Thanks for that. Can you offer a comparison of our practices to those of other teams?
And, re: "situational game scenarios" — how much of that is actually targeted toward what the other team expects to bring? How much are we actually practicing to take away from or exploit a designated opponent? It's gotta be more than just film-related talk, right?
Two questions there, so let me focus on the one about practice first. Qualitatively they are a little different. For example, I've watched [locally] Tubby Smith U of M practices, and they play like how they practice--emphasizing full court defensive pressure. They do practice offense, but Tubby's philosophy is that defense creates scoring opportunities, so that's what they practice.
Similarly, Izzo's practices emphasize rebounding / toughness a LOT more--no surprise there, because that's their core identity.
I caught a few practices for Cornell when I was an undergrad there back in the day, and surprisingly they spent a lot more time scrimmaging than SU does. Go figure.
But in general, a lot of the ancillary drills, etc. are the same or pretty similar, with minor variation on the theme.
Second question, about how much is targeted on what the opponent brings, exploiting weaknesses, etc. Here's my take, and I'm not saying that it is the right one. Before I moved away from Syracuse back in 1999, I probably attended more SU practices than anyone on the board--and I'm not saying that makes me an expert, just stating what I believe to be fact. I used to do tons of pre-season and in-season practice reports for previous iterations of the board--don't know if you were around for those days, given how many times we've changed venues and how often handles change as a function of that movement. But in any case, my perspective on SU practices is that they DO emphasize specific game prep based upon the upcoming opponent. But there are some flaws, as well. For one thing, it is hard to simulate things that you don't do well. We aren't a great pressing team, so it is hard to duplicate that in practice. We don't have big, physical goons, so it is tough to emulate how Pitt plays even if you devote practice time to it. Amazingly, we don't spend a ton of time practicing against a zone [insert joke here about how we've executed against zones this season].
I'm sure that the above is going to draw the ire of some folks here, but it is important to keep in mind that we're usually a pretty damn good team, and that a solid coach like JB knows better than to change how you play / get away from what you do best just to avoid an opponent's strength or try to exploit some perceived weakness they have. Years ago, I remember Bobby Knight saying something like [badly paraphrasing] "we only have one offensive set and one defensive set--we don't care if the opposition knows what we're going to do, and we dare them try to stop us." I think that JB subscribes to that theory to a great extent.
Now, sometimes that works against us, like when we get outtoughed by Pitt seemingly every game. Doing what we do obviously doesn't work in that situation, so why not switch things up or try something different? That's frustrating [putting it mildly] to see happen again and again. But on the other hand, I look forward to seeing what happens when we go to the ACC, where the game is officiated differently. I have a feeling that SU is going to be in a much more beneficial situation than in the BE, where the refs have allowed games to devolve into "legalized" scrums.
This response has been all over the map--not sure if I answered your second question or not. Sorry so long--I'm rambling...
