 or better conference record in conference to be the minimum needed for at-large bid.
Isn’t moving the 3-pt line back taking aim at smaller schools? Moving it back would reduce the number of made 3-pointers, thus reducing chances of upsets. Reduce the impact of the 3 and it expands the impact of size and athleticism.
My recollection is that the annual Spring meeting of Conference USA follows that of the ACC by a week. Will be interesting to see what proposals etc come out of the C-USA gathering.
I don’t think that is fair, the conference portion of the schedule is only one part of an overall schedule. If a team has played for example a top 10 SOS overall and has strong RPI, marquee wins high RPI etc, what sense does it really make to punish them because they didn’t win one more game in an arbitrary part of their schedule to get to .500.
I don’t really think the Conference or last 10 games really should be weighted that heavyliy unless all other overall things are pretty equal. Certainly have ran into scenarios where these P5 teams played brutal conference SOS finished one game under .500 and were very deserving. and won games in the NCAA.
I don’t think so. I believe most of the blue chip guys tend to be more athletic and usually have weaker outside shots. I think moving it back would actually discourage a lot of them from shooting especially in the same volume as today. I think you could still find plenty of these same unathletic or small shooters smaller schools already take and out shoot them maybe even more than currently.
Look at Jordan, he was like 27% three point shooter for his career when you take out the 3 years the NBA line was moved up to where the college one is now. He shot like 40% when they moved it up just to the edge of his range and immediately turned back to mush when they moved it back. That extra few feet can really make a difference.
My point is that 3-pointers would be harder for everyone, thus reducing their impact as fewer would be hit. Anything reducing the impact of 3-pointers helps those with bigger, faster, blue chip players.
I think moving it back would actually disproportionately hurt the more athletic teams. I think where it is gives them more of a licenses to shoot them because it’s so close, where as moving to the NBA line would discourage them. Look at all these players that actually shoot 3’s in college that don’t shoot them in the NBA much at all. Contrast that with some small or unathletic guy who pretty much only is able to play because he shoots three’s that’s not nearly going to affect the amount he takes or make near as much. As it is now they are already out athleticism everyone while still shooting a good amount of threes. You take away the threes from the Blue Bloods I think that hurts them.
Threes are a great equalizer for many (most?) mid-major programs.
Where it is now in college allows guys that really can’t shoot them too. Take Brandon Ingram for example 2.2 three’s at 41% in college. He’s pretty much a non shooter in the NBA. Certainly not anywhere close to that volume and not all of that is just tougher competition. He’s probably shooting mostly the same types of open shots the distance really seems to be the factor. I think there are a few other recent examples like Josh Jackson, Tyus Jones, Justice Winslow, Stanley Johnson, etc that were adaquate if not good from the college line that struggle to shoot any real volume or success from the pro line their first year there( keep in mind they are improving at this age so while they may eventually get there they likely wouldn’t have shot like that at the age they were in college.)
If you moved the three point line back I think these type of guys would struggle or just not shoot them as much as they did and that would really hurt the spacing and what these athletic teams like to do as well with spaced lanes and drive to the basket. I think it would gum their offenses up more actually and slow them down.
The 3-pointer is definitely the great equalizer in college basketball.
If you think it will disproportionately affect the more athletic teams, then why do you suspect the ACC, who gets the best athletes, would propose such change?
Rather than expanding the tournament to 72 teams, lets just change the way we populate it. 32 conference tournament winners, regular season champs that do not win their conference tournament, and fill out the rest of the field with teams ranked by their RPI. The P5 will still get the majority of the at-large (RPI) spots, but it will not systemically screw the non-P5 as much. In fact, when a pretty good player has a choice between NCSU, Clemson, WKU or MTSU they would begin to pick the C-USA teams rather than mid-ACC teams who generally would not go to the big dance. This would level the playing field and make everything more fun.
I don’t think it’s well thought out by the ACC. Think about it this way, usually mid majors are picking from flawed players shorter, less athletic, less shooting etc. They usually have to pick between one of the flaws in building their teams. The 3 point heavy teams you guys are talking about that use the 3’s to take down teams (Ryan Odoms for example) are already being built that way with shooters, sacrificing either size or athletic ability or some combination of both.
Just moving the line back I don’t think slows them down much because shooting is why they are good to begin with. Not nearly as much as it would a team like Duke with some of the blue chip guys I mentioned most of which get away with shooting 3’s in college but really can’t hit from pro distance at the same age, not with the same gravity and volume. The three pointer they use in college really gives them space to work. It’s not just taking the three away but the space as well to operate.