The Three-Point Shot Debate : SHOOT IT: NCAA’S Long-Shot Gets Rid of Some Push ‘n Shove, and Brings Back Some of the Skill

First, we’re going to address the concept, not the execution. The question is whether you like the idea of a three-point shot in colege basketball. I do. The only debate is over calibration.

It’s the classic story of the fetching young woman who deliberately sits at the bar next to a well-dressed older man, and allows him to buy her drink after drink. After a suitable interval, the gentleman offers the lady $500 for an assignation.

“Sir, I’m shocked you think my virtue is for sale,” she says huffily.

“My dear,” he counters, “that much has already been established. All we’re doing now is negotiating the price.”

I think 19 feet 9 inches for three points is fine. What, all of a sudden every guard in the Atlantic 10 is Jeff Malone? I think anywhere out to 21 feet is fine, too. But I can live with 19-9, and I think coaches and sportswriters who view themselves as the guardians of some sort of untouchable shroud should stop whining about how their sacred game has been turned into a circus. Because the three-point shot is not only the most democratic new rule in college basketball since dunking was reinstated, but is also a judicious balance to the 45-second clock.

The three-point shot is the corollary to the shot clock. With a three-point shot, the defending team simply can’t pack the paint and spend all 45 seconds collapsed around a big man, compelling you to take a 20-footer. If you have the clock and allow zone-rules that favor the defense--it’s only right to give the offense a three-point shot. If you can’t see that, get out of here and go watch hockey.

The three-point shot is good for the game. It’s great for the fans--coaches and sportswriters would be wise to pay more attention to them--because it makes games more suspenseful. It holds out the promise of catching up. “You’re never out of a game anymore,” says an enthusiast, John Kuester, the coach at George Washington. “You’re down 12 with six minutes to play? A few three-pointers and boom, boom, boom, you’re right there.”

It counterbalances recent moves (such as the clock) that were nudging the college game dangerously close to a dovetailing with the pros. The recruiting emphasis had shifted from skill toward athleticism. Like NBA coaches, college coaches sought bangers and leapers. The close-in three-point rule will modify that shift.

“Now, you’ll find that a kid who may be a bit short and a bit slow, but no matter what can really shoot it, can get a scholarship,” said Kuester. Echoing that, American’s Ed Tapscott, who remains ambivalent about the wisdom of the three-point shot but admits, “It’s changing my recruiting philosophy. I’m looking for a guy who can really fill it up.”

To those who say the three-point shot rewards shooters, I say: Bravo! Since when is great shooting something to sneer at? Because of the recent emphasis on height and muscle, the spirit of basketball has been circumvented. The game now seems to exclude all those who aren’t pituitarily endowed. The three-point shot should do for college basketball what the designated hitter did for baseball and what situational substitution did for football: Open the game to people who aren’t necessarily superhuman athletes, just overachievers with a special skill. Parents, put those hoops back on those garage doors. As long as your kid can shoot, he doesn’t have to be 6-9 to play guard anymore.

If purists would take their heads out of the sand they’d see that the three-point shot actually stresses fundamentals. It rewards shooting, the seminal act of the game. It rewards passing, especially by big men, a group routinely deficient in that category. (You want your shooters as close to the three-point line and as open as possible, so your offensive strategy emphasizes being able to go from the inside out. You start by getting the ball low to your big man. As the defense sags around him, he makes the key pass: Outside to the shooter.) A smooth-passing big man is a treasure. The three-point shot rewards defense since an active defense can push back the three-point line and negate its wholesale quality.

Taken all together you’ll see that what the three-point shot really does is free the court from the tyranny of the low-post crush and give all the players room to manuever. Small men should like it; it gives them a chance to shoot more. If a defense stays stacked in the paint, giving up the 20-footer, a couple of good shooters will make the scoreboard totals clang like a cash register. Big men should like it; it might force defenses to play them honestly. (David Robinson ought to send Christmas presents to the members of the NCAA rules committee.) And good coaches should like it. Good coaches always benefit from new rules since they’re ahead of the curve anyway.

Should we quibble at 19-9? Kuester, a former guard at North Carolina, calls it “a makeable shot in a comfortable range.” But Tapscott, a guard himself at Tufts, says, “When coaches like me can hit it, it’s too cheap.” He suggests fine-tuning it to 21 feet. Don’t get hung up on 19-9. That’s a statement of intent to give the game back to all the players. What’s crucial is to not move it out farther than 21, so it stays a viable option to combat a zone. It’s an offensive weapon, brought to you in the same spirit as the “no-bump” rule in the NFL.

Relaxation of a law invariably brings about a flurry of protest and abuse. So in these early stages of reform it isn’t surprising that some coaches will get trigger happy even as they whine about how this new rule mocks their precious game. But the three-point shot is here to stay. All we’re doing now is negotating the price.