Putting a Theory to the Test

[Let'sGoZips94]

I wouldn't exactly call Butler a mid-major.

They are in the Horizon League. That SCREAMS mid-major.

[GP1]

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

This line made me remember something. Do some of you remember when college basketball went to a three point line and in ACC league play, the line was less than 20 feet from the basket. I don't know why moving the line further away from the basket is always a good thing. Why not make it shorter and increase scoring and chances for teams to get back into games late? To me, that is more interesting than watching teams miss one three point shot after another.

[RootforRoo44]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from.

[Zipmeister]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from.

I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct.

[RootforRoo44]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from.

I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct.

Theories dont have to be based on any facts.

[RACER]

use common logic.a layup is easier to make than a foul shot.a foul shot is easier to make than a 3pt shot.

a longer 3 pt shot is harder to make than one that is closer to the basket.just because there are a few mid majors in the tourney does not mean anything.the farther away you are to shoot a shot the less the % you will make.

if it's a non factor then why don't teams just shoot from half court every time.

[Zipmeister]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from.

I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct.

Theories dont have to be based on any facts.

No, but you need facts to test theories.

[Zip Watcher]

Translation for w00t: "I better go check on how much time is left on my bet w/ Zip Watcher regarding mid-majors appearing in the Final Four."

Haha at this too!

Had to look it up. This tourney and next before ZW owes w00t $50.

Go Zips!!

B)

I hadn't forgotten... but as much as I hope one of the remaining four MM's wins two more this year, I think that you've already come as close as you're going to get to my $50 when Davidson was within two points (and got the last shot) of going to San Antonio.

I tend to agree with you .. but hope springs eternal with 4 teams alive in different regions this year. Might be the best chance thus far.

Don't forget about those odds!

[Dave in Green]

I'm not sure how you get to here:

AHA. In the absence of facts, supposition is fact.

From here:

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

But by how much, and how would one go about proving it?

Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables.

To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much.

I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together.

In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

That leap makes my Mr. Spock meter chime Not Logical.

[Dave in Green]

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

This line made me remember something. Do some of you remember when college basketball went to a three point line and in ACC league play, the line was less than 20 feet from the basket. I don't know why moving the line further away from the basket is always a good thing. Why not make it shorter and increase scoring and chances for teams to get back into games late? To me, that is more interesting than watching teams miss one three point shot after another.

19.75 feet is the arc for high school basketball.

19.75 feet was the previous arc for college basketball.

20.75 feet is the current arc for college basketball.

23.75 feet is the current arc for NBA basketball. However, on the baselines, with a line drawn directly from the center of the rim to the sideline, the NBA distance is 22 feet.

The rules can be manipulated to create whatever show the sanctioning organization wants. The ABA pioneered 3-point shooting and tough enforcement of interior physical contact to encourage a high-scoring finesse game at a time when the NBA rules did not include the 3-point shot and encouraged big guys slugging it out under the basket. I personally enjoyed watching the ABA over the NBA. But then I prefer basketball over football.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

But by how much, and how would one go about proving it?

Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables.

To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much.

I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together.

In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

Ok...fess up...who else fell asleep after reading the first sentence-and-a-half?

[Captain Kangaroo]

use common logic.a layup is easier to make than a foul shot.a foul shot is easier to make than a 3pt shot.

a longer 3 pt shot is harder to make than one that is closer to the basket.just because there are a few mid majors in the tourney does not mean anything.the farther away you are to shoot a shot the less the % you will make.

if it's a non factor then why don't teams just shoot from half court every time.

you stray from your point.your point is that moving the three point line adversely affects mid-majors.but you have no proof.i offer proof that it has not had any affect on midmajors.ithink it has had an effect of bad shooters like brettmcknight.but gud shooter's like steve mcnees never shoot with their toe on the line anyhow they always shoot from a foot behind the line.i wuld like to see you find any proof that midmajor teams fared worse in ooc play in 2009-10.you can waste your life searching but it will be fruitless.learn from me and not kenny roda or dork vitale.you will become a wiser more rounded person.the next time one of your friends tells you that the threepoint line hurtz midmajors tell him he is full of it and set yourself free.

[RootforRoo44]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

Normally i agree with you Captain but i would have to think that smaller teams WOULD be negatively impacted by a further 3 point line and therefore lower 3 point percentages. I guess the other school of thought is that it spreads the floor more and helps them. But i can see where Racer is coming from.

I love it. If you don't have the facts to test a theory, the theory is correct.

Theories dont have to be based on any facts.

No, but you need facts to test theories.

Hey i dont have the time to go digging through stats. Feel free, i just think it makes lots of sense.

[RootforRoo44]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

I would say that the reason many of these prolific 3 point shooters at small schools get passed up by the bigger ones would be due to their height or quickness. So the idea that bigger/stronger/more skillful players would be an advantage of the Majors is not entirely true. There are plenty of 5'10"/6' tall slow white guys that get passed up by the big schools only to become heroes for one game in the NCAA tournament due to their 3 point expertise. That's why i also think that RACER's logic is right on to say that moving the line back (and lowering 3 point percentages obviously) would hurt small/MidMajor schools more than Majors.

BTW, how about that Ali Farokhmanesh guy for Northern Iowa? Talk about clutch.

[meatwad]

Ok...fess up...who else fell asleep after reading the first sentence-and-a-half?

[Dave in Green]

It is difficult being a visionary..to not simply parrot what one hears on some pathetic local radio show or gleans from some wing nut's blog...but to come up with original, thought-provoking observations. But someone has to be that person.

To all the Athletic Supporters on ZN I say - You are welcome.

Why do I feel like GP1?

Ok...fess up...who else fell asleep after reading the first sentence-and-a-half?

..... you can waste your life searching but it will be fruitless.learn from me and not kenny roda or dork vitale.you will become a wiser more rounded person.the next time one of your friends tells you that the threepoint line hurtz midmajors tell him he is full of it and set yourself free.

OK all you unworthy little people, have you gotten the message yet? It's useless to post anything in this forum that is not fully approved and endorsed by the Designated Great Ones. When you get out of line, you will be reminded that your place in life is to sit quietly and listen to, believe, and repeat without question only the words of the Designated Great Ones. If you want to state your own unworthy opinions without being reminded of your unworthiness by a moderator, you should go start your own unworthy Zips fan forum for unworthy Zips fans. Got it?

[GP1]

It's useless to post anything in this forum that is not fully approved and endorsed by the Designated Great Ones.

Please check your typing. Its Designated Great One, not Ones. Please correct this in all future posts.

[doublezip]

I'll take a pass on the 3 pointer debate. There is one thing that all 3 of the mid-major teams in the sweet 16 have in common. I agree with those that don't count Butler as a mid-major. They were in the top 20 and no one is surprised they are in the sweet 16. As far as Cornell, St. Mary's and No. Iowa, all 3 teams have very good, senior, 7 foot Centers. KD has been saying for a while if you want to win a game or two in the tourney, you need a good big man. I think this year clearly illustrates that point. I'll admit I never heard of Omar Samhan before last week, but he dominated Villanova! Hopefully, this points to good thinks in the future for the Zips!

[Zipmeister]

I'm not sure how you get to here:

AHA. In the absence of facts, supposition is fact.

From here:

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

But by how much, and how would one go about proving it?

Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables.

To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much.

I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together.

In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

That leap makes my Mr. Spock meter chime Not Logical.

Sorry, didn't realize you were an education major.

[RootforRoo44]

OK all you unworthy little people, have you gotten the message yet? It's useless to post anything in this forum that is not fully approved and endorsed by the Designated Great Ones. When you get out of line, you will be reminded that your place in life is to sit quietly and listen to, believe, and repeat without question only the words of the Designated Great Ones. If you want to state your own unworthy opinions without being reminded of your unworthiness by a moderator, you should go start your own unworthy Zips fan forum for unworthy Zips fans. Got it?

Post of the week....but yes singular not plural as someone else stated.

[Z.I.P.]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Thanks Dave in Green, for coming around to the central point in the discussion (within an argument, within a thread). It leads perfectly to my suggestion to the NCAA basketball Gods. The rules need to be massaged to both provide some defense in the game finally, while at the same time give more credit to talent, and lead to increased parity in college basketball. Since my idea to take from soccer and hockey and add a goalkeeper is unlikely to pass muster (sadly, especially now that we have a 7-foot keeper), my proposal is that a lay-up or a slam-dunk should count for only one point! How much do you expect for such an easy shot? Reward teams that take chances, not those that take the easiest shots on the floor! I think it was John Wooden who first suggested making slam dunks worth less -- if you have to allow them at all (it was in his time, in the 60s that dunking was made illegal. If you can't bring that back then make it less valuable).

[Zipmeister]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Thanks Dave in Green, for coming around to the central point in the discussion (within an argument, within a thread). It leads perfectly to my suggestion to the NCAA basketball Gods. The rules need to be massaged to both provide some defense in the game finally, while at the same time give more credit to talent, and lead to increased parity in college basketball. Since my idea to take from soccer and hockey and add a goalkeeper is unlikely to pass muster (sadly, especially now that we have a 7-foot keeper), my proposal is that a lay-up or a slam-dunk should count for only one point! How much do you expect for such an easy shot? Reward teams that take chances, not those that take the easiest shots on the floor! I think it was John Wooden who first suggested making slam dunks worth less -- if you have to allow them at all (it was in his time, in the 60s that dunking was made illegal. If you can't bring that back then make it less valuable).

You have just scratched the surface. For an even more fair system I propose the following

If the shooter has his back to the basket when making what would normally be a 2 or 3 point shot, that goal should count double. An exception to the doubling rule would apply to a dunk, which according to your suggestion would only count 1 normally, but if the dunker's back is to the basket this should only count a ½ point because the guy is showing off.

Dunks should count as 3 if a rule change allows the team on offense to elect to have the basket raised to 13 feet. When the basket is in this position, 2 point shots should count as 3.5 points and 3 point shots should count as 4.5 points, and if a shot wedges and sticks between the rim and the backboard that should count as 1.5 points unless the defensive team dislodges the ball within 3 seconds; then it would only count as .75.

Free throws will continue to count as 1 point each unless the shooter elects to go for double by facing away from the basket and the basket should be set at 2 feet for all free throws.

Edit: When the basket is set at 13 feet, the doubling rule applies and the dunk penalty is waived.

[Dave in Green]

WARNING: This post contains extensive factual statistical data, and may cause drowsiness among some viewers.

I previously said that to prove the theory that extending the 3-point arc has hurt the 3-point shooting of mid-majors more than majors, one would have to do a major statistical analysis comparing the number of 3s attempted and made by all majors and mid-majors for several years before and after the rule change. I also said that as much as I like stats that I was not up for the amount of work it would take to put together such a comprehensive analysis.

Following is a partial statistical analysis, which will have to do until someone puts in the hours necessary to do a complete one. This one took several hours to compile, so good luck to anyone who wants to try the complete analysis described above.

The college 3-point arc was extended from 19.75 feet to 20.75 (5.1% increase) for the 2008-9 season, so the 2007-8 season was the final one under the old rule, making those two seasons the most interesting.

I selected the top five conferences in RPI for the 2007-8 (ACC, Pac 10, Big 12, SEC and Big East -- a total of 62 teams) and compared them against the 5 conferences with RPI 11-15 (Horizon, MAC, CAA, West Coast and Sun Belt-- a total of 55 teams) to get a good sample comparison of major teams vs. mid-majors (the top 5 of the top 10 conferences vs. the top 5 of the second 10 conferences).

This only includes conference games, which removes the variable of different OOC games each season. It compares the 2007-8 numbers to the 2008-9 season for the same conferences with the increased 3-point shot distance.

First some baseline numbers for all D1 teams:

19.12 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2007-8 games.

18.36 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2008-9 games.

4.0% = percentage reduction in number of 3-point attempts per game in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%.

35.02% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2007-8 games.

34.18% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2008-9 games.

2.4% = percentage reduction in 3-point shooting average in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%.

Now the comparison of the 5 major and 5 mid-major conferences:

#1-5 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only

315.45/313.20 = average number of 3-point attempts per team.

110.02/110.11 = average number of 3-pointers made per team.

34.88%/35.16% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team.

#11-15 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only

308.07/294.04 = average number of 3-point attempts per team.

107.76/ 99.45 = average number of 3-pointers made per team.

34.98%/33.82% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team.

Caveats? As always, there are many hazards when considering partial or even extensive statistics. There are many variables not considered here, such as a change in player personnel from season to season. But we're comparing 62 major teams to 55 mid-majors across their entire conference schedules for two complete seasons. So some of those variables will be reduced over a smaller sample.

Conclusions? The 62 major teams represented here took and made more 3-point attempts than the 55 mid-majors in both seasons, which was a surprise to me. But since this is only for conference games with majors vs. majors and mid-majors vs. mid-majors, that might change when mid-majors let more 3s fly to try to upset majors.

Another surprise to me is that the 55 mid-majors had a slightly higher (34.98%-34.88%) 3-point shooting percentage than the 62 majors when the 3-point line was at 19.75 feet. That's actually pretty impressive for the mid-major players to outperform their generally bigger, stronger, more skilled counterparts at the majors.

Not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors reduced their number of 3-point attempts more than the 62 major teams when the 3-point shot went to a longer distance and became more difficult to make, but not as difficult for bigger, stronger, more skilled players.

Also not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors had a significant drop in 3-point shooting percentage (34.98% to 33.82%).

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was that the 3-point shooting percentage of the 62 majors actually went up with the longer shot from 34.88% to 35.16%.

To summarize, during the final year of the 19.75-foot 3-point shot, the 55 mid-majors considered here had a very slight 3-point shooting percentage advantage in their respective conference play when compared to 62 majors. But the following season, the first of the longer 20.75-foot 3-point shot, the mid-majors lost that advantage as their 3-point shooting percentage fell significantly and the percentage for the majors rose slightly.

Again, no absolute conclusions to be drawn from this. But it does provide another interesting data point.

If anyone is still awake and has any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

[Zipmeister]

WARNING: This post contains extensive factual statistical data, and may cause drowsiness among some viewers.

I previously said that to prove the theory that extending the 3-point arc has hurt the 3-point shooting of mid-majors more than majors, one would have to do a major statistical analysis comparing the number of 3s attempted and made by all majors and mid-majors for several years before and after the rule change. I also said that as much as I like stats that I was not up for the amount of work it would take to put together such a comprehensive analysis.

Following is a partial statistical analysis, which will have to do until someone puts in the hours necessary to do a complete one. This one took several hours to compile, so good luck to anyone who wants to try the complete analysis described above.

The college 3-point arc was extended from 19.75 feet to 20.75 (5.1% increase) for the 2008-9 season, so the 2007-8 season was the final one under the old rule, making those two seasons the most interesting.

I selected the top five conferences in RPI for the 2007-8 (ACC, Pac 10, Big 12, SEC and Big East -- a total of 62 teams) and compared them against the 5 conferences with RPI 11-15 (Horizon, MAC, CAA, West Coast and Sun Belt-- a total of 55 teams) to get a good sample comparison of major teams vs. mid-majors (the top 5 of the top 10 conferences vs. the top 5 of the second 10 conferences).

This only includes conference games, which removes the variable of different OOC games each season. It compares the 2007-8 numbers to the 2008-9 season for the same conferences with the increased 3-point shot distance.

First some baseline numbers for all D1 teams:

19.12 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2007-8 games.

18.36 = average number of 3-point attempts per team per game in all 2008-9 games.

4.0% = percentage reduction in number of 3-point attempts per game in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%.

35.02% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2007-8 games.

34.18% = 3-point shooting average for all teams in all 2008-9 games.

2.4% = percentage reduction in 3-point shooting average in the first season that the distance was increased 5.1%.

Now the comparison of the 5 major and 5 mid-major conferences:

#1-5 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only

315.45/313.20 = average number of 3-point attempts per team.

110.02/110.11 = average number of 3-pointers made per team.

34.88%/35.16% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team.

#11-15 RPI Conferences in 2007-8/2008-9 Conference Games Only

308.07/294.04 = average number of 3-point attempts per team.

107.76/ 99.45 = average number of 3-pointers made per team.

34.98%/33.82% = percentage of 3-pointers made per team.

Caveats? As always, there are many hazards when considering partial or even extensive statistics. There are many variables not considered here, such as a change in player personnel from season to season. But we're comparing 62 major teams to 55 mid-majors across their entire conference schedules for two complete seasons. So some of those variables will be reduced over a smaller sample.

Conclusions? The 62 major teams represented here took and made more 3-point attempts than the 55 mid-majors in both seasons, which was a surprise to me. But since this is only for conference games with majors vs. majors and mid-majors vs. mid-majors, that might change when mid-majors let more 3s fly to try to upset majors.

Another surprise to me is that the 55 mid-majors had a slightly higher (34.98%-34.88%) 3-point shooting percentage than the 62 majors when the 3-point line was at 19.75 feet. That's actually pretty impressive for the mid-major players to outperform their generally bigger, stronger, more skilled counterparts at the majors.

Not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors reduced their number of 3-point attempts more than the 62 major teams when the 3-point shot went to a longer distance and became more difficult to make, but not as difficult for bigger, stronger, more skilled players.

Also not so surprising from my perspective is that the 55 mid-majors had a significant drop in 3-point shooting percentage (34.98% to 33.82%).

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was that the 3-point shooting percentage of the 62 majors actually went up with the longer shot from 34.88% to 35.16%.

To summarize, during the final year of the 19.75-foot 3-point shot, the 55 mid-majors considered here had a very slight 3-point shooting percentage advantage in their respective conference play when compared to 62 majors. But the following season, the first of the longer 20.75-foot 3-point shot, the mid-majors lost that advantage as their 3-point shooting percentage fell significantly and the percentage for the majors rose slightly.

Again, no absolute conclusions to be drawn from this. But it does provide another interesting data point.

If anyone is still awake and has any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

An interesting group of numbers. Some of the numbers went up some of them went down. Unfortunately, as you suggest, we can't tell if any of the differences are significant. One exception, I noticed that you said the mid-majors shooting percentage fell significantly. Did you conduct an ANOVA or some other test to prove statistical significance?

[Dave in Green]

An interesting group of numbers. Some of the numbers went up some of them went down. Unfortunately, as you suggest, we can't tell if any of the differences are significant. One exception, I noticed that you said the mid-majors shooting percentage fell significantly. Did you conduct an ANOVA or some other test to prove statistical significance?

Statistical significance was not formally calculated, but represents my informal evaluation based on the much smaller year-to-year changes in historical 3-point shooting percentage:

34.61% = 2004-5

34.81% = 2005-6 (+0.20%)

34.81% = 2006-7 (Unchanged)

35.02% = 2007-8 (+0.21%)

34.18% = 2008-9 ( -0.84%)

34.14% = 2009-0 ( -0.04%)

The mid-major fall in shooting percentage in 2008-9 was from 34.98% to 33.82%, or -1.16%.