Let me try this again: Are zones good for college basketball?

[Lawrinson14]

I deleted my last thread as people saw it only as an attack on Syracuse's zone.

However, what I meant was are zones as much to blame for the low scoring in college basketball as the lack of shooting ability, uncalled fouls, and the 35 second shot clock?

I am starting to believe that they are and that the game would be much more free flowing if they were outlawed. The stall-ball offensive tactic against 2-3 zones has become adapted by nearly every team outside of the those select few who have the firepower to attack it head on. It has basically become this generations 4 corners.

 

[dasher]

I deleted my last thread as people saw it only as an attack on Syracuse's zone.

However, what I meant was are zones as much to blame for the low scoring in college basketball as the lack of shooting ability, uncalled fouls, and the 35 second shot clock?

I am starting to believe that they are and that the game would be much more free flowing if they were outlawed. The stall-ball offensive tactic against 2-3 zones has become adapted by nearly every team outside of the those select few who have the firepower to attack it head on.

Are you saying that zones aren't good because they hinder scoring? bIsn't that the point. Zones are fine for college basketball. The NBA isn't.

 

[Full_Rebar]

It's not the zone. It's the combination of the shot clock, the 3-pt line, and the continued allowance of physical hands-on defense. Drop the shot clock to 30, move the 3 back to the NBA line, and call hand checks. Scoring will go up because good players will get better shots.

 

[Lawrinson14]

Are you saying that zones aren't good because they hinder scoring? bIsn't that the point. Zones are fine for college basketball. The NBA isn't.

Yes, as someone who can no longer take games with scores in the 40s and 50s...yes.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah, I think if we think zones are bad for college basketball it's an admission that a zone is a superior defensive choice, which would make the man-to-man crowd's head explode.

I'm putting it on shot clock.

 

[Lawrinson14]

Interestingly enough, let's take a look at another team that plays just as much 2-3 zone as we do: Eastern Michigan. They are by no means a power team. They do not get the recruits a Syracuse would get, and hell, they barely went .500 in conference.

Yet look at these numbers:

pts allowed: 61.4 (good enough for 16th in the nation)
pts scored: 65.2 (306th in the nation)

Putting two and two together, it seems like the use of a 2-3 zone defense directly correlates with lower scoring games.

 

[bevosu]

I posted this about a month ago..seems relevant concerning the shot clock..

It's been my impression that although the players are generally more athletic in recent decades, they can't shoot worth a damn. I also think the 3 point shot has screwed the game up.

Here's a snippet from a NY Times article ...January 2013..

Teams were averaging 68 points a game at the start of last week, the same as last season, according to Stats LLC. That is the lowest since the average was 67.6 in 1982, according to the N.C.A.A., and about 10 fewer points a game than the record scoring era of the early 1970s when, interestingly, there was no shot clock. This season’s .433 field-goal percentage is the worst since the .431 in 1965.

Accuracy from beyond the arc is down to .339, the lowest since the 3-pointer came into the college game in 1986-87.

There's more speculating as to why in the article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/s...sketball-missing-a-little-something.html?_r=0

 

[sufandu]

I like zones. I like college because of the contrasting styles. The single biggest problem with the college game is a lack of skill. Nothing done in the college rule book can change this. I watched Michigan run all kinds of clock on certain possessions against Kentucky. They weren't stalling the ball, but they were looking for quality shots and they hit a lot of them. It was really nice to watch. If teams don't want other teams to stall the ball against them they have the option to change defenses to speed them up. The only one to blame for all of the teams stalling against us this year is JB. He could've trapped half court. He could've gone man-to-man. He chose not to. I don't want to see rules changed to make the college game more like the NBA. If I don't like watching the NBA with their superior talent, how much more would I hate it with lesser talent?

 

[Madbiker]

Michigan State 61 - Virginia 59
Uconn 60 - Michigan State 54
Wisconsin 64 - Arizona 63

All these teams play m-2-m defense and the games are still low scoring. It's not zone defense that's causing it.

 

[ROCuse]

Interestingly enough, let's take a look at another team that plays just as much 2-3 zone as we do: Eastern Michigan. They are by no means a power team. They do not get the recruits a Syracuse would get, and hell, they barely went .500 in conference.

Yet look at these numbers:

pts allowed: 61.4 (good enough for 16th in the nation)
pts scored: 65.2 (306th in the nation)

Putting two and two together, it seems like the use of a 2-3 zone defense directly correlates with lower scoring games.

That's two teams out of 350. Baylor plays a lot of zone and averaged 75.2 PPG this season.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We averaged 80 points a game with Andy and Wes in 2010 playing all zone. We didn't have anyone on our team who can shoot like them, and we didn't have anyone on our team who could play the post like Arinze.

 

[skurey]

I do not like that the defense can stand in the lane for as long as they want. This is a large reason for many of the terrible block/charge calls.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

Shooting 0% from 3 in an NCAA game is bad for college Basketball.

 

[Cowtown]

We averaged 80 points a game with Andy and Wes in 2010 playing all zone. We didn't have anyone on our team who can shoot like them, and we didn't have anyone on our team who could play the post like Arinze.

^Somebody gets it.

To respond to the original question, however, I like to see teams that can switch between m2m & zone effectively. Mostly because it keeps you from getting stale on the defensive end. But as a fan, I like seeing how teams adjust - if at all - when their opponent switches up on them. It's more entertaining that way, and I wish more teams did it. And frankly, watching Ryan Boatright suffocate the MSU guards, while effective for UConn, was not fun to watch.

And speaking of Wes and Andy, they knew how to play without the ball, having learned via their years of experience. All too often this season, this is what we looked like off-ball on offense ...

 

[orangefan13]

Why should teams have to go after their attackers on defense? They should be able to protect their territory instead as well. That's part of what makes sports fun. Its kind of like playing zone defense in football or capture the flag.

Look at it the reverse way. Howbout saying is m2m good for college basketball?? Teams should only defend their area instead of defending the attackers. They might make a mistake and lose one of their attackers allowing a easy layup.

To reiterate, its a myth that teams can only take the air out of the ball against zone, but can't do it against m2m.
We do it all the time against m2m and the press late in the game against tenacious defense. Nobody on this board is questioning the shot clock when we are winning and taking the air out of the ball late in games. And Just like our 2-3 zone, m2m doesn't have to guard their man to they get to the three point line.

And how many times have we seen teams pack the paint against us on a bad shooting night, or to rebound. We see 3 opposing defenders on one of our centers in the low post anticipating one of our forwards or guards to drive all the time. And that is technically playing zone.