From beyond the arc
 

Opinions please: Are we at the point now where a 3 ptr is actually in some ways an easier shot to make than a hard, semi contested drive to the hoop, or even a short pull up midrange in traffic? I know the shot is from farther away, but honestly some of the games I see the kids can get it up there effortlessly, yet struggle with a lot of closer shots. Maybe they just practice the three more now, but it sure explains most of the drive and kick strategy now, especially in non shot clock games, where patient and deliberate teams can wait until a wide open three is there for them. Don't get me wrong, I love the addition of the arc to the game those many years ago, and maybe that's my point. It's been around awhile now and it's common and fairly easy to make...perhaps we will see in the coming years NFHS move the line back and/or adopt the shot clock.

You'll see the line moved back before the shot clock gets added.

That's both my hope and my prediction.

Gender Bender ???
 

For both genders?

Of course; isn't that what Title IX is for?

Good point, Billy. It's possible they could allow a state adoption to move the line for boys. It might be the first gender distinction NFHS has made, though.

If it's going to remain a part of the game I'd like to see the line moved back, and when I say back I mean a substantial distance. And while we're at it, take it out of the game completely at the youth level. I worked with an official who moved to our area from NY and he mentioned that some of their youth leagues only allow the three in the last four minutes of the game.

Basketball size?

I don't understand the resistance to a shot clock. In WA we have a shot clock for both boys and girls and I don't see the "woe is me, the world is ending" level of problems that many in this forum profess will occur if a shot clock is implemented.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Yes we do have the odd hiccup from a shot clock operator - mostly at the lower levels where kids are running the clocks. But very rarely at the varsity level. I will take what we have over slow action-less basketball every day!<O:p</O:p

I knew I was forgetting something.

I just don't see a need.

I think it has to do with money. Maybe they don't think all schools can afford the shot clock. I think that is not the case, but maybe the Fed does. Also not all states are using 3 man mechanics. I don't know, but maybe they don't want the shot clock with only 2 man mechanics.

Agree. Very few games would be improved by it and it cost a lot of money to address an issue that infrequently exists.

Most games would be improved by 3-personwhereas only 1 out of a 100 (maybe 1000) might be improved with a shot clock.

No shot clock here. And no slow action basketball here either.

I will give you the "money" argument and even the "we don't need it" argument, but I don't buy the "it will cause too many problems" argument. I just don't see it.

I don't think it will cause any problems either. My point is how many states only use 2 man mechanics? Here the largest schools are the only with 3 man. What I am saying is, they may not want to implement shot clock with only 2 man mechanics. Maybe they only want shot clock in games with 3 man mechanics. I don't know why that would matter, but just a thought.