Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The success of the three point shot has also entirely taken away a part of the game that was celebrated two decades ago, the mid-range jumper. 15 - 18ft shots are frowned upon now, both analytically and by most offensive system coaches.

I agree with ELA. Beyond the changes to the game, the court just "feels" small, especially along the baseline. Adding 3-4 ft to baselines would facilitate more freedom of movement, allow for an extension of the three point line on the baselines.

I also miss the midrange game but I don't fault coaches.  I'm a data guy and it ALWAYS bothered me to see guys take a long 2 because I figured that you can't possibly be materially better from 22' than you are from 24' so why take a 22' shot for 2 when you could take a 24' shot for 3?  Even the 15-18' shots that you mentioned only make sense if you are 50% better from 15-18' than you are from 23'9" and I would guess that basically nobody is.  

Ok, my thoughts on dimensions:

• Move the 3 Point Line back to 24' and make it uniform.  In the NBA it is currently 23'9" but shortens to 22' in the corners.  In NCAAM it is currently 20'9" and shorter in the corners while NCAAW and HS use a 19'9" line.  
• Widen the court from 50' to 54'.  This eliminates the need to shorten the 3 Point Line in the corners as there would be 27' from the center of the hoop to the edge of the court so there would still be 3' between the new 24' 3 Point Line and the edge of the court.  
• Raise the rim to 11' from 10'.  

I saw that someone, I think it was @847badgerfan suggested perhaps only a 6" increase in rim height.  I think we need a full foot.  My thinking is that when Naismith invented the game he was TALL at 5'10-1/2"  As I said upthread, I would guess that six footers at Springfield College in 1891 were rarer than seven footers are in the NBA today.  Consequently, todays players are a full foot (or more) closer to the hoop than the players of 1891.  Thus, I think we need to raise the rim by a full foot to get back to having a rim about 4' higher than the tallest players just like it was when the game was invented.  


Even with the extended 3 Point Line I still think the idea of changing scoring to 3&4 for a regular and long-range bucket should still be at least on the table.  IMHO, the 50% bonus is just too much.  Per @HailHailMSP 's point it simply eliminates the mid-range game.  

Some on here have proposed eliminating the bonus for a long-range shot altogether.  I disagree for two reasons.  First, as @MaximumSam pointed out, it is the "most successful gimmick in sports history."  As such it simply is NOT going to be eliminated so discussing eliminating it is pointless.  Second, I actually like it because I think that Basketball is best (from a spectator perspective) when there are three distinct facets to the game:

• An Inside Game, 
• A Mid-Range Game, and
• A Long-Range Game.  

IMHO, the mid-range game has more-or-less disappeared from the NBA and the major college game because it has been squeezed from both sides:

Inside Game:
There are two issues here.  Players are obviously MUCH taller than they were in 1891 but they are taller even than they were 20-30 years ago as well.  Secondly, players today can jump higher than players of old even relative to height.  As workouts have gotten more sophisticated and scientific, guys today can much more readily train for leaping ability and BB stars obviously do.  This compounds the increased height issue and makes the inside game more appealing to more players than it was decades ago.  

Long-Range Game:
There are two issues here as well.  The first is simply accuracy.  As the three has gained in prevalence more young players have spent more time working on this aspect of their games which has increased the accuracy of the major players.  I checked stats and there are 42 NCAAM players currently shooting 40%+ from three.  In the NBA there are 45 players currently shooting 40%+ from three.  This is a bigger issue in the NBA because the average NBA team has about 1.5 guys who shoot 40%+ from three and counting those who shoot close to that it is safe to say that nearly all NBA teams have at least two guys that shoot better than or at least close to 40% from three.  

Within the B1G, the guys shooting 39%+ from three are:

• 44.4 Battle, tOSU
• 39.0 Sandfort, Iowa

Both should probably be shooting more.  Battle is averaging 3.1 makes on 6.9 attempts and Sandfort is averaging 2.7 makes on 6.9 attempts per game.  

In a league where (I assume) literally everyone can dunk and around 40% of the guys on the court at any given time can shoot ~40% or better from three there is simply no reason to take a mid-range shot.  You aren't going to make it as frequently as a dunk and it isn't worth as much as a three so the coaches (who are all data driven now) teach their players to forgo mid-range shots in favor of either more accurate inside shots or more valuable outside shots.  


Even if eliminating the three was possible (it isn't), I wouldn't be in favor because that would simply eliminate the long-range game.  

I think both aspects should be addressed in order to bring back the mid-range game and thus return to a game in which all three facets are viable.  

I don't watch it because from a competition standpoint any particular game is almost completely meaningless.

I agree with this 100%. Any league that sends >50% of their teams to the playoffs has a meaningless regular season.

Tying this to CFB, I fear that the 12-team playoff will essentially achieve this for the "Kings" in CFB. 

The success of the three point shot has also entirely taken away a part of the game that was celebrated two decades ago, the mid-range jumper. 15 - 18ft shots are frowned upon now, both analytically and by most offensive system coaches.

I agree with ELA. Beyond the changes to the game, the court just "feels" small, especially along the baseline. Adding 3-4 ft to baselines would facilitate more freedom of movement, allow for an extension of the three point line on the baselines.

I’m gonna be honest, I think the mid-range jumper is kind of overrated historically. It’s also not a bad shot these days as much as it’s reserved for better players.

The issue is the alternative would turn the pace up a ton, which can be good and bad, and then have basically power plays/scrums at the rim. 3s didn’t kill the mid-ranger as much as getting smarter did.

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason where you would fire Holtmann midseason, when they've been a pretty decent team. The idea makes no sense. You do that when things have gone hopelessly south or there is some sort of scandal, or there is some benefit in hiring someone new. OSU doesn't really even have a athletic director yet, so none of those things exist here.

Allow me to present:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game/_/gameId/401600303/buckeyes-nittany-lions

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game/_/gameId/401600315/buckeyes-hoosiers

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game/_/gameId/401600323/badgers-buckeyes

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game/_/gameId/401600333/buckeyes-wolverines

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game/_/gameId/401600347/buckeyes-cornhuskers

Things have gone hopelessly south. This season is irrevocably lost. We are seven years Holtmann's tenure and we have a crappy team for the second year in a row, we haven't been close to a B1G title since 2018, and we haven't made it beyond the first weekend of of the NCAA Tournament in a decade.

Quote from: MaximumSam 1/24/2024, 8:23:59 AM
I dunno what the new AD thinks. This is a young team that can return everyone except for Battle and Bonner I think, and in college basketball experience counts for a lot. That would certainly be what Holtmann will say. Might be in Holtmann's best interest to find a new job, Tubby Smith style, and see which players will come with him.


Moved this here from the general BB thread.

If this were Holtmann's third or fourth year I'd be interested in a discussion/debate about thus being a young team and how that experience might look next year under him.

This isn't Holtmann's third or fourth year. He has had seven years to figure things out and here, in year seven we are now down to:

• 48th in KenPom 
• 59th in NET.

Barring a massive improvement this is NOT a Tournament team. 


Improvement or not the team has five league losses so they are effectively eliminated from the league title race . . . In January.

Seven years:

• ZERO league titles
• ZERO S16's
• ZERO contender seasons after Matta's players matriculated 
• ZERO reasons to continue with the current coach

How is this even a discussion at this point? Is Holtmann your cousin?

@MaximumSam 

Here is the latest bracketology from Lunardi/ESPN:
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/bracketology/ncaa-bracketology-2024-march-madness-men-field-predictions

I couldn't find Ohio State.