The physicality has changed the game

[OCESIP]

The old Big East was rough and tumble, but today's game with bigger/better athletes
is a war. Even the IVY has a physical team on the floor. As much as the zone had it's impact, it
just doesn't fit, other than being a change of pace for a few trips up and down the floor.

It'll be interesting to see how Autry will build his roster to fit his style.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

The old Big East was rough and tumble, but today's game with bigger/better athletes
is a war. Even the IVY has a physical team on the floor. As much as the zone had it's impact, it
just doesn't fit, other than being a change of pace for a few trips up and down the floor.

It'll be interesting to see how Autry will build his roster to fit his style.

What does physicality have to do with the zone?

 

[OCESIP]

What does physicality have to do with the zone?

Nothing. That's why it isn't a fit for today's game.

 

[Cusefan78]

It’s the teams who are able to get upperclassmen and also keep their players for more then a year. Freshmen will never have the size and cohesion of a team who has played together. The sooner the nba gets rid of the mandatory one year the quicker college basketball will improve its product.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Nothing. That's why it isn't a fit for today's game.

I know I'm probably going to regret this but I'll try...

You just posted that today's game is much more physical.

You then post that the zone has no place in today's game.

Ergo, the physicality of today's game has made the zone obsolete.

I don't understand that logic so please explain it to me.

 

[Wrinkle]

I disagree. I think the college game at large and especially the ACC is SOFT. Soft as hell. We need to get back to the old Big East mentality. It's not just physical toughness, it's mindset. There were no soft teams in the old Big East. You would have gotten eaten alive

 

[Newhouser]

It wasn't the intent, but I think the zone protected our bean poles from getting physically dominated playing man.

 

[CardiacCuse]

It’s the teams who are able to get upperclassmen and also keep their players for more then a year. Freshmen will never have the size and cohesion of a team who has played together. The sooner the nba gets rid of the mandatory one year the quicker college basketball will improve its product.

they should just make a pro minor leagues with 4 year norms with the same branding as NCAA so they can keep all the traditions...but ctually keep teams in tact.//

very few players that leave early and get drafted are even ready to be a solid NBA player within 4-5 years anyway.

NBA will be well-served to keep NCAA healthy, imo. but they dont seem to care too much.

 

[upperdeck]

The issue is not zone the issue is bad D.. if man was the answer they when so many teams play all man why do so many get lit up.. Sure the best Ds are tough to score against but so is the best zone..

if man was the answer then NBA teams wouldnt be scoring 150 pts a game.

Shooters make shots. More shooters make more shots.

There is a story today on how in the NBA guys shoot worse in the paint than they do on open 3s. so the best D is limit open 3s. make teams shoot inside 15 ft more often and guard the corners.

to top it off you need to rebound the ball and thats where being physical helps.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The issue is not zone the issue is bad D.. if man was the answer they when so many teams play all man why do so many get lit up.. Sure the best Ds are tough to score against but so is the best zone..

if man was the answer then NBA teams wouldnt be scoring 150 pts a game.

Shooters make shots. More shooters make more shots.

There is a story today on how in the NBA guys shoot worse in the paint than they do on open 3s. so the best D is limit open 3s. make teams shoot inside 15 ft more often and guard the corners.

to top it off you need to rebound the ball and thats where being physical helps.

I would say that in 2023 it’s easier to play good man d than good zone d.

 

[CardiacCuse]

The old Big East was rough and tumble, but today's game with bigger/better athletes
is a war.

It'll be interesting to see how Autry will build his roster to fit his style.

I think the key here is the coach's orientation towards physicality.


Some coaches want their teams as physical as possible ALWAYS towing the line between foul and no foul. As much as possible. I hated when SU would play these kinds of teams: Jamie Dixon at Pitt, Georgetown, Houston etc...

thing is, these teams are so physical all the time that they get away with sooo much. the refs adjust to them and go with it, for the most part. so it becomes a huge advantage for those teams a lot of the time. and it is obvious that their coaches coach them on every little detail when it comes to getting away with as much as possible (hence the disdain)

JB often coached his players to avoid contact at all times. Hold your hands straight in the air dont even go for the block etc...so often times, they get called for ticky tack fouls because the refs adjust to the norm the team sets. and also the team gets out physicaled a lot because of how they orient towards contact and physical play...from the top down.

I hope the defense becomes more physical with a constant handchekcing style a lot of the teams that are successful seem to use.

 

[upperdeck]

I would say that in 2023 it’s easier to play good man d than good zone d.

that may be true.. that doesnt mean its a better D.. I guess the question is which is worse when you play it poorly. But its hard to play man without being physical these days and we lack that as well.

 

[HOFCeluck]

that may be true.. that doesnt mean its a better D.. I guess the question is which is worse when you play it poorly. But its hard to play man without being physical these days and we lack that as well.

If the purpose of a zone is force players to take more thees, and more players today are able to hit threes at a decent clip, then I don’t think zone defense is as good as man all things being equal.

 

[Brooky03]

I know I'm probably going to regret this but I'll try...

You just posted that today's game is much more physical.

You then post that the zone has no place in today's game.

Ergo, the physicality of today's game has made the zone obsolete.

I don't understand that logic so please explain it to me.

Zone, bad. Man, good.

[caveman grunt]

 

[HOFCeluck]

Zone, bad. Man, good.

[caveman grunt]

 

[GooseMutt]

Let’s face it. Three point shooting has drastically increased and has changed the game.

 

[baggerbob]

I think the key here is the coach's orientation towards physicality.


Some coaches want their teams as physical as possible ALWAYS towing the line between foul and no foul. As much as possible. I hated when SU would play these kinds of teams: Jamie Dixon at Pitt, Georgetown, Houston etc...

thing is, these teams are so physical all the time that they get away with sooo much. the refs adjust to them and go with it, for the most part. so it becomes a huge advantage for those teams a lot of the time. and it is obvious that their coaches coach them on every little detail when it comes to getting away with as much as possible (hence the disdain)

JB often coached his players to avoid contact at all times. Hold your hands straight in the air dont even go for the block etc...so often times, they get called for ticky tack fouls because the refs adjust to the norm the team sets. and also the team gets out physicaled a lot because of how they orient towards contact and physical play...from the top down.

I hope the defense becomes more physical with a constant handchekcing style a lot of the teams that are successful seem to use.

DC was never soft, and neither was Rony, those teams got after you. Stevie might have been light but got after you.
The recent teams weren't athletic enough to get after people so the zone was soft.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I can’t wait to not play zone. As much as it won us games over the years in the tournament, it cost us too. Like letting Sorrentine pound the ball for 25 seconds every possession in 05.

 

[Brooky03]

Let’s face it. Three point shooting has drastically increased and has changed the game.

How dare you

 

[Scotch]

Let’s face it. Three point shooting has drastically increased and has changed the game.

But when we had awesome teams we were regularly in the top ten in defensive efficiency against the 3. KenPom wrote articles about it. 2010-2013 we were incredible at it, as well as just being great overall defensively.

I want Red to play man as well but I think there is too much conversation on type of defense rather than the players playing it. The zone’s effectiveness dropped alongside our overall talent level and size over the past 10 years and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

 

[M2MPrinciples]

But when we had awesome teams we were regularly in the top ten in defensive efficiency against the 3. KenPom wrote articles about it. 2010-2013 we were incredible at it, as well as just being great overall defensively.

I want Red to play man as well but I think there is too much conversation on type of defense rather than the players playing it. The zone’s effectiveness dropped alongside our overall talent level and size over the past 10 years and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Yeah, we haven't consistently had success defending the three since 2018, which is when the NBA's increasing reliance on threes began filtering through to the college game. It's very difficult to win at the high-major level without having at least three legit 3PT threats on the floor at any given time, preferably four.

 

[BomberOrange]

DC was never soft, and neither was Rony, those teams got after you. Stevie might have been light but got after you.
The recent teams weren't athletic enough to get after people so the zone was soft.

Agree and we were never NOT physical back in the day. I can’t stand the “recruiting for the zone” kids who are tall/long but are 6’8” 190 bean poles. Give me tough physical NYC street style kids like we used to get when we were relevant.

 

[xc84]

I think the key here is the coach's orientation towards physicality.


Some coaches want their teams as physical as possible ALWAYS towing the line between foul and no foul. As much as possible. I hated when SU would play these kinds of teams: Jamie Dixon at Pitt, Georgetown, Houston etc...

thing is, these teams are so physical all the time that they get away with sooo much. the refs adjust to them and go with it, for the most part. so it becomes a huge advantage for those teams a lot of the time. and it is obvious that their coaches coach them on every little detail when it comes to getting away with as much as possible (hence the disdain)

JB often coached his players to avoid contact at all times. Hold your hands straight in the air dont even go for the block etc...so often times, they get called for ticky tack fouls because the refs adjust to the norm the team sets. and also the team gets out physicaled a lot because of how they orient towards contact and physical play...from the top down.

I hope the defense becomes more physical with a constant handchekcing style a lot of the teams that are successful seem to use.

I think in man, the refs see the defensive players constantly hand-checking and poking guys in the back. They are not going to call fouls every 5 seconds on that though it is illegal. When playing zone, you are not guarding a guy and so when the defensive guy rushes the offensive guy and makes contact, not unlike the guys playing man, it seems out of place in contrast and so they call fouls.

I have no issue with guys being physical. The problem to me is that refs allow hand-checking and poking. Guys are getting mugged and it is called "physical defense." Used to be your coach would tell you to play defense with your feet. Now you can hand-check with impunity. It's lazy defense to me and takes a lot away from the game.

With that said, if the refs are not going to call fouls, play man, hand-check, poke and shove people around.

While I am at it, whatever happened to traveling or the 3 second call? They usually call one or two travels per game just for fun and I can't recall the last 3 second call I saw.

 

[hoopsupstate]

But when we had awesome teams we were regularly in the top ten in defensive efficiency against the 3. KenPom wrote articles about it. 2010-2013 we were incredible at it, as well as just being great overall defensively.

I want Red to play man as well but I think there is too much conversation on type of defense rather than the players playing it. The zone’s effectiveness dropped alongside our overall talent level and size over the past 10 years and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

You’re correct. As the roster sits now, this team is going to struggle playing man. Red may not be able to play pressure man, but a soft man.

 

[RF2044]

But when we had awesome teams we were regularly in the top ten in defensive efficiency against the 3. KenPom wrote articles about it. 2010-2013 we were incredible at it, as well as just being great overall defensively.

I want Red to play man as well but I think there is too much conversation on type of defense rather than the players playing it. The zone’s effectiveness dropped alongside our overall talent level and size over the past 10 years and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Agreed to a large degree. No defense is impregnable, so "zone" vs. "man" isn't the correct issue to focus on.

Need to be able to play at least two defenses effectively. We haven't been able to do that in a LONG time.

But to your point, it is personnel driven. We're so young [outside of Jesse], that it will be interesting to see if the players are able to quickly adapt to other styles.