Last week the NCAA Rules Committee approved moving the 3-point line back 1 foot starting in the 2008 season. The women’s line will remain at 19’9″, so there will be the unaesthetic sight of two arcs running parallel. That should confuse refs and players periodically. Another early observation was that the moving the line back, would be a hit to the mid-majors that rely more on shooters than players going inside.

The overall consensus in the media and most fans, though, has been overwhelmingly positive. Myself included. It shouldn’t be a shot where teams average over 33%. It should be a much tougher shot, and taken less frequently. Mike DeCourcy gives a good breakdown of what is hoped to be accomplished with it.

Empirical: Of every 10 shots taken in the 2006-07 season, 3.4 were launched from 3-point range, up from about 1.5 of every 10 in 1986-87, the first year of the 3-pointer. Over the past 11 seasons, 3-point accuracy improved from 34.1 percent to 35.0 percent.

Anecdotal: “You’ve got bad shooters taking it — you’ve also got bad shooters making it,” Notre Dame coach Mike Brey says.

Teams that set their perimeter players behind the 3-point line on offense will have to move them back. Teams that try to drop from the perimeter to double-team the ball in the post on defense will have more ground to cover. With less congestion in the key area, it likely will be easier for officials to identify the bumping, clutching and grabbing that defenders employ to disrupt offensive flow.

All this is expected to enhance the value of player movement, with and without the basketball. It’s a more beautiful game when the players are in motion.

When the local Pittsburgh college coaches were surveyed on the issue, it seems to reflect the view of major/mid-major biases. Coach Dixon was happy about it.

Pitt’s Jamie Dixon, whose Panthers rank among the nation’s elite programs, takes a different viewpoint than his counterparts at Duquesne and Robert Morris.

“I don’t think it will make too much of a difference,” Dixon said. “It was just a matter of time. We all knew this was coming. When I sent in my survey, I knew it [the line] was getting changed. I thought if they were going to move it, they should take it back to the international line.”

Mike Rice at Robert Morris isn’t a fan of moving it back; and Ron Everhart at Duquesne seems tepid at best. The one thing Dixon and Everhart did agree was that the lane should have been widened as well. Maybe they will take that up later.

There are always unintended consequences of a rule change. Syracuse and teams that play zone, look to be beneficiaries of the move.

One is how the move might encourage more teams to play a zone defense because if a zone is designed to force opponents to shoot 3-pointers, it’s reasonable to think more teams will become favorable of zones considering 3-pointers should now by definition be more difficult to make. Meanwhile, the schools that already predominantly play zone will likely enjoy a larger degree of success.

Advantage: Syracuse.

“Jim Boeheim, right now, is very happy,” UCLA coach Ben Howland told CBS SportsLine.com on Thursday afternoon. “In college basketball, you don’t have the same skill level as you do in the NBA, so you’re going to see a lot more zone.”

Things could really come together for the ‘Cuse in ’08 when you factor in that their ’07 recruiting class is huge in terms of ranking (top-5) and numbers (6 new players). They have a year to learn the zone and get comfortable with each other before the new rule. I’m just making note of that now.

DeCourcy also identified the type of players that will benefit from the move after next season: “The Bomber (Chris Lofton, Tennessee); Mid-range shooters (Jerel McNeal, Marquette); Aggressive wing players (Chris Douglas-Roberts, Memphis); Point guards who can run the fast break (Darren Collison, UCLA); and the Strong low-post players (Darrell Arthur, Kansas).

In the final group he includes DeJuan Blair as a player that will be dominating in the low-post, and will benefit from the change.