Replacing 3pt shooting for next season

Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, launching 300+ threes in a season (almost 400 for KU this year) CAN be a winning formula. So can playing lock down defense. So can hammering the ball inside.

Remember WHY Self (and Jay Wright) had so many guys shooting from deep this year: their roster dictated how they played. Villanova had one big who was only 6'9" who could, incidentally, nail it from behind he arc. We had Graham and Svi who had a green light all season to shoot it, and Newman and Vick who also could shoot, and we were forced by our roster to play 4 guards.

Next year, we'll have more opportunities to score inside, and I expect to see a lot more high/low as well.

The only real question I see is who our next big 3 point assassin will be (or assassinS). I don't think you can win if you rely only on the 3 (yes, I still feel this way after watching Villanova make everything in the NC game), and I don't think you can win if you DON'T have shooters.

I believe that there are LOTS of ways to win, and if possible, it's nice to have options and balance. If a team wants to guard the perimeter so you don't get open 3's and that means Dok gets to dunk all day, that's fine with me. If they want to pack it in and force you to shoot over the top, it's sure nice to have somebody that can make 'em pay.

Garrett needs to work on his shooting, and we need to see which of the new guys can hit from beyond the arc. But in the end, I'm not buying into the idea that the 3 is 'the way of the future' or anything. There are lots of ways to skin a cat (or win a basketball game).

I agree NotO, but just playing devil’s advocate, a concern could be that if our team doesn’t have enough 3-point shooting, then teams can pack the paint and not allow are superior bigs to get quality looks. In essence, teams could dare us to hit from outside and if we don't hit at high enough percentage, they can negate our interior strength.

It's some proposed rule changes that are very drastic, but I thought they were interesting nonetheless.

I would like to see a rule change that de-incentivizes the three-point shot other than just moving back the three point line.

I like the way that the NIT trials rule changes. I would like the NIT to trial this rule change next year, and if it seems to work pretty well then maybe try to implement it in Division 3 after that.

Change the scoring of made baskets. Increase the scoring from 2 point to 3 points for made field goals inside the arc. Increase the scoring from 3 to 4 for made field goals beyond the arc.

For fouls in the act of shooting, forgo the free throws and just award the points. After a set number of team fouls in the period, for fouls not in the act of shooting, award 2 free throw attempts and the ball.

It's a pretty drastic change, but I think that it would reduce the number of three point attempts by reducing the scoring premium awarded for them, improve the pace of play by eliminating free throw trips for fouls in the act of shooting, reduce the amount of fouling because of the increased penalty for fouls in the act of shooting or in the bonus, and de-incentivize the "hack-a-" strategy by giving the ball back to the team that is shooting free throws in the bonus.

I like a lot of things about this potential change... the only thing that I don't like is that it eliminates the opportunity for free throw rebounds... basically any foul not in the act of shooting after a team reaches the bonus is penalized like a technical foul.

www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-tait/2018...rs-for-ku-team-seek/