For the second year in a row, attempts to redraw the three-point line and the lane in basketball have been defeated.
The NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules Committees have pushed for a deeper three-point line. Division III has objected. In fact, a search of NCAA News and NCAA releases on the topic reveals many times this topic has been raised and rejected.
This point in the process seems key: “Because the basketball rules committees’ proposals involve financial impact (institutions would have to budget for new court lines), the divisions may consider the recommended changes separately and, on a division-specific basis, ask the Executive Committee not to apply the change.”
And here we are, still at 19-foot-9. That’s because this is not free. A member of the rules committee told Sports Illustrated’s Seth Davis in a recent column that stripping and repainting three-point lines would run about $15,000 per school.
While that seems high to some, throw in a trapezoidal lane and you’re still running into a lot of money — money which Division III schools can’t afford.
Let’s just say it is $15,000 to strip and repaint each three-point line and lane. In a spot-check of Division III basketball budgets, that could run anywhere from 17% to 60% of a school’s combined men’s and women’s basketball budget, according to our analysis of numbers provided to the U.S. Department of Education for the 2003-04 school year.
I pulled 20 Division III schools at random and checked what their institutional budget was for men’s and women’s basketball, then their overall athletics budget. Four of the schools were state schools, in keeping with the nature of the Division III membership. On average, the $15,000 would take up 27% of the schools’ basketball budgets, or 5% of the overall budget. (It’s higher at schools that don’t have football.) And if you don’t think that 5% is a big deal, consider that next time you’re asked to go without an annual raise.
I’m not personally against moving the three-point line to 20-foot-6, which is the most recently used number. But I’m against unfunded mandates, and unless the NCAA would like to filter down some money to the Division III schools as a grant to repaint their floors, I’m against the effort.
And you should be too.
All levels of basketball in the U.S. (from kids’ church leagues to the NBA) should move as quickly as possible to adopt international rules for play, international dimensions for the 3-point line, and the trapezoidal lane, if the U.S. wants to remain competitive internationally. The performance of our men’s basketball team in the 2004 Olympics makes that obvious.
Yes, $15,000 may be a significant percentage of a D-III school’s basketball budget. And yes, the NCAA should help fund the change. But many if not most schools can probably find a few donors who love their alma mater’s basketball program to foot the bill. Or the schools can conduct a specific fund raising effort to cover any portion of the cost the NCAA won’t pay.
“Many if not most schools can probably find a few donors who love their alma mater’s basketball program to foot the bill.”
Easy for you to say. Not so easy for the institutional development people who tend to already have full plates at small schools, and would in this case have to go hunt down someone willing to provide a directed gift towards something as unglamorous and meaningless (to most people) as repainting lines on a gym floor.
“Or the schools can conduct a specific fund-raising effort to cover any portion of the cost the NCAA won’t pay.”
Again, easy for you to say. Athletic budgets at D3 schools tend to be so tight to begin with that bake sales, raffles, concession stands, solicitation for extrabudgetary donations, etc., tend to already be in full use by D3 athletic departments. This would be just one more bill expected to be footed by either an overtaxed athletic budget or by parents and student-athletes who’re already doing more than their share to defray costs with outside fundraising efforts.
Pat’s right. While moving the line back and reshaping the lane to fit international specs are the right things to do in terms of U.S. basketball, it should not be done by having the NCAA hold a gun to the heads of cash-strapped D3 schools. “Unfunded mandate” is one of the nastiest phrases in the English language.
No doubt you are right and I am wrong. D-III schools do not have the same kind of overzealous athletic boosters that you find at D-I schools. And D-III schools should use their resources for academic purposes over athletic purposes — after all, that’s one of the main reasons they are D-III.
I do love my alma mater but they already ask me for a donation every year and I gladly give it. I’m hoping it’s used for new uniforms, an upgraded sound system, better locker rooms, whatever. But not something the D1 schools are forcing on us.