Bumped from the diaries. Thanks again to Nars for putting together this wonderful series. If you haven't done it yet before you take a look at this make sure to read Part 1 and Part 11. A masterful effort. GO BRUINS. -N

Finally, the last of a three part series.

Personnel Effects:

To me, the biggest difference of the rules change is in the number of players that require defensive attention at the 3-point stripe. From South Carolina coach Dave Odom, "I think what you're gonna find is that with the new line teams are going to edge their way into a comfort zone, and it will take 2-3 years before we begin to get a real feel for the effects of the new line. There will be some differences early on; I don't believe you'll see as many 3s next year. Players are comfortable at 19-9, 20, maybe 20-2, but once you get that extra step they become uncomfortable." Odom said Dominique Archie was a "good example" of a player who would be greatly affected by the line moving out a foot. "The 6-foot-7 freshman swingman took just 32 attempts from 3-point range last season but made 11, a respectable 34.3 percent. But his coach believes his confidence would diminish at 20-9." Sound like anyone we know?

Don't cry, we still love you. Just no more 3's.

Last year, Luc was a player at the margin. Statistically, Luc made 1/3 of all three point shot attempts (10 of 30). With the NCAA average hovering right near the 40% mark, Luc was below average, but only slightly. This was still a shot that required a defender expending some amount of energy/attention to negate. The problem for attacking the zone is that when Luc is forced a foot out he is out of his range and the marginal attention that Luc commanded is reduced. If he takes the same 30 shots and is only rewarded with 20 points, he's become a liability to the offense compared to his 50% aptitude elsewhere on the court. So where does this hurt the most? Against a zone defense where Luc can neither be effective distributing the ball from the high post, nor be seen as a threat from 3 point distance.

The second order effect of the rule change may be that more coaches are willing to play small. There could certainly be a proliferation of 3 and 4 guard lineups where pure shooters are increasingly valuable. We have seen that trend already with Villanova and Oregon making deep runs in the tourney the past two years but putting 4 guys on the floor who could really stroke it. Especially with the lack of "quality big men" in the college game, we're seeing a lot of teams move towards creating mismatches with smaller players.

A smaller team can spread the floor on offense and make it difficult to guard you man-to-man. And, on defense, they can be effective pressing full-court or playing zone. Since the zone enables teams to cover-up defensive liabilities, small teams may be able to get away with putting smaller players on the court - as long as they can still clean the glass. Furthermore, small interchangeable parts fit well into a Princeton style offense which could exploit the better spacing and balance that the rule change seeks to provide.

Conclusion:

In my opinion (not worth much, I know) the teams that benefit most from the rules change play zone defense and don't have any marginal 3-pont shooters. These teams will have people who have the green light and people who don't, but no `tweeners.

I think that the general stance is that the new line will reduce the number of upsets in the tourney will decrease as a result of the rule change. I'm not sure I buy into that argument. For mid-majors with solid outside shooting, their relative advantage will actually increase. I don't see Adam Graves at Butler having any problem with stepping out a foot. The real losers here are the marginal 3-point shooters. Perhaps we'll see even more importance played on relative specialists like Lee Humphries or Mike Roll for whom range isn't an issue, but often times finding space is. With the added spacing and pressure put on defenders to cover more ground, I would think that sharp-shooting but under-sized Cinderellas are the ones who benefit most from the change.

What does this mean for UCLA recruiting? In a game already dominated by guard play, guards will play an even bigger role. They will be required to shoot from deeper, cover more ground, and create penetration against more zone defense. Likewise "pure" big men will be more valuable given that there will be marginally more room to operate in the post - assuming the guards can keep their defenders honest. Given the recent developments in UCLA recruiting, Howland is likely ahead of the game again.

In summary, what does this all mean? Are we going to win it all in '08? Yes. But, I say that every year.