IMO, college basketball is fairly straightforward

#1
N

NYC Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
305
Likes
4
#1
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games.

Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more.

I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game?

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best.

So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
 
#2
#2
This is why I believe coach Tyndall has been so successful wherever he coaches. Tyndall's style is different from a conventional style of play which gives him an advantage over other teams IMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5
#5
As simple as a Zone sounds it allows you to control any offense a team brings at you (or bring them down to your level), because you may not be the best player on the court but your reach will fill passing lanes in a zone defense, then if you play a match zone it changes the amount of pressure u can place on oppents better outside shooting. The press shortens the amount of time they have to figure out what u are playing on D...this is the reason Syracuse has so much success because who practices against a zone anymore?

Offense they will play a pro style hi pick and roll, what the NBA teams play, just watch the playoffs most teams play this now because you have 4-5 options on every screen that the defense must defend.

Its going to be fun to watch...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
NYC Vol said:
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games.

Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more.

I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game?

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best.

So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
Click to expand...

Good post NYC. Their is only one coach in the land I would trust on a consistent basis to have success with inferior talent. And his name is Bo Ryan.
 
#8
#8
NYC Vol said:
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games.

Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more.

I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game?

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best.

So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
Click to expand...

But not always...you have to think of the smaller teams like VCU that have won some big games in the past. I think a lot of it have to do with how well the players fit into the system the coach is running. Obviously if the coach wants to run fast full court all game, players like Pops don't really fit in (he might be able to do it, but who knows?). I think Coach T might have some success because he brought players in that fits his system (quick guards like Mostella/Punter and tall lean forwards like Carmichael/McGhee).

So in short, it not only depends on talent level (obviously), but also that you have players that can run your system well :thumbsup:
 
#9
#9
I remember Bruce Pearl having "inferior" talent with no true point guard when he came on board at UT. I don't recall all the particulars now, but I remember him coining the term Point Forward utilizing Dane Bradshaw at that position instead of his usual position as point guard. That worked well enough to get us into the Big Dance.
 
#10
#10
Special Ed said:
I remember Bruce Pearl having "inferior" talent with no true point guard when he came on board at UT. I don't recall all the particulars now, but I remember him coining the term Point Forward utilizing Dane Bradshaw at that position instead of his usual position as point guard. That worked well enough to get us into the Big Dance.
Click to expand...

Bruce Pearl had CJ Watson his first year- a PG in the NBA now. Bruce had some issues at PG later on, but Maze and Goins helped. Bruce did wonders at UT, and I hated to see him leave. But, he had some solid talent, even in his early years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#11
#11
NYC Vol said:
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games.

Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more.

I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game?

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best.

So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
Click to expand...

I probably agree with almost everything you stated. But, if you look back, it takes a combination of talented players, good coaching, and players "buying in" and playing hard in the system. Last year, UConn had talent, but they were clearly not the most talented. Napier will probably play in the NBA, but I am not sure they had a first round pick on that team. In the year before, I believe Deng was the only real NBA prospect that contributed on that team (unless Harrell played some minutes). Russ Smith and Peyton Siva were just good college players.

I believe Gordon Heyward was the only NBA prospect off of those Butler teams. They had ok talent but very good coaching. So, you certainly don't have to have the best talent- you just need decent talent.

I would look at it in terms of a sliding scale. If you have great talent, you don't need as much good coaching and vice versa to compete. But very good coaching can overcome a slight talent disparity to make you a contender.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
Defensively we will be dynamic. Offensively if its not a steal or fast break we will have a slow half court game. We will see how that works in the SEC.
 
#13
#13
@VolGee4

Pretty sure Shabazz Napier is considered a first round point guard. Him, Tyler Ennis and Markus Smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
iKrager said:
@VolGee4

Pretty sure Shabazz Napier is considered a first round point guard. Him, Tyler Ennis and Markus Smart.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at it that closely, but it's late in the first round. He certainly isn't a lottery pick in this draft. I think his height causes him problems.

Ok, corrected, UConn had one player that will be a first rounder.
 
#15
#15
VolGee4 said:
I haven't looked at it that closely, but it's late in the first round. He certainly isn't a lottery pick in this draft. I think his height causes him problems.

Ok, corrected, UConn had one player that will be a first rounder.
Click to expand...

DeAndre Daniels may be a lottery pick. He stepped up big time. 6'9 sg/sf.
 
#17
#17
I think that regardless of what system you run in basketball team chemistry is critical for success.
 
#18
#18
k-town_king said:
DeAndre Daniels may be a lottery pick. He stepped up big time. 6'9 sg/sf.
Click to expand...

I considered Daniels, and I haven't seen him close to the first round in the several mocks that I have seen. The point still remains that you don't have to have Kentucky-type talent to win a championship. You have to have talent, but good coaching can overcome the lack of superior talent.
 
#19
#19
ItsAllVols said:
As simple as a Zone sounds it allows you to control any offense a team brings at you (or bring them down to your level), because you may not be the best player on the court but your reach will fill passing lanes in a zone defense, then if you play a match zone it changes the amount of pressure u can place on oppents better outside shooting. The press shortens the amount of time they have to figure out what u are playing on D...this is the reason Syracuse has so much success because who practices against a zone anymore?

Offense they will play a pro style hi pick and roll, what the NBA teams play, just watch the playoffs most teams play this now because you have 4-5 options on every screen that the defense must defend.

Its going to be fun to watch...
Click to expand...

As a youth basketball coach, I like a combination zone/man defense. I usually run a triangle and 2--I use 2 guards playing man to man and the other 3 players playing zone. I use the area between the half court line and free throw line to create havoc causing turn overs usually through traps or poor ball passing.
 
#20
#20
NYC Vol said:
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games. Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more. I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game? I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best. So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
Click to expand...
To say that a team with superior talent can beat a well-coached basketball team most of the time is ill informed to say the least. I am going to make this quite simple to understand. KENTUCKY THIS YEAR! Calipari took a team with the best talent in the country that couldn't tie its shoes in the beginning of the season and dropped out of the top 25. The coach took over and took it to the Final Four.
 
#21
#21
Special Ed said:
I remember Bruce Pearl having "inferior" talent with no true point guard when he came on board at UT. I don't recall all the particulars now, but I remember him coining the term Point Forward utilizing Dane Bradshaw at that position instead of his usual position as point guard. That worked well enough to get us into the Big Dance.
Click to expand...

That may have had more to do with the fact Pearl wouldn't know a PG if he tripped over one.
 
#23
#23
NYC Vol said:
There's a ton of analysis over all these great coaches but it breaks down to a simple concept...the teams with the best talent generally are the teams that win games.

Obviously there are some variables that include experience, coaching, basketball IQ, motivation, how hard guys play and others. But overall the more talented teams, over the course of a season, will tend to win more.

I know, it's nothing earth shattering. But it leads me to my next point. If you're a coach and you know that you don't have the best talent, why play a system that is conventional that relies on your guys to beat a more talented team at the same game?

I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments that explain why a coach would do that but I can't think of any teams long term that are successful with less talent and play a conventional style. Obviously one of the reasons is the more success you have the better players you most likely get. Also, I'm sure someone will mention Butler but they had some very good talent, a great coach and they also played in a league in which their talent was the best.

So I'm curious, if you were a coach with inferior talent would you play a conventional style?
Click to expand...

Alluding to the last coach? I thought we were all content and happy here.
 
#25
#25
SeniorDrill said:
To say that a team with superior talent can beat a well-coached basketball team most of the time is ill informed to say the least. I am going to make this quite simple to understand. KENTUCKY THIS YEAR! Calipari took a team with the best talent in the country that couldn't tie its shoes in the beginning of the season and dropped out of the top 25. The coach took over and took it to the Final Four.
Click to expand...

As I said there are many variables, experience being one of them. And yet even when they dropped out of the top 25, they were still a team that finished 2nd in the SEC.

Someone gave an example of VCU earlier in the thread. Well, VCU was an 11 seed when they went to the Final Four. And they do use an unconventional style.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top