Hate to say it, but it might be the way to stop having 4 guys umbrella the 3 point line. It's ugly, but it's worked for Cuse thus far.Zone is for cowards.
Not sexy, but better results than the tough man that UVA and UCINN play
Hate to say it, but it might be the way to stop having 4 guys umbrella the 3 point line. It's ugly, but it's worked for Cuse thus far.Zone is for cowards.
The NCAA should seriously choose a professional league or organization (NBA or FIBA) and just adopt their rules.
Games evolve...
Defenses evolve to stop an offense and offenses change to overcome defenses.
I like watching the natural progressions over my lifetime...in football, Oklahoma's unstoppable option until defenses evolved...then the Texas Veer, then the passing game, now the spread, POR.
Basketball has changed from the Bob Cousy, white boys in tight pants, days...we have had the "big guy" inside teams of Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabar and his sky hook inside, of Shaquille, and others...and teams with the athletic high flyers like Jordan.
And defenses evolve...sag on the big man...and offenses evolve...throw out to the open shooter....
Solve the 2-3...that's the name of the game.
Did you see us camp in the 2-3 this year? Worked out great. Not as easy as it looks. I enjoy watching Syracuse play it’s zone.
Larrier's mid-range game from the elbows of the key was made to beat the 2-3 zone.
If he suited up for the Spartans yesterday, bet he would have had a monster triple double ....22 pts, 10 assist, 12 turnovers and of course 3 rebounds
Teams have a personality...
Some teams emphasize defense...hope to win with their D.
Others are all about offense...Defense is not sexy to watch, in football, soccer, or basketball.
But watching a well coached, quick shifting defense is, to me, as interesting as watching a team flying back and forth up and down court.
.
and...Oh, how we decried the change to add a three point line to the tourney in 1987...it would change the game to a gunner's ball.
Worked? Great?
If anything it showed it as a defense of last resort. That Boeheim recruits to just get by with it is akin to his aversion to playing road games.
there was a little cat and mouse going on with this yesterday. Izzo's adjustment at halftime was to get it to the high post, and they had some success with it. Then Boeheim adjusted the angles and spacing at the top and took it away.If teams could use the high post more effectively it wouldnt be such an aspect. The main problem teams have is getting it in to the high post. Teams just need to adjust and make fast passes to get it to the 4 on the high post.
Could not disagree more in regards to the zone. You have to execute to beat it; the zone itself is not "ruining" CBB, it's the total lack of execution and skill level beyond dunking that is being exposed. Good teams absolutely shred a zone. In our heyday, we would crush Cuse by running high-low stuff, having a threat at the foul line, or overloading. It's not rocket science. But if the entire game plan is to screen the top and try to penetrate to kick to a mediocre shooter then you are going to lose.
And whoever compared the zone to our shotblocking past, it's more or less the same. Whatever rim-protector we had at the time usually camped out and played a one-man zone. Part of our philosophy was to play super tight perimeter D to funnel to the shotblocker.
It's like MLB considering "banning" the shift. Beat it, show you'll take the ball the other way and are not just a pull hitter going for the downs every at-bat and the shift will be a thing of the past.
Larrier's mid-range game from the elbows of the key was made to beat the 2-3 zone.
If he suited up for the Spartans yesterday, bet he would have had a monster triple double ....22 pts, 10 assist, 12 turnovers and of course 3 rebounds
+1000
The reason a 2-3 zone works at all is because too much offense is a wing making 5 jab step fakes before either launching a contested 3 or doing a heads down drive into the teeth of the defense. That won't work against a 2-3.
In addition to your list, I would add quick ball reversals. There are a lot of ways to beat a zone.
Absolutely... Ball movement is paramount. My dad used to coach me and used a drill where we were not allowed to dribble against the zone. Ball movement, player movement, open shots. It was pretty effective when I was 11.
You could use HS plays to beat the cuse zone considering how much they concede the FT line.
but you need someone who is willing to execute out there.
Why Izzo didn't make Bridges his 4 and play with 3 guards out there to attack that way, rather than the hot potato guy he left there most of the game, is simply baffling.
I am cautious about any change that devalues defense and makes the college game more like NBA play.
You need both the right player and the player to have mental ability or whatever you want to call it to handle it; the task of catching the ball in the middle of a zone and turning to make a play is a very foreign feeling for most basketball players. Most have no experience with it. A lot of guys rush or aren't capable of making good decisions. Not to mention the "openness" a player perceives closes up really fast against a team with Cuse's length.
I would enjoy FIBAs rules but not the NBA's. I hate what the NBA has become, too many rule changes the last twenty years for the sake of entertainment. Made it too much of a guard's game.
I don't care about how it makes the game look. My sense is that these kids should have one set of rules that matches where they'll play later. FIBA would make a lot of sense. Once you're 18, you can shoot from distance enough that you shouldn't need a separate 3-pt line. I'd also bring the shot clock to FIBA standards as well. etc etc.What mystical defense was MSU playing to make Cuse shoot 35% and 12% from three. That D should be made illegal too.