Sure, but how does that not show up in the defensive numbers? If teams aren't ready for it, then they won't score a lot of points against it. And they don't; we generally rank very well defensively, just not at the super elite level that it seems like we should, considering all the ink we get.
And for sure, last year was a very good example; our defense was off the charts good in the tournament run. But in 2012 you have Wisconsin putting up 63 points in 52 possessions (I know, they made a lot of 3's, so I guess it doesn't count), Ohio State scoring 77 in 69 (right, all the fouls, just saying). I just realized; we've played a ton of big ten teams in the tournament the last few years.
My point is not to knock our defense; we've consistently ranked as a top 20 defense over the last 5 years. I don't know, it just seems to me that the zone has become this mythical thing the last few years (and hey if it works to psyche the other team out before they step on the court, I'm all for it) and gets a disproportionate share of the credit for the success of the team. (Though to be clear; not last year. The defense in the final four run was, like I said already, off the charts good. But even with that; that's not just "the zone"; that's the players executing as well)
There was a post I saw a few days ago that basically said our 2 strengths if we made the East regionals would be the zone and playing in front of a partisan crowd. Like, nothing about one of the best offenses in the country?
Oh Lord This reminds me a lot of a conversation / debate we had a few years ago, where I lamented the Celtics trading away their enforcer, Kendrick Perkins--when they had Miami down in double digits of several playoff games, but couldn't stop Wade / Lebron from going to the hole in the fourth quarter. Your response was: "Well, they're rated the #1 defense, so how much better could they be?"
The answer: even better than they were. Again, the goal isn't to attain a prioritized rating in a list. It is tangible results. I don't know what "super elite" means, but one would have to think that being consistently in the top 20 since things snapped into place with the zone beginning in 2010 is a pretty good indicator of both elite caliber performance and consistency. I'm also a firm believer that the zone yields certain things, takes away others. So the numbers might not always be comparable to other teams.
In this case, I don't think that the numbers tell the comprehensive story. I also think that, while the OP's intent was nothing more than to stir up dopey controversy, he unintentionally makes a minor intelligent point: conference foes will eventually figure the zone out to some extent. That doesn't mean what he was insinuating--that we will start to get run by big, bad ACC teams as soon as they figure out our ostensible "gimmick"--but rather that they'll start to acclimate a little once they see it year in, year out. Doesn't mean that they'll have the talent / gameplanning / coaching needed to exploit it, but they will gain some level of experiential familiarity that will enable some teams [not all, but some] in conference to play us better than the mean.
That said, that experiential "advantage" evaporates for the most part in the NCAA tournament, when we face new teams who aren't familiar with our system / personnel. I think that the hype is attributable to two things: first, we've had an amazing run for three straight years. In 2012, we had only three losses, attained a #1 ranking, and in general an impressive all around year [don't get me started on that OSU debacle]. Last year was a final four team. This year we're 23-0 right now and ranked #1.
Amazing run. And impressive performance begats attention from the sports media which in turn begats narrative about why our team is good. And what makes us different? Viola, the zone.
BTW, I agree about the offensive performance. We're a damn good team... on both sides of the ball.
