A seven-year debate between water polo purists and others interested in adding excitement to the game has come to an end. The NCAA Men's Water Polo Committee repealed the two-point shot, which was unique to the men's collegiate game, in April.

As this year's season began, the purists rejoiced at the return to fundamentals in the game and heralded the Olympic game, which never included the two-point shot. But advocates of the rescinded rule are pointing to stagnant offenses and sagging defenses and remembering seven seasons of winning and losing by the double-edged sword that was the two-point shot.

The squabble over the two-point shot did not begin with the NCAA. The Federation Internationale de Natation Amateur (FINA), water polo's international governing body, was considering a change to enhance scoring and attract spectator interest in the sport.

"The committee thought FINA would see this rules change and follow the example," said Kaia Hedlund,

former chair of the men's water polo committee. "FINA didn't follow, and women's water polo didn't follow. We were left with NCAA college water polo playing a different game than anywhere else in the world."

Immediate impact

The rule debuted in 1993, and the debate ensued.

"It sounded interesting," said Tom Elson, head coach at the University of California, Davis, and current chair of the committee. "I didn't think it was necessary, but I wanted to be open-minded about it. At the time, I didn't really think we needed to tinker with it. I thought we had a good game."

The game changed along with the rule. For example, Todd Hosmer of the University of the Pacific (California) hit four two-point goals in three games during the 1993 NCAA championship.

"As far as what is better for the game of water polo, maybe the one-point shot is better," said Joe O'Brien, coach at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "I liked the two-point shot. I thought it was like having a super hero out there -- you didn't know for sure what was going to happen next."

Scoring didn't necessarily increase during the seven years the two-point shot was used, but offensive and defensive play was altered.

"I think the two-point shot really opened up the middle, making the game more of a spectator sport," said Todd Clapper, Brown University coach. "The ball would go into the two-meter area more often, and teams weren't able to play a zone defense as effectively."

Clapper compared the change to playing defense against a dominant center in basketball. Without the threat to hit the outside shot, the defense can sag into the middle to cover the marquee player more effectively.

"If you put a player in front of the center in basketball the whole game, he never gets the ball," Clapper said. "It isn't exciting to watch, and he isn't getting opportunities to score."

Emphasis on outside shot

Since a shot outside the seven-meter area would not have been prudent before the rules change, proponents of the shot are quick to point out that outside shooting has improved on the national level.

"I think the two-point shot has helped our shooting tremendously across the country," O'Brien said. "I think it is a lot like when the three-point shot was added in basketball. The NBA used to be full of 10- or 15-foot shots and layups. When the three-pointer was added, there was a place for the smaller guys who couldn't play amongst the trees but could nail a shot from 30 feet out. Maybe I am not remembering things the same way as others, but when I played 20 years ago, we couldn't shoot like these kids shoot today. I think that has been a national improvement."

Just as the emphasis on outside shooting has changed the skill set of today's collegiate water polo player, the two-point shot changed the defensive know-how of student-athletes.

"All of our international players are from the collegiate game, and they have been playing with the two-point shot for years," said Jovan Vavic, men's water polo coach at the University of Southern California. "It has made a difference. They have good skills, but they haven't been coached or played as much with the drop defense. They haven't been taught as much about shot blocking. They don't know the five-on-six defense as well. I think it is a setback for them."

Guy Baker, United States Olympic team coach and coach at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he doesn't believe that the international playing rules and the NCAA rules have to be the same, but he noted how the difference in defensive strategy affected the national team.

"Our five-on-six defense was more different with the two-point shot than without it," he said. "When a team is a man down, it is similar to a power play in hockey and a lot of two-point shots were scored. It would take a while (for the international players) to adapt to a different five-on-six defense. It was a factor, but it wasn't a big factor."

The change in defensive strategy and shooting accuracy are side effects to the two-point shot, though. The main source of contention was that the difference between a shot within or outside the seven-meter line resulted in a 100 percent difference in the score.

"I've been on both sides of the wins and losses by the two-point shot," Baker said. "I thought the ratio of scoring was too significant. I don't know what it created and what it didn't because we don't have as many statistics available as other sports, but it changed the way we played at the end of the game. It gave too much of an advantage to the team that was trying to catch up."

Alternate proposals

Baker pointed out that a team likely will get the ball 30 times during the course of a game, and it is highly unlikely that a team will score 10 times in a game. With the two-point shot, it is unlikely that a dominating team could ever put the game out of reach.

"My team won a national championship because of the two-point shot in 1998," Vavic said. "We were down a goal at the end of the game. We hit a two-point shot and we won. It was exciting, but I don't think it is best for our game."

Proponents of the two-point shot have suggested changing the scoring system to be similar to basketball's 3:2 point ratio. Teams would be awarded two points for all goals within seven meters and three points for goals outside seven meters.

"We talked about that as a committee," Hedlund said. "It is kind of an insane idea, like making a goal in soccer worth three points. It would just complicate the rules more to be playing 3:2 scoring like basketball and have the rest of the world playing with only a one-point shot."

A downfall with the two-point shot that would persist if it were to become a three-point shot is the difficulty of determining the player's position at the time of release. It isn't as easy as a line on the floor in basketball.

"I thought it put a burden on the officials to monitor the position of players more closely in the pool and created some questionable calls because there would be a feeling that a player was inside the line or outside when the shot was taken," Elson said.

For now, the two-point and the three-point ideas are long shots for adoption. The purists have their game back right now.

"Why do people watch WWF?" O'Brien said. "They watch it because it is exciting and crazy. The two-point shot brought that to our game in some ways. No game was ever over until the final buzzer. Now, if a team has a three-point lead with three minutes to go, it is pretty much over. It is a three-possession game."

Perhaps the debate is a long shot to end after all.