Basketball women not exactly raining 3's after men's line move

It’s well-documented how the extra foot added to the 3-point line has affected the men’s game — bringing down the national average for made 3-pointers to its lowest since the 1998-99 season at 34.23 percent, according to statsheet.com — but are there any effects on the women’s game as a result?

The easy answer would be no, because the women’s line has stayed in its original place, 19 feet, 9 inches from the basket. However, research by the Daily Iowan suggests the opposite — the women’s 3-point percentage has decreased at almost the same rate as the men’s 3-point percentage.

The 2007-08 season saw the highest 3-point percentage in the men’s game, 35.02 percent, since the national adoption of the line before the 1986-87 season. In the BCS conferences of women’s basketball — the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC — the 3-point percentage has dropped more than 0.6 from last year. The percentage as of Feb. 18 in the major six conferences is 31.94, compared with last year’s 32.58.

“It’s hard, because I never really look down at the line,” said Iowa senior Kristi Smith, who is shooting 42.9 percent from beyond the arc. “If I catch it, I’m open and in range, I’m going to shoot it.”

In an attempt to curb any decrease in 3-point shooting percentage, Iowa head coach Lisa Bluder addressed the problem at the beginning of the season by spending time in practice stepping on the men’s line.

“I was so tired of our women spotting up from behind the men’s 3-point line,” Bluder said. “I actually just made them come out and jump on top of the men’s 3 line so they got used to stepping on that line.

“It’s human nature to not step on the line.”

Despite the initial drill at the beginning of the season, senior Wendy Ausdemore, who is shooting 37.3 percent from downtown, admitted needing constant reminders during practice.

“Coach [Bluder] calls us out in practice all the time and she says, ‘Make it easier on yourself. You’re way behind the men’s line,’ ” Ausdemore said. “But as a player, I guess I don’t really notice when I do it except for if my shots are consistently short. Then, I can look down and tell that I’ve been behind the line.”

Ausdemore estimated that she gets told at least once a practice by Bluder that she is well beyond the men’s line. Despite the reminders, she has endured her lowest 3-point percentage since her freshman year — In 2007-08 she held the third-highest 3-point percentage in the NCAA at 45.6 percent, and in 2006-07 she finished in 14th, connecting on 41.6 percent of her 3-point attempts.

Only the two coastal conferences, the ACC and the Pac-10, have increased their 3-point percentages thus far in comparison with the 2007-08 campaign. Iowa’s Smith, whose 42.4 3-point percentage ranks 17th in the NCAA, has also increased her percentage from last year’s 34.6 percent, and she has reason to believe the new men’s line might actually be beneficial.

“Coach [Bluder] had us stomp on the men’s line because she wanted us to toe up to the women’s line,” Smith said. “It’s always in the back of my mind that I have to toe up and get that much closer.”

Another issue to be taken into account when considering the decrease in 3-point percentage is the varying colors of 3-point lines. In Carver-Hawkeye Arena, the women’s line is black, and the men’s line is white. In contrast, Duke, which Iowa played at Cameron Indoor Stadium on Dec. 4, has a white women’s line and a blue men’s line — Iowa’s shot 27.78 percent from 3-point range in Durham, N.C.; its season average is 36.1 percent.

“What makes it also difficult is in our arena our line is the black line and the men’s line is the white line. But you could go to a different arena, and it could be reversed,” Bluder said. “I think it probably needs to be more uniform at least with the outside line being this color and the inside line one being darker and one being lighter. That could be maybe a national change that would help that situation.”

Seeing Pink

In Iowa's 97-89 triple over-time victory over Penn State on Feb 1, both teams pulled out the pink uniforms in the annual "Pink Zone" game. With its efforts used to bring awareness to breast cancer, the annual game has many more underlying social issues.


The "Pink Zone" breast cancer awareness separates the responsibility from men and women, which leads me to disagree with the issue entirely. Not in the sense that I dislike or even disapprove of the awareness that is created.

Rather, that the issue of breast cancer is solely placed on the shoulder's of women.


With the severity of cancer, particularly breast cancer, and the ever growing concern in the United States and around the world, it is time to make it more of a social concern and less of a genderized problem.According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention, in 2004, 1,815 men were diagnosed with breast cancer. Although significantly lower than the 186,722 women diagnosed in the same year, it is still worth mentioning.


Which brings up the question, why are men's teams not taking more of a stance in the fight against breast cancer?Even if you disregard the fact that men suffer from the disease all together, why do they not take a stance in support of their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives? (photo from notmytribe.com)


With pink stepping in as the unofficial color for breast cancer awareness, it seems more likely that the reason men's teams are not actively participating in the fight against breast cancer is because of the femininity associated with the color pink.Although this does not seem like a viable answer, as men have started to introduce pink into their daily wardrobes – as seen by hundreds of male fans in attendance– it does seem to be the underlying issue.


The only major men's sport that plays an active role in breast cancer awareness is Major League Baseball – whose players use pink bats annually on Mother's Day. If more men's sports created awareness towards breast cancer, the issue of breast cancer would be even more prevalent.Another potential option for men's sports, if they continue to not jump in on the support of breast cancer awareness, is to support their own genderized cause, prostate cancer.
Although an-eye-for-an-eye is not a creed parents teach their kids to live by, it may be one of the few positive options men's sports can grab onto.


Similarly, if women's sports played their part in an attempt to provide awareness towards prostate cancer, the issue of prostate cancer would be more prevalent as well.Cancer is not an individual concern, it is a societal concern. In order to curb the potential effects of cancer, society needs to work together to stop it all together.


The world has come a long way in regards to gender discrimination, so why continue it on the basketball court? No right minded person can say they do not support breast cancer awareness, so why don't the male athletes show theirs