In the Beginning, There Weren't 3-Pointers

In the beginning, Man stumbled upon a round ball and a cylindrical bucket in an open yard. Inclined to both science and activity, he devised a game whereby one tossed the ball into the bucket and was awarded two points for his efforts. Man named this game basketball and saw that it was good.

It soon became apparent, however, that--as an animal of nature--Man was inclined to stop his opponent through aggression. Man saw that this was not good, so he invented a shot attempt worth one point to the victims of such aggression, to accompany the normal two-point shot. Man named this a free throw and saw that it was good.

But, still, Man was discontent. Sure he had a shot worth one point, sure he had a shot worth two points, but he wanted something more. He wanted a shot worth three points.

The three-point shot, actually, was a brilliant innovation; it added more fun for the players, provided more excitement for the crowd, enhanced the ability of the small men to score, and forced defenses to come out of their ho-hum zones.

Unfortunately, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has elected to make a joke of it.

This year's uniform collegiate 19-ft., 9-in. three-point arc is an absurdity. It is more ridiculous than the old three-to-make-two-free throws rule, far more ridiculous than the possession arrow-rather-than-jump ball rule, possibly even more ridiculous than football's instant replay regulation. Then again...

The argument against the 19-ft., 9-in. distance is straight-forward: it is simply too short. Adopting the professional circuit's varying 22 to 24-ft. three-point range would have represented a much more sensible action on the part of the NCAA rules committee.

Some argue that this would be a heave, an unreasonable and low-percentage shot. But what is wrong with that? Should not the logic of rewarding a player with an extra point be that the shooter did something extra--did more than just make a shot he's been making for several years?

One person who is not too happy about the new regulation is Harvard men's basketball Coach Pete Roby. That's not surprising, considering that opponents in each of the hoopsters' first two contests this season hit three-point buckets at the halftime buzzer--moral victories in themselves.

"I don't like it at 19-ft., 9-in.," says the cagers' second-year mentor. "I could live with it if it were further back...to make the shot worth a conscious effort."

The sentiment of the Crimson's co-captains is mixed.

"I don't like it, but given that it exists, it's too short," cager Co-Captain Keith Webster says. "The NCAA is trying to fix something that wasn't broken."

"Offensively, from a guard's perspective, I think it helps my game, because 50 percent of my shots are from around that range anyway," the senior guard says, "so it adds up to a few more points in the boxscore. Defensively it makes it tougher to play people, though."

Forward Arne Duncan has a different opinion. "I like it," Duncan says. "It makes the game more exciting, and it makes for more interesting and exciting finishes."

The rules committee opted for the 19-ft., 9-in. distance after experimenting at different distances in different leagues throughout the nation for the past few seasons.

Doomed

Both Harvard co-captains agree that the current state of affairs will not last for long. "At a minimum, I think they'll move it back next year, but they'll probably kill it completely," Webster says.

Abolishing the three-point shot in college basktball after this season would be an unnecessary loss for both the players and the fans, brought on solely by the NCAA's decision to draw the arc at an unreasonably short distance.

Man deserves a better rebound on his creativity.