Does playing 100% zone defense help or hurt recruiting?

[orangecuse]

We haven't underperformed on the whole the last 20 years. The two teams that did had an injury and suspension.

The first 20 years you can argue that JB had plenty of early flameouts. Some of that was due to Free Throw shooting.

Why do Arizona and MSU only have one title playing just man to man for 20 years?

Because they lost to better man to man teams.

One can just as easy ask, how many teams in the past 20 years that play zone 100% of time have won a title vs. teams that play man to man? 30 years? 40 years? Obviously, man to man wins in a landslide. If the zone and nothing but the zone was the absolute Holy Grail, then why don't more coaches/teams use it even as their primary defense, let alone their only? JB's patent has been expired for sometime now.

 

[ForeverOrange]

The zone is a great tool. Some, may not remember but there was a time that Temple was known as the "zone" team. Analyst would spend tons of time explaining how difficult it is to play against, and I hated hearing about it. Looking at Temple now without Chaney and that zone, they have almost become non-existent. I wonder how their fans feel about not being known as the zone team anymore? Without that label they have kind of lost what made them stand out among other teams. Luckily for us we had an established brand before the zone, so even though it has kind of become our identity, I think we could break away from it and still be prominent.

Recruiting wise, at this point it has to be hurting us, because if you hear something long enough it rings true. During the draft (which i'm sure a lot of these kids are dreaming some day of being a part of) all you could hear with Lydon was how would he be able to play defense in the league after playing exclusively zone? It may not catch all recruits ears, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe some of our targets are beginning to doubt our ability to get them "nba" ready. Gone are the days of getting elite kids to just be a part of a great program with great fan atmosphere, and great college experience. They want instant path to their desired destination and anything questionable will make them have 2nd thoughts.

 

[CousCuse]

Because they lost to better man to man teams.

One can just as easy ask, how many teams in the past 20 years that play zone 100% of time have won a title vs. teams that play man to man? 30 years? 40 years? Obviously, man to man wins in a landslide. If the zone and nothing but the zone was the absolute Holy Grail, then why don't more coaches/teams use it even as their primary defense, let alone their only? JB's patent has been expired for sometime now.

The teams that won most of the championships cheat on recruiting the most and are largely exempt from from punishment. UNC, the current National Champion should lose all of their wins and championships for running a complete sham curriculum for athletes. Syracuse has undergone 2 full scale investigations and the findings amounted to diddly squat.

 

[OttoMets]

It depends on what one means by "hurt". Does it make it harder to land the top kids? Yeah, for sure. But does it also allow us to have success with kids who might have holes in their m2m defense? Which makes it easier to get successful kids sometimes? Yeah that too. Andy Rautins probably isn't nearly as successful on D somewhere else, but he was a plus defender for us. Same might be true with Southerland and Wes Johnson.

I have no idea if that's true or not, but this post gets an A+ for being thought-provoking. You make a great point.

 

[GooseMutt]

Yeah, hard to say re: your last sentence. I think we can all agree with your point that prioritizing length/wingspan for the zone can only go so far. Seems like Boeheim needs some real ISO talents offensively to overcome the prioritizing of the defense. The offensive scheme is extremely simplistic so without a transcendent type of offensive talent there is only so far the team can go. The staff isn't able to really outscheme anybody, IMO. Some of those elite blue-chippers just won't come here. There are potential other variables. Maybe some want better dorms/locker rooms, a younger coach and more of a father figure, etc. Who knows. This Bazely commitment is exciting though. Hopefully a Carey or similar PG will be joining him in Orange soon.

Years ago the zone was not that big an issue because college ball was college ball and many players stayed 4 years. When the one and done became popular/ the norm, and college players became super focused on getting into the NBA, playing zone became an issue and negative recruiting against it began. I'm not sure what year elites began turning their backs on it.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I don't understand how people argue that exclusively using the zone doesn't hurt recruiting or the basketball program in general. This is how I feel about it... it helps elevate you just above average programs and gives you a decent win total... hence JB's 1,000+ win total.

However, when it comes down to it, there are a number of recruits who completely remove Syracuse from their radar because of the zone. That catches up to you in March or when you're playing powerhouses like the Blue Bloods. I think that not having a chance at those blue chippers hurts us in the end. One title in 40+ years is successful? Sorry, 5 final fours are not titles.

I'm currently immersed in a heated discussion with some Cuse fans about this. These two guys think the zone is overall beneficial to the program. I don't, for the life of me, get it. Help me understand how having a smaller pool of players to choose from makes you a better D1 program.

That one question can have two answers. If the zone helped us win more games than we would have won playing M2M, then our elevated profile because of the wins makes us more attractive. If the zone turned off impact recruits who went elsewhere, then we lost games/rankings/seeding/tourney games by not having those impact recruits.

I'm not sure why most people above are looking at this in purely a 'what does zone do to NBA considerations' perspective. Can't kids just not want to play zone? That's as much of a personal preference as a guard or SF wanting to run and gun, or a post man wanting a half-court, feed the center game. Except it affects ALL of the players, not just positionally. Personally, if i'm a top 20 kid, there's no way i'm going to a zone school. The exceptions are in the same mold as the affinity for 'home teams.' If y0u grew up liking certain player or a certain school for some reason, maybe y0u ignore certain factors.

The other possible negative: If you get kids who expressly want to play zone, maybe that says something about that kid. Sounds like i'm casting aspersions, but really—speaking in generalities, i don't get it. In pickup games, who jumps up and yells, "we'll be skins, and we'll play zone!" If you're in CYO, in high school, AAU, whatever... what kind of player is going to be geeked-up when the coach announces you're playing all zone this year? Not really the kind of player i want. But, again, of course, players can ignore that in favor of other considerations. I'm just sayin'.

Lastly, the claim that we've still gotten 'loaded draft classes' while being exclusively a zone team... That's an assumption that we wouldn't have gotten loaded-er classes by not being exclusively zone. We have 1 NC. Maybe we'd have 2. We used to get higher-ranked kids when we weren't a zone team. Now, we get kids in the 20-75 range. Lots of things have changed in the recruiting environment, and we're no longer kings of the castle/league, but how do we know we're not disqualifying ourselves from the elite?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

My point is this... why can't you quit the 100% zone philosophy and open yourself up to all recruits and spot-use the zone when the situation/game calls for it? Carmelo brought the title home. Without him we'd be talking ZERO titles thanks.

How many recruits are not selecting Syracuse because we play 100% zone? 1? 2? 0? I'd bet the kids that are not picking Syracuse are going to schools they think are better. Duke and Kentucky are historically better programs, not because of the defense they/we play. We've rarely gotten the Top 15 kids man or zone, and we've recruited pretty well since we went 100% zone. We likely didn't lose Nerlens Noel, Anthony Davis, or Dakari Johnson to Kentucky because we play zone. I don't believe we lost Harry Giles to Duke because of our zone. Or Quade Green or Jordan Tucker.

Non-issue.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Hurts, but I don't mind us playing it and recruiting towards it.

HOWEVER, we need to be able to play M2M in spurts and if we're going to play zone 24/7, the team needs to be a good fit for it and pressure needs to be implemented.

A zone that sits back letting opponents dictate pace isn't good for recruiting. Add pressure: full court press at times with a token 3/4 court press to fall back to the zone and I think that becomes more inviting. It's also tactically smart since the opposing team has 5-10 seconds less to probe.

clock starts at the 1/2 court line. Need a rim protector to press.

 

[AlaskaSU]

The zone has helped us win games and become a big time basketball school but in the age of one and dones we cannot afford to lose recruits. Time to be less reliant on the zone.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Recruiting wise, at this point it has to be hurting us, because if you hear something long enough it rings true. During the draft (which i'm sure a lot of these kids are dreaming some day of being a part of) all you could hear with Lydon was how would he be able to play defense in the league after playing exclusively zone? It may not catch all recruits ears, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe some of our targets are beginning to doubt our ability to get them "nba" ready. Gone are the days of getting elite kids to just be a part of a great program with great fan atmosphere, and great college experience. They want instant path to their desired destination and anything questionable will make them have 2nd thoughts.

Look at the Syracuse kids that have been drafted the last 6 years. The 2 Final Four's. That's what Boeheim will answer with. Draft analysts are always going to pick apart a kid, and of course that's the narrative on Syracuse kids. Obviously, it hasn't hurt our kids. Tyler Lydon and Jerami Grant were not even Top 50 kids and left Syracuse after two seasons. Guys like Rak and Malachi and MCW were McDonald's all Americans, but Dion and Ennis were close. McCullough was in the 20's I think. We've recruited pretty well.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The zone has helped us win games and become a big time basketball school but in the age of one and dones we cannot afford to lose recruits. Time to be less reliant on the zone.

Who did we lose because of the zone? Not sure those 1 and doners are helping win titles anyway.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

How many recruits are not selecting Syracuse because we play 100% zone? 1? 2? 0? I'd bet the kids that are not picking Syracuse are going to schools they think are better. Duke and Kentucky are historically better programs, not because of the defense they/we play. We've rarely gotten the Top 15 kids man or zone, and we've recruited pretty well since we went 100% zone. We likely didn't lose Nerlens Noel, Anthony Davis, or Dakari Johnson to Kentucky because we play zone. I don't believe we lost Harry Giles to Duke because of our zone. Or Quade Green or Jordan Tucker.

Non-issue.

Wow. That's crazytalk.
No way to know how many kids we're not getting because of the styles we play, both on offense and defense. Kids select schools on a variety of basis-es (bases??). And zone factors into that, even as an overall impression formed way before they even get a chance to decide where to go. And because our zone is such a huge part of our identity, it's a significant factor. Take us out of the thought process. Think back to when John Cheney was coaching Temple. Every time Temple was mentioned, his zone was mentioned. There is no way that didn't turn off a large number of potential players. Just because we're so familiar with something doesn't mean the same is taken for granted by the outside world. I believe we get dismissed much earlier than when the lists are pared down to a 'last five suitors.'

We've rarely gotten top 15 kids man or zone? I don't know what each of their ratings were, but in my time, we've gotten Pearl, DC1, Billy Owens, John Wallace, and Carmelo, and then add Winfred Walton. Those are the top-rated/best guys i can think of offhand, and they were from the pre-zone-exclusive period. Except Carmelo? When he chose us, what were we playing? The counter to that discussion is that more recently, we're almost always more balanced/deeper, top-to-bottom. But, with less superstar power.

It's silly to suggest that we didn't lose anyone because no kid (except Quinnerly?) has publicly proclaimed disdain for the zone. But, impressions are formed early and our zone is part of that. It's no different from certain types of recruits not being particularly interested in playing at Wisconsin or Virginia, because that kind of ball isn't glamorous. Or, not wanting to play for Bobby Knight (in his prime) because of the kind of coach/person he was. You're never going to be able to say DC didn't go to Indiana because he thought Bob Knight was a , or Tyus Battle never entertained going to Wisconsin because his impression of them is 'a bunch of thick white guys.' Impressions and favorites result from awareness of significant characteristics. Our zone is a significant characteristic.

It's also silly to name six guys and say we didn't get them because of X. Right now, Kentucky and Duke are Harvard and Yale, as far as choosing the elite. But, maybe, if we didn't play all zone, and didn't, for a long period, have the reputation for playing 'slow/walk-it-up' on offense, we would have gotten Noel... Maybe if we had a reputation for playing a more exciting brand of ball over the past ten years, Green or Tucker would have had a slightly better feeling about us over those last ten years—not just at decision time. I don't think decisions are a matter of days, weeks, or months. A kid plays ball for a long time, and watches a lot of games. They form impressions as soon as they start taking the game seriously. All that matters. We've had kids come from Cali because they saw us on Big Mondays, flying around, ooping and dunking... Those are impressions. We just haven't made the right ones for a while. All the zone talk. All the low PPG talk. All the retirement talk. All the Fine talk. All the Bubble/NIT talk. All of that, combined or in isolation, has influence on how well we are considered.

Getting our players to the NBA in the first round is fantastic. But, any kid in the top 25 thinks he's going to the NBA in the first round if he chooses one of about 25 schools. I hope our staff is reinforcing our record with recruits, but i gotta believe, when they go home, it doesn't matter if we have 6 first rounders in a row, versus a school that has had 2 or 3 in those same 6 years.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Who did we lose because of the zone? Not sure those 1 and doners are helping win titles anyway.

What? Our one title came from a 1 and doner.

But, more importantly, your recruiting strategy shouldn't change if you don't win a national championship. Your strategy should be based on what gives you the best chance to win one. And if you have one and doners and are ranked in the top 10, win league tournament games and championships, and then get high NCAA seeds, you have a better chance of winning the national title AND for continuing to get top 10 rankings, win league tournament games, get high NCAA seeds...

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

What? Our one title came from a 1 and doner.

But, more importantly, your recruiting strategy shouldn't change if you don't win a national championship. Your strategy should be based on what gives you the best chance to win one. And if you have one and doners and are ranked in the top 10, win league tournament games and championships, and then get high NCAA seeds, you have a better chance of winning the national title AND for continuing to get top 10 rankings, win league tournament games, get high NCAA seeds...

15 years ago. Look at teams like UNC, Villanova, UConn and Louisville the last 4 years. Did they have any? I know Duke and UK did before that. I don't think there were any in the Final Four last year.

I think playing zone gives us the best chance to win, especially in the NCAAT, especially with the talent we get. We've played in two Final Fours in the last 5 years. Kansas gets lottery level talent and hasn't been to a FF in 6 years.

 

[AlaskaSU]

15 years ago. Look at teams like UNC, Villanova, UConn and Louisville the last 4 years. Did they have any? I know Duke and UK did before that. I don't think there were any in the Final Four last year.

I think playing zone gives us the best chance to win, especially in the NCAAT, especially with the talent we get. We've played in two Final Fours in the last 5 years. Kansas gets lottery level talent and hasn't been to a FF in a long time.

We all agree that the zone helps us win some games. Everyone but you agrees that the zone is hurting our recruiting.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Wow. That's crazytalk.
No way to know how many kids we're not getting because of the styles we play, both on offense and defense.

Or the kids were are losing...we agree So how can you blame the zone? Equally crazy talk.

We've rarely gotten top 15 kids man or zone? I don't know what each of their ratings were, but in my time, we've gotten Pearl, DC1, Billy Owens, John Wallace, and Carmelo, and then add Winfred Walton.

3-4 consensus Top 15 kids. That's my point. Pearl, Coleman, Owens. We've gotten Carmelo, Donte Greene and Paul Harris, which is similar. We've gotten more kids like MCW, Flynn, Devendorf, Coleman, Rak, Paul Harris, Nichols, Donte Greene, Malachi, McCullough, Dion, Ennis...etc...in the 20-30 range. That's our MO. We ain't Duke, Kentucky, UNC or Kansas.

Those are the top-rated/best guys i can think of offhand, and they were from the pre-zone-exclusive period. Except Carmelo? When he chose us, what were we playing?

99.9% zone. We've gotten 9 McDonald's All Americans in the last 15 years. We went 10 years without a single one from 1992 (Wallace) to 2002 (Carmelo).

It's silly to suggest that we didn't lose anyone because no kid (except Quinnerly?) has publicly proclaimed disdain for the zone.

So 1 kid? In 20 years? He wasn't picking Syracuse anyways. Probably UK. We don't recruit everyone, or even the entire nation. We recruit basically the Northeast. So we are no going after the stud from California, or Texas or Mississippi, so we are not recruiting every kid in the Top 25. I think it's absurd to suggest we are losing kids because we play zone all the time.

But, impressions are formed early and our zone is part of that. It's no different from certain types of recruits not being particularly interested in playing at Wisconsin or Virginia, because that kind of ball isn't glamorous. Or, not wanting to play for Bobby Knight (in his prime) because of the kind of coach/person he was. You're never going to be able to say DC didn't go to Indiana because he thought Bob Knight was a , or Tyus Battle never entertained going to Wisconsin because his impression of them is 'a bunch of thick white guys.' Impressions and favorites result from awareness of significant characteristics. Our zone is a significant characteristic.

What abou the kids that's come here because of the zone? I don't believe kids are picking Syracuse or not picking Syracuse because of our defense. There's a lot more to it than simply defense. Our zone is a significant POSITIVE characteristic. It's our staple. It helps us win. Who told you it was a negative thing? I just don't but that elite kids are not coming here because that's what we play. The top 1o kids aren't coming here anyway.

It's also silly to name six guys and say we didn't get them because of X.

It's equally silly to deem the 100% zone as the reason we lost them. I listed those kids because they selected blue bloods and it probably didnt matter what defense we played. We were also finalists for almost all of them, which means our zone was likely a non-factor.

Getting our players to the NBA in the first round is fantastic. But, any kid in the top 25 thinks he's going to the NBA in the first round if he chooses one of about 25 schools. I hope our staff is reinforcing our record with recruits, but i gotta believe, when they go home, it doesn't matter if we have 6 first rounders in a row, versus a school that has had 2 or 3 in those same 6 years.

Well, Lydon and Grant were nowhere near Top 25 and both are in the NBA after 2 years at Syracuse. That's a testament to our program.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

We all agree that the zone helps us win some games. Everyone but you agrees that the zone is hurting our recruiting.

I mean, that's ok. The 6 straight first round NBA draft picks also disagree. ;-)

By the way, where's your proof that it's the zone that is hurting recruiting? Jim Boehiem said he thinks instability within the program and the NCAA investigation was the main issue.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Because they lost to better man to man teams.

One can just as easy ask, how many teams in the past 20 years that play zone 100% of time have won a title vs. teams that play man to man? 30 years? 40 years? Obviously, man to man wins in a landslide. If the zone and nothing but the zone was the absolute Holy Grail, then why don't more coaches/teams use it even as their primary defense, let alone their only? JB's patent has been expired for sometime now.

Or you could ask how many teams have have played in 2 FF's in the last 5 years? Syracuse, Wisconsin, UK? 3 teams? We are the only team that plays zone 100% so you're talking about Syracuse vs. the field for 15 years. It's unlikely we get to either FF without our 100% zone. Look at teams like Kansas and Arizona. When was the last time either of those teams made a Final Four? They both recruit way better than Syracuse does. Maybe they should play zone.

 

[orangecuse]

I mean, that's ok. The 6 straight first round NBA draft picks also disagree. ;-)

By the way, where's your proof that it's the zone that is hurting recruiting? Jim Boehiem said he thinks instability within the program and the NCAA investigation was the main issue.

The off season is certainly fun to debate these things as we long and await for the action to resume. It's difficult to prove that the zone is actually hurting recruiting just as much as your above quote: 'Well, Lydon and Grant were nowhere near Top 25 and both are in the NBA after 2 years at Syracuse. That's a testament to our program.'

Where's the proof there to support that our program is what made Lydon and Grant drafted? Lydon hit the scene his frosh year and many thought he should've gone after that. Maybe, Lydon making it to the NBA had everything to do about Tyler vs. Syracuse? Grant too. Grant had immediate family play in the NBA, whom were very solid players at that, so it wasn't outside of the realm that Jeremy may follow suit, no?

It's great to argue that our program is the reason the aforementioned (as well as others) is the proximate cause of getting to the NBA, but it's also probable that they would've found their way there had they landed at other schools. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The off season is certainly fun to debate these things as we long and await for the action to resume. It's difficult to prove that the zone is actually hurting recruiting just as much as your above quote: 'Well, Lydon and Grant were nowhere near Top 25 and both are in the NBA after 2 years at Syracuse. That's a testament to our program.'

Where's the proof there to support that our program is what made Lydon and Grant drafted? Lydon hit the scene his frosh year and many thought he should've gone after that. Maybe, Lydon making it to the NBA had everything to do about Tyler vs. Syracuse? Grant too. Grant had immediate family play in the NBA, whom were very solid players at that, so it wasn't outside of the realm that Jeremy may follow suit, no?

It's great to argue that our program is the reason the aforementioned (as well as others) is the proximate cause of getting to the NBA, but it's also probable that they would've found their way there had they landed at other schools. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.

Hard to prove anything other than the fact that one was was ranked in the 60's and the other #77 and both are in the NBA after two years. So your argument is Syracuse didn't help either player get there? The coaches thought them nothing? Neither developed? Hmmm...find that one hard to believe. Who says it's probable at another school? Indiana maybe? ;-)

6 straight drafts is no accident. We are either recruiting well, developing players or both. We are not getting Top 10 kids.

 

[orangecuse]

Or you could ask how many teams have have played in 2 FF's in the last 5 years? Syracuse, Wisconsin, UK? 3 teams? We are the only team that plays zone 100% so you're talking about Syracuse vs. the field for 15 years. It's unlikely we get to either FF without our 100% zone. Look at teams like Kansas and Arizona. When was the last time either of those teams made a Final Four? They both recruit way better than Syracuse does. Maybe they should play zone.

When you can provide me with the proof to support that statement, let me know.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

When you can provide me with the proof to support that statement, let me know.

Don't need to prove it. We know it happened with 100% zone. Can you prove we would have even made the NCAA tournament playing man to man? Nope.

And I feel safe in saying, given the offensive limitations of both teams, and the fact that our zone was amazingly effective, there's 0 chance we make the FF with with either team playing man.

 

[orangecuse]

Hard to prove anything other than the fact that one was was ranked in the 60's and the other #77 and both are in the NBA after two years. So your argument is Syracuse didn't help either player get there? The coaches thought them nothing? Neither developed? Hmmm...find that one hard to believe. Who says it's probable at another school? Indiana maybe? ;-)

I think you need to go back and reread (comprehension) my post. I never said Syracuse didn't help either player or that the coaches "taught" them nothing. I said that it probably wasn't the proximate cause...a contributing factor, sure.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I think you need to go back and reread (comprehension) my post. I never said Syracuse didn't help either player or that the coaches "taught" them nothing. I said that it probably wasn't the proximate cause...a contributing factor, sure.

How is it probable then? Because one had a dad in the NBA? What if neither developed at other schools? It's not easy to make the NBA is it?

 

[orangecuse]

Don't need to prove it. We know it happened with 100% zone. Can you prove we would have even made the NCAA tournament playing man to man? Nope.

And I feel safe in saying, given the offensive limitations of both teams, and the fact that our zone was amazingly effective, there's 0 chance we make the FF with with either team playing man.

I'm not the one making that argument. You are the one implying that had we not been playing 100% zone, we don't make it to the final four, etc. Maybe we don't, but you do not know with certainty that we don't get there if we played man, in any capacity. It's pure speculation on your behalf.