Tennessee Talk for February 27, 2008

During the Revolutionary War, British General William Howe initially dominated George Washington and the rag-tag rebels. Historians believe Howe enjoyed these victories a little too much and too long, allowing Washington to get his bearings and figure out how to successfully win the war.

After rising to #1 in the polls this week, I wish we had had a little longer to enjoy it and Saturday night's victory. Instead, we walked into The Battle of Trenton and got ambushed.

#1 - Fun, But Done

Yesterday, I convinced myself that the Vols would play well and defeat the Vanderbilt Commodores. From the opening tip, I did not really believe it. There were so many things working against the Vols, it felt like an insurmountable task. First, there was the letdown factor after the much-hyped game against Memphis. There was the fatigue factor after playing such a physical, intense game on Saturday night. There was Memorial Coliseum, a weird, wild environment that is so tough on opposing teams. There was the revenge factor after the first Vanderbilt meeting. There was the fact that Vanderbilt is a really good team.

In the end, the Vols lost by 3 in a game it should have won. I am disappointed, but only mildly so.

It is funny how statistics can prove your eyes wrong. I expected to write about how poor free-throw shooting killed the Vols, but the reality is that Tennessee was just under 70% from the line.

Another fallacy is that the officiating killed Tennessee. I didn't think it was terrible, but a little shaky at times. The numbers show that team fouls were pretty much even. If Vanderbilt had lost the game, I imagine Commodore fans would be shouting about Ogilvy's foul trouble (What did he do to earn his 3rd? That is called "posting up.").

The biggest factor was Tennessee's terrible shooting - 32% from the field. Give Vanderbilt credit - they defended Tennessee well throughout. Lofton had tough looks, JaJuan never got going, they kept Prince out of the lane and challenged everything inside.

They also took care of the ball. Eight turnovers means Tennessee was not running the other way with numbers for easy lay-ups. If you have to score with your offense every trip down, your shooting percentage will be lower.

Tyler Smith was a beast despite his flu problems and Chris Lofton was fantastic as usual. The rest of the guys...

Tennessee is getting nothing from the point guard position right now. Ramar Smith makes bad decisions with the ball and is not a threat to shoot from outside of five feet. Jordan Howell is not a threat to drive the ball and his shooting looks terrible right now. Luckily, Tennessee's offense does not rely too much on the point guard position, but the lack of efficiency there is concerning.

Wayne Chism continues to improve, but Duke Crews still looks slow and sluggish. He missed a few chippies inside (he was not the only one) and got pushed around by the Vandy bigs. Ryan Childress offers nothing right now off the bench. In a game where Vanderbilt was harassing the perimeter and its best post-player was saddled with fouls, there was an opportunity for Tennessee's posts to play big. They did not.

Other observations:

*Anyone know why the Vanderbilt crowd consistently booed Jordan Howell? Or was that the Tennessee crowd?

I'm not ready to give up on Howell yet, but he needs to play better. He was bad against Memphis and a liability last night. The most glaring example was when Tennessee tried to hold the ball for the final shot of the 1st half. Howell's job was to dribble down the clock, but he panicked with the ball and drove into a dribble handoff with Lofton next to the sideline. A quick Vanderbilt trap meant Tennessee had to burn a timeout - a timeout that would have been nice to have after the Vandy freshmen missed two free throws at the end.

If your senior point guard cannot handle the ball for 20 seconds in that situation, there is a problem. Furthermore, what does it say about Ramar's play that Howell is getting so many minutes?

*Basketball is a tough game to officiate, but there were far too many, "What was that?" calls last night on both sides.

*Am I the only one who thought UT looked softer and whinier than the private school 'Dores? There was a lot of crying going on from guys like Chism, JaJuan and Prince.

*The announcers did a great job of emphasizing just how tough it is for visiting coaches at Vanderbilt. It is a totally unique and different set-up that causes lots of problems. I love it.

*The announcers, however, won't escape without some scolding. Chris Lofton is one-dimensional? The guy is one of our best on-ball defenders, rebounds well from the guard spot and has a weird knack for finishing inside. "Hot" press got old too.

*Anybody see Kevin Stallings' post-game interview? He is impossible not to like. He talked for a good minute about how difficult the game was for Tennessee and yet they almost won. That guy had every right to pound his chest about beating a rival team and he did not.

I heard this once - no idea if it is true. After Kevin O'Neill bolted Knoxville, Kevin Stallings was a candidate to be the next UT head coach. The story I heard is that Stallings' wife was upstairs while the coach met with Tennessee officials about taking the job. She heard a conversation in one of the rooms between a Tennessee official and some other coach, the gist of which was, "We are about to offer the job to Stallings, but are you sure you don't want it?" Stallings' wife told her husband what happened and Tennessee ended up with Jerry Green.

No idea if that is true or not.

Candace Parker Turning Pro

This is not a shocker. She red-shirted with an injury, so she will have her degree by the time she leaves. I love Parker and her contributions to the Lady Vols, but it bothers me that she will be including in senior ceremonies. She is not a senior. If she wants to turn pro early, fine, but something about being treated the same way as a senior bothers me. I'm not sure it is a rational annoyance, but it is one nonetheless.

Fulmer Responds to Criticism

Coach Fulmer decided to respond to this column in The Knoxville News-Sentinel with this retort.

Fulmer is correct in many regards, though I don't think Adams' article is terribly off-base either. It is embarrassing to see so many current and former Vols in trouble. I wish Fulmer would acknowledge that while also holding up the Vols who have done great things after football.

Does it do any good for Fulmer to publicly engage this debate? Does anyone take a reactionary journalist seriously when he calls for the coach's head after a few off-season arrests? I wish Fulmer had stayed above this debate.

Good ole Rocky Top
Rocky Top, Tennessee

Scenic City Mailbag

You would be surprised at just how much (pretend) mail I get. (Fake) People want to know how I feel about a variety of (made-up) topics. I get (no) emails, faxes and letters in the mail asking for insights into all things sports and beyond.

Because of this (self-delusional) demand, I will (when nothing else is interesting me) occasionally answer these (phony) letters from my (3 people) sizable fanbase.

Let’s open up the mailbag:

Abraham in Springfield, IL (via telegraph): The Vols won a great battle, a civil war if you will, on Saturday night. Can the Vols continue their dominance of the state of Tennessee tonight against Vanderbilt?

I would be a fool at this point to ever bet against Coach Pearl and his ability to motivate the boys. The Vols give Vanderbilt all kinds of match-up problems. They can run five different post-defenders at Ogilvy down low. Their depth will give Vanderbilt fits at the end of the halves. The press caused big problems in the first match-up.

The Vols also have several things to address after the Memphis win. Ramar needs to limit his turnovers. Lofton has to be itching to get going offensively again. Tyler is emerging as an all-SEC player right now. I expect Tennessee to play very well tonight.

Bill in Little Rock, AR: What were your thoughts on the Bruce Pearl/Erin Andrews encounter Saturday night? Seemed fine to me.

For the most part, I had no problem with it because I think Pearl would have done the same thing to Dick Vitale or Bill Rafferty. However, you probably should not do the same things to Erin Andrews that you would Dick Vitale.

Here is a simple rule in life for all men: keep your hands off all women who are not your family. It might seem like a good idea and might even be innocent when you put your hands on another woman, but it always comes across as creepy.

Remember when Clay Aiken put his hand over Kelly Ripa's mouth? Innocent enough, but she did not like it. Now, if Ripa had put her hand over Aiken's mouth it would have been no problem. If Erin Andrews had demonstrated defense on Pearl, it would not have bothered the boisterous coach. Whether it is a double-standard or not, it is a simple reality that guys ought to keep their hands to themselves.

I think the "Father of Two Daughters" in me is coming out right now.

Jimmy in Atlanta, GA: Coach, how are you feeling about my Braves this season?

Not good. I cannot get excited about signing Glavine even if though the Braves desperately needed starting pitching. I no longer have any hope of seeing Mike Hampton pitch again either. That means the Braves are basically the same team that could not capitalize after the Texiera deal and the collapse of the Mets.

How are the Braves going to compete with the Mets or Phillies? The Mets were better than the Braves before they added Johan Santana. The Phillies, even with Lidge's injury, have better pitching and an All-Star infield. For the Braves to make the playoffs, they must have a better year than at least one of these two teams which does not even factor in other Wild Card contenders like Milwaukee, St. Louis and the entire N.L. West.

As much as I love the young talent on the team, I think this will be a .500 year.

Richard in California: Love the blog. Now that Sampson is out at Indiana, what is your take on the entire situation? Don't you feel sorry for the players?

You have to feel sorry for them. If I were D.J. White or Eric Gordon, I would not understand how this could happen.

"Phone calls? We lost our coach over phone calls?"

The Indiana players seem to love Sampson and are rightfully upset about his dismissal. I think they have handled the situation beautifully so far. After initial anger, they loaded up and won at Northwestern. They paid tribute to their coach with his initials on their sneakers, but played hard for the university that ran him off.

There was an ESPN.com piece this week encouraging Indiana to sit out the post-season this year because of Sampson's dealings. I whole-heartedly disagree with that idea. If Indiana wants to punish itself in this manner, do it to next year's team. This team has already been punished enough for something its coach did off the court. These kids have done nothing wrong, so punishing them even more is cruel and unjust.

If Indiana wants to do more than just dismiss Sampson, it could start with the dismissal of the A.D. that hired the known cheat in the first place. That would make much more sense than punishing the players.

As for the next coach, there is no way it will be Bob Knight. No way. If I were the Hoosier A.D., I would definitely make a play for Bruce Pearl. If Pearl won't leave Tennessee, I would expect an Indiana guy like Steve Alford, Lawrence Frank or Randy Wittman to be in the mix.

George in Crawford, TX: Who you like in Texas and Ohio next Tuesday? Those are two of my most favoritest places.

I'm going with McCain on the Republican side. Call it a hunch.

For the Democrats, I think Obama wins both fairly easily. At this point, Hillary needs a substantial anti-Obama vote to win and I just don't see that happening. I think Democrats are satisfied that Obama can 1) win in November and 2) be a good president. If that holds true, more people will come out to end the fight than will come out to prolong it.

There was an excellent editorial from my one-time golfing partner Eugene Robinson about how the media is going easy on Hillary right now. She has lost 11 straight primaries, is trailing in national polls, is losing the $ battle and, yet, there are very few calls for her to concede the race. If the reverse was true, would there be calls for Obama to give it up already?

As for Ralph Nader joining the race, I don't think it will matter at all. Nader screwed things up for the Democrats in 2000, but had little/no impact in 2004. If Obama gets the nomination, I cannot see any sort of protest vote for Ralph. At this point, it saddens me to see such a good man ruining his legacy with repeated runs for the White House. He used to be an irritant to big business and corporations; now he is just an irritant.

That makes a small dent in the ol' mailbag, but it is a start. Vols/Dores tonight - I'll have Tennessee Talk up in the morning with thoughts on the game.

Reading Too Much Into a Loss - The Memphis Tiger Dilemma

The dilemma facing John Calipari and the Memphis Tigers right now is how to deal with Saturday's loss at home to the Tennessee Vols. It was a devastating loss for the Tigers. Perfect season - gone. #1 ranking - gone. Best team in state - gone.

What now? Does Memphis reevaluate its offensive system after being exposed as a team that cannot shoot the basketball? Does it make line-up changes after getting so little from Robert Dozier? Does it shift its defensive focus to something more conservative in the hopes of keeping Joey Dorsey out of foul trouble?

Or does Memphis look at this game and say, "We barely lost to a great team...it happens"?

It is far too easy to be fat and happy after victories and Chicken Little after defeats. From the Tennessee end, it would be easy to bask in Saturday's victory rather than address the sloppy turnovers throughout, the inability to get into their press (which they did try a few times), the poor shooting from key perimeter players like Chris Lofton and Jordan Howell and the continued inability to convert free throws.

From the Memphis end, it would be easy to forget that the Tigers led the game in the final minutes. Based on the post-game commentary, the Tigers were thoroughly exposed on Saturday. They cannot shoot. Their offense does not work down the stretch of close games. They were out-hustled and out-coached.

I heard ESPN's Doug Gottlieb question the Memphis offensive philosophy (which used to be called the Drive & Kick, now it is the Dribble Drive Motion) because it did not work in the game's final possessions. Sounds pretty good until you watch the game's final possessions. With Memphis down one point, the Tigers used the DDM to get a 3 footer from post-man Robert Dozier. He missed the shot, got his own rebound but wrestled teammate Joey Dorsey for it and traveled.

According to Gottlieb, the Tigers ought to rethink their offense after Saturday's finish. Really? They got a high percentage look in the paint. They even got the rebound. Is that a philosophy or coaching problem or just a kid missing a shot?

Coach Cal is too good to fall into the Chicken Little trap. He will challenge his guys to be more scrappy after the Vols got to so many 50/50 balls. He will continue to focus on free throws. He might even push Derrick Rose to take more of a scoring role after lighting up the Vols.

He won't panic.

Memphis is good. Really good. Losing one game to a talented rival does not change that.

The #1 Team in the Country - The Tennessee Volunteers

I'm not sure if I can write coherent sentences right now, let alone an entire entry, but here goes:

Tennessee is the #1 team in the country. Not in football. Not in women's basketball. In men's basketball.

Can you see the smile on my face coming through these words?

Forget paragraphs - let's just run through the highlights and thoughts on the game:

* First, what an atmosphere! If John Calipari really thinks this rivalry would be better served to move to Nashville, he is insane. I know he worries about Pearl invading Memphis for talent, but that game tonight had to make some 5 star recruits want to play at FedEx Forum for college. It was electric.

* Memphis came out smoking hot, but early leads are false leads. Nobody is going to shoot that well for 40 minutes. I hated the zone look, but the packed in man-to-man worked.

* Derrick Rose is the real deal. Jordan Howell did a terrific job on him defensively, but that kid kept knocking them down. I don't know why he passed it at the end.

* JaJuan Smith kept us in the game at the beginning and had 10 huge rebounds. I expected both teams to come out tight, but instead they both came out firing.

* Tyler Smith is a stud. As much as I was impressed with J.P. Prince in the second half, it was all about Tyler Smith down the stretch. He might be the most underrated player in the country.

* CDR and Chris Lofton were offensive no-shows, but Lofton made the big free throws down the stretch and Douglas-Roberts did not. Lofton struggles from time to time with taller defenders who don't help off him, but he gives the Vols so much defensively and because he opens the floor for penetration just by standing outside the arch.

* Bruce Pearl and Erin Andrews was uncomfortable.

* Joey Dorsey is a beast, but it is hard for someone as strong as he is to stay out of foul trouble in college basketball. He will be a better professional player than he is a college one.

* J.P. Prince surprised me. He is a Memphis kid who has been terribly inconsistent all year long. He is prone to whining and softness, but he looked possessed tonight. Those were two HUGE free throws down the stretch.

* Bruce Pearl always fouls up 3 points at the end (see my previous entries for my thoughts on the subject). I called it as Rose brought the ball up the floor and, sure enough, it worked. The long rebound scared me, but Lofton was the perfect person to get that board. There was no doubt he was going to make both of those free throws.

Tonight was a special night of college basketball not just for Tennessee, but for the game period. This has been a bit of a downer year as far as regular season games go - there hasn't been anything even close to a game of this hype and play - but these two teams put on a show tonight. There was one possession where all ten players on the floor looked too exhausted to execute anything. Three or four guys went out with injuries and everyone of them came back for more.

For Memphis, they won't have another test like this until the second round of the NCAAs. For Tennessee, they might only enjoy their #1 for two nights. The Vols visit Memorial Coliseum in Nashville on Tuesday night for a game against Vanderbilt, a team the Vols humiliated in Knoxville last month.

Regardless of what happens from tonight forward, this was a historic night for Tennessee basketball. A wonderful, historic night.

All-Time Mocs

The starting five for the Mocs' 25th Anniversary team were announced today as:

Gerald Wilkins
Willie White
Brandon Born
Tim Brooks
Lance Fulse

The last two are different from my own list. I cannot believe Johnny Taylor was left off the list (he was the top honorable mention). I thought Brooks might make it and I have fond memories of Lance Fulse (remember those free throws to beat Marshall and take UTC dancing?), but Taylor led the Mocs to the Sweet Sixteen. How is he off the list?

I'm sticking with my starting five of Wilkins, White, Born, Taylor and Nelson. My second-team is Fulse, Brooks, Derrick Kirce, Chad Copeland and Mindaugus Katelynas. I'll round out my roster with T.O., Bart Redden (I loved that guy as a kid) and Bennie Green, who famously punched an ETSU female cheerleader after a loss.

The Great B-Ball Debates (Part 5) - Q & A

To wrap up our week of basketball debates, I'm going to drive-thru some of the dangling questions and controversies of the game. Without further adieu, let's hoop it up:

Rules Questions

Change the lane to the international trapezoid?

Yes and no. The international lane, for those who don't know, has the exact same free throw line but juts out to move the post blocks away from the basket. The advantage of this lane is that it moves the post players away from the basket to open up cutting and driving lanes. It also discourages back-to-the-basket basketball because it is difficult to post up so far from the rim. I love this because cutting and driving basketball is exciting while post-up basketball tends to be slow and dull.

I hate it for one reason - it looks stupid. Maybe I could get used to it, but it is not as aesthetically pleasing to me as the current version.

Move back the 3-point line?

Yes. The NCAA will do this next year and it is long overdue. Trust me on this - scoring will increase once the line is pushed back. The NBA learned this about ten years ago when it moved the line closer to the basket. It led to poor shooters attempting the shot and less room for the offense to work. Next year, the college game will see an increase in scoring because only good shooters will try the deeper 3's instead of everyone doing it. It will also force the defense to move out away from the basket another foot which means more room for driving, cutting and getting open. That means more scoring and more excitement. This is a great idea.

Increase fouls allowed before disqualification?

Yes. I actually like Jeff Van Gundy's idea of not disqualifying anyone (no other sport does it), but that seems unlikely to happen. The college and high school games should at least go to six fouls before disqualification. We see it far too often - great games ruined by foul trouble. Remember the Roy Hibbert vs. Greg Oden match-up from last year? Both guys were forced to sit with foul trouble.

If one more foul was allowed, the best players would be on the floor more often. It would also allow referees to properly call the game as there would be less fury about someone picking up a foul.

There is no way that it would lead to more fouling. Why would it? Fouling loses you basketball games, it does not win them. I just don't know what the argument against doing this would be.

Enforce the traveling/palming/carrying rules more closely?

No. I'm a purist in many ways, but I like the game to have some flow instead of being a whistle-a-thon. As a high school coach, I see Rule Happy Referees all the time. They care more about enforcing some stupid rule than simply officiating the game. The NBA does it right - let the game flow. Phil Jackson wrote about the "spirit of the rule" that so many referees fail to understand. Unless the violation gives the player an advantage, let it slide.

Flopping - a technical foul?

Yes! The flopping must stop. It ruins the game. If technical fouls can be issued for illegal defense (in the NBA) or leaving the coach's box, they can be assessed for pretending to get fouled. If a player is in position and run over, it is a foul. If a player falls before contact is even made, it is a technical foul.

Here is the easiest way to justify this: it is dangerous. With offensive players off their feet and concentrating on scoring the basketball, there is something dangerous and dirty about a defender sliding underneath to draw a charge. The offensive player is unprotected and comes crashing to the floor because of this defensive action. Before someone else gets hurt this way, change the rules to eliminate it.

Free Throw Assignments - old way or new way?

This year, the college men have been pushed up the block one spot. The idea was to eliminated the pushing under the boards on free throws.

It has failed. Instead of the inside defensive man pushing backwards, the offensive player is now pushing harder to get closer to the goal. I wish the NCAA would return to the old way unless it wants to change the rule to not allow anyone into the lane until the ball hits the rim. I don't like that rule much either, but it makes more sense to put the defender on the second block in that situation because that is where most free throw rebounds fall.

Strategy Questions

Foul Trouble - Sit Them or Play Them?

Tough one. On the one hand, you want to make sure you have your best players down the stretch to win the game. On the other hand, you might not be in a position to win if you are not playing your best players. Referees will sometimes decide a player is fouling all the time and quickly whistle him, but other times referees seem to realize that someone is in danger of fouling out and give him some slack.

I usually sit guys with foul trouble so I have everyone at the end of the game. It also depends on the player - is he smart enough to avoid a dumb foul or is he likely to clobber someone without realizing he will be disqualified? You must know your personnel, but I usually play it safe here.

End of Game - Call timeout or Play On?

You are up one point with 10 seconds left. Your defense breaks down and now you trail by one. QUICK! Do you call a timeout or have your guys attack right away?

I like to attack. You must have your team prepared to do so or they are likely to be so deflated by losing the lead that they will not know what to do (remember how Syracuse let four seconds run off the clock after Keith Smart's game-winner?). If you are prepared to do it, you can catch the opposing defense in transition or even patting itself on the back to get a good look. Calling a timeout means the defense will be set and prepared to take away your best option.

This strategy does not apply to the NBA because you can move the ball to halfcourt with a timeout. It makes no sense to waste clock dribbling it up.

End of Game - Set play or isolation?

Isolation. I know it is irritating to watch a team rely on a one-on-one situation to win a game at the end, but there is a reason it happens so often. First, you want your best player to take the shot. If you can put the ball into his hands, you do it. If the game is tied, you want to make sure you don't give the ball back to the other team (either you win or you go to overtime), so timing a set play is not ideal. Finally, a foul is most likely to be called on the ball than away from it, so the chance of getting to the line is best when the ball is isolated in one spot. A set play that involves screening and cutting can be blown up by physical defense, which is usually allowed at the end of the game, but referees will usually not allow a dribbler to be bullied even in this situation.

Opponent is on a run - timeout or play through it?

Play through it. John Wooden and Phil Jackson advocate letting their teams play through these runs while most other coaches are willing to burn a timeout to fix things or just stop the momentum. While I have used momentum timeouts, I would rather play through the spurt and save them. Timeouts are important, especially in high school when the clock does not stop on made baskets. In the NBA, timeouts allow the ball to be moved to halfcourt at the end of the game. They are highly underrated. If your team knows you are not going to bail them out with a momentum timeout, they will learn to play through the adversity.

On a meaningless side note, I have fond memories of calling these momentum timeouts as a 4th grader when I played little league basketball. Even as an 9-year old swingman, I understood when my team needed to collect itself and fix a few things defensively. You can imagine the look on my coach's face when I decided he needed to take a timeout.

Rebounding - block out or go get the ball?

Block out. I lost this debate at my previous school with my head coach. We did not work on blocking out at all, but instead focused on going up to get the ball. I hated it. I think there is time to find a man to seal out before going to get the ball. If I have a seven footer on my team, I might let him slide on boxing out because it is not as necessary. Otherwise, put your butt on somebody.

With that, we wrap up our week-long basketball debates. Let the discussions begin...

The Great B-Ball Debate - Whose Game Is This?

We have explored several of the great basketball debates over the course of the week, most dealing with in-game strategy. Today's debate is an off-the-floor one - whether or not the influx of foreign-born players is good or bad for the game of basketball.

Basketball is an American game. It was invented by American James Naismith in America. The greatest players - Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - are all Americans. With the exception of the Toronto Raptors, the NBA resides exclusively in America.

On the other hand, basketball has become a worldwide passion. It is played across the globe. The Olympic Games have clearly shown that America no longer has a monopoly on the sport. Even the NBA is littered with foreign players. Look at this potential roster of foreign-born NBA players:

Starting five - Steve Nash, Manu Ginobli, Dirk Nowitski, Pau Gasol & Yao Ming
Bench - Andrei Kirilenko, Nene, Tony Parker, Andrew Bogut, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Leonardo Barbosa, Boris Diaw

(Tim Duncan was born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, so I'm leaving him off).

At this point, about 10-12% of the NBA is foreign-born. The invasion is here, but is it good for the game?

America's Game

1) American crowds want to watch American players

Sad, but true. Americans want to cheer for fellow Americans with last names they know - the Johnsons, Smiths and Joneses of the world. Ilgauskas? Ginobli? No matter how good these guys might be, there will always be a stronger appeal for local boys. The NBA is a business that depends upon advertising, television ratings and game attendance. If the fans do not care about the players on the court, they don't watch or attend the games. That is bad news for David Stern and bad news for the sport.

2) Foreign players take American jobs

The NBA is outsourcing its jobs to cheap foreign labor! Maybe not cheap, but it is foreign. For every Tony Parker, there is a Darius Washington Jr. out of a job. The NBA has always been a way out for kids from the wrong side of the tracks, but those opportunities are more and more limited by the influx of foreign players.

3) Foreign players are flopping, whining, soft, annoying players

I lived in Memphis, TN for three years where I heard the same complaint over and over again about the Grizzlies' superstar Pau Gasol:

"He is too soft."

Then I moved to Houston, TX for three years where I heard the same complaint over and over again about the Rockets' superstar Yao Ming:

"He is too soft."

That seems to be a common sentiment about most foreign-born players. Not only are they considered soft, they tend to be whiners (Ginobli, Dirk), floppers (Ginobli, Anderson Verajao) and annoying (Ginobli).

Okay, maybe I just don't like Manu Ginobli.

In all seriousness, one of the reasons soccer has never appealed to Americans is because of the flopping and crying. Americans like football players. We like ultimate fighters. We want real men doing battle, not actors. We like the guy who takes it strong to the paint more than the guy who drives looking for a foul. We like the shot-blocker, not the charge-taker. We like the elbower, not the elbowee.

David Stern has actually spoken about this prevailing problem. He would like to address the excessive flopping and whining (the league actually did crack down on the latter a couple of years ago) because it makes for a less enjoyable game.

World's Game

1) Better players = better basketball

Like most fans, I like good basketball. I watched some last night between the Lakers and Suns. It was fast, athletic and exciting. Guys were making shots and making plays. Guys like Steve Nash (Canada), Leonardo Barbosa (Brazil), Pau Gasol (Spain), Boris Diaw (France) and Sasha Vujacic (Slovenia).

See my point?

The NBA hurt itself with expansion in the 1990s, but now that foreign players are coming to America in droves things are starting to change. The game is getting back to the high-scoring, exciting basketball of the 1980s because there is real talent on the floor.

2) Foreign players bring fundamental basketball back to America

Instead of watching 20-year old kids who lack fundamentals, a jump shot and any understanding of the game run up and down the floor simply because they are athletic, I get polished, outstanding players putting on a real show for me. Look at the scoring in the NBA these days; it is not just because teams like Phoenix and Golden State are running. Those teams would have no success if they did not have the personnel to make the baskets. Today, offense is coming back to the NBA because foreign players actually know how to shoot the ball.

3) Foreign players will save college basketball

We have seen several foreign born players have great college careers (Bogut, Nash, Eduardo Najera) and some are having them right now (Vanderbilt's Andrew Ogilvy being my favorite), but that is not what I mean here. Foreign players are forcing American kids to play better basketball. Instead of drafting raw American kids, NBA teams can choose a polished foreign veteran. This means that these raw American kids will be more likely to spend 2-3 seasons in college actually learning how to play.

College basketball has greatly benefited, on the floor at least, from the NBA draft age rule. Kids like Kevin Durant, Greg Oden and Michael Beasley would never have played a possession of college basketball without that rule. The influx of foreign players will have a similar effect. As foreign players continue to take draft positions away from college players, we will see more kids staying longer in college because there is not an NBA option waiting for them anymore. The college game will get better as more juniors and seniors make up rosters, more top-notch talent is on the floor and the occasional foreign-born player makes a collegiate impact.

Verdict?

I'm no xenophobe - bring 'em over. I like good basketball, no matter who is playing it. The argument that America kids are out of jobs is unconvincing. We are a capitalist country, after all, so why limit competition. You want the job? Get better. Learn how to shoot and learn how to play the game.

As far as wanting to pull for American kids, I love Yao Ming, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitski. I just don't buy the idea that those guys are not as likable as the Iversons, Bryants and LeBrons of the league. I do, however, hope the NBA will address the soccer mentality that some of the foreign players bring, especially when it comes to the dramatics and flopping.

Tomorrow - A plethora of basketball questions with a surplus of basketball answers.

Greatest Mocs of All-Time

UTC is celebrating 25 years in MacKenzie Arena this year. This Saturday is the final home game of the season for the Mocs and the university will announce its 25th Anniversary Team during halftime of the game.

Here at the Scenic City Sportsblog, we can't wait for Saturday evening. We have our own list of the greatest Mocs.

I know what you are thinking: what do you know about the Mocs?

Even though they have not been a topic of the SCSB very often, the Mocs and I go way back. Some of my favorite childhood memories are sitting with my friends Dylan and Ruston for games at the Roundhouse. I remember the night Lavert Threats beat a ranked ETSU team with two clutch free throws. I remember heckling teams in the consolation game of the Dr. Pepper Classic. I remember Dylan's dad George always making us leave early to avoid traffic.

That last one is silly, but I think about it because George left the Southern Conference tournament game when Keith Nelson made the dramatic shot to beat Western Carolina early and only knew the Mocs had won by the explosion from the arena behind him.

Back to the team - there are three easy picks and the rest took some time and thought. The three gimmes are:

Gerald Wilkins
Willie White
Johnny Taylor

Wilkins and White were before my time, but I heard the tales. Of course, Wilkins went on to a terrific NBA career after his UTC days. Taylor was the horse that took the Mocs to the Sweet Sixteen in 1997. He was a 1st-round pick of the Orlando Magic, but never panned out in the NBA and is currently playing in Belgium.

The last two all-time Mocs for me are:

Keith Nelson
Brandon Born

Nelson was a force inside that took the Mocs to the dance in the early 1990s. He is remembered by Mocs fans for the aforementioned game-winner that came when the Mocs trailed the Catamounts with the ball under their own basket. A baseball pass and short jumper later, the Mocs were celebrating an improbable victory.

Brandon Born was a pure shooter. I remember several nights when Born shot the opposition out of the gym. He was tall enough to be a post-player, but only weighed about 155 lbs and had to shoot from the perimeter to be effective. As his career in Chattanooga progressed, so did his abilities behind the arc.

Born barely made my cut about other standouts like Tim Brooks and Derrick Kirce. Of course, the coach of the Mocs is Mack McCarthy who led UTC to its improbable Sweet Sixteen run.

I'll update this on Saturday with the official picks.

Tennessee Talk for February 20th, 2008

We are just days away from the biggest basketball game in Tennessee Vol history this Saturday against the #1 Memphis Tigers. It isn't a tournament game and it isn't for our post-season life or anything, but #1 vs. #2 against one of our biggest basketball rivals? Have we ever had anything like this happen in men's basketball?

I can't fathom that it is actually going to happen. This is so far removed from my wildest basketball dreams that it feels phony. If the Vols win on Saturday, they will be the #1 team in the country.

Are you kidding me?

Vols Better Not Look Ahead

Unless Charles Barkley and Wesley Person are suddenly found to have some eligibility, there is no way the injury-depleted Auburn Tigers will challenge the Vols tonight. Right?

Well, probably right. This is an SEC contest. The Vols have found that even the lowly (LSU, Georgia) show up for conference games. And if there was ever an opportunity to look ahead, this would be it. With Memphis waiting this weekend, the Vols could easily have their focus elsewhere.

Even if Tennessee does not show up in full form tonight, it still ought to handle the War Eagles. Auburn lacks depth and true SEC talent on the floor right now with its injuries, so expect Tennessee to slowly pull away even if the Tigers keep it close for a while.

Drunk Punters

This has been a forgettable off-season for the football Vols and Coach Fulmer. Arrests, incidents and suspensions involving a wide variety of players and even recruits. The cherry on top was Sunday's arrest of punter Britton Colquitt for DUI. Colquitt not only was driving drunk, but also left the scene of an accident after running into a parked car. Colquitt's scholarship was taken by Phil Fulmer and he has been suspended for the first five games of next season. Five is also the number of times Colquitt has been cited for alcohol-related crimes.

Question - why wasn't he just kicked off the team?

To makes matter worse, but also more funny, Colquitt spoke to elementary school graduates of the DARE program about the dangers of alcohol and drugs. The police chief has publicly apologized for allowing Colquitt to give this speech. I guess LaMarcus Coker and Leonard Little were already booked.

There are calls for Fulmer's head based on the last six weeks of off-the-field activities. In all, eight Vols have either been arrested or disciplined for this non-sense. On one hand, I agree that Fulmer is where the proverbial buck stops and he must take some responsibility for the actions of his players. On the other hand, I have serious problems with firing the coach for the decisions guys are making off-campus in the off-season.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Fulmer has always been an "in-house" discipline guy, but these public problems demand a public punishment or he risks being viewed as an enabler of the actions (which he just might be). Here is hoping Fulmer is not becoming Bobby Bowden.

Good Ole Rocky Top
Rocky Top, Tennessee

The Great B-Ball Debate - To Press or Not to Press

Welcome to part three of our series on the greatest basketball debates of the day. We have looked at how to defend the final possession when leading by three points in Part 1 of the series and whether it is best to play man-to-man or zone defense in Part 2. Today we will examine if it is best to use a full-court press or drop back into a set defense.

For our purposes here, we are going to lump all full-court presses into one big category. There are many ways to use them, from denying the ball in-bounds, picking up man-to-man, using a trapping zone or slowing down the game. Rather than focusing on which method to use, this debate will be about whether to use any of the methods as opposed to playing defense exclusively on only one side of the court.

There is plenty of historical evidence to support using either strategy. John Wooden used a 2-2-1 press as part of his amazing UCLA run. Dean Smith loved to use the "Run and Jump" in the backcourt. Rick Pitino built his Kentucky juggernaut on full-court pressure and his protege Billy Donovan has mastered it as well. Nolan Richardson used "40 Minutes of Hell" to win its 1994 championship. John Calipari and Bruce Pearl have their teams ranked #1 and #2, respectively, in part because of their full-court pressure.

On the other hand, Bob Knight won three championships without using much full-court pressure. Billy Gillespie is one of the top defensive minds in the country, and he rarely employs it. Bo Ryan, Ben Howland and Mark Few are all more likely to fall back than press forward.

To press or not to press - let's look at the debate:

Why Press?

1) It leads to easy baskets.

There is no better place to swipe the ball than under your own basket. Backcourt turnovers lead to easy points. The alternative is trying to score against your opponent's set defense all game long - a difficult task. Why not press the attack forward and create open, easy buckets?

2) It wears down the other team.

Fatigue is a factor in basketball. Pressing a team will cause your opponent to wear down, leading to short shots, turnovers and poor defensive transition. There is no rest against a pressing team as every spot on the floor is contested. It wears on you physically and mentally.

3) It leads to runs.

A pressing team is always capable of a quick run to get itself back into a game or to pull away from an opponent. The en vogue word these days is "spurtability" (a Bill Rafferty gem, I think) that can quickly undue an unsuspecting opponent. Tennessee is a great example of this type of team. One minute the Vols are in a tight game, then suddenly they are up twelve points because of their press.

4) It is necessary to comeback from a deficit.

This applies mostly to high school games that do not have a shot clock, but holds true for college as well. Many teams turn to the press when they fall behind. It is not going to be as effective when used this way, so the team that presses throughout the game is at an advantage when it trails vs. a team employing it in emergencies only. Think about a football team that runs the ball all game and then suddenly needs to pass the ball to catch up. It helps to be a passing team in this situation.

5) It is low risk, high reward.

Pressing 80 feet from the basket is a relatively low risk strategy because there is so much floor and time to recover if the offense properly handles the pressure. It is high reward because if the press works, you get an easy lay-up. Why not take a chance in the backcourt by denying the ball in-bounds or looking for a quick trap, then retreating back before the offense can attack?

6) It is fun.

Ask players - they love to press. It is exciting, aggressive and athletic. Players like to steal the ball. They like to trap the ball. They like to dunk the ball. All of these things happen in a full-court press.

Why Not to Press

1) It is toughest to score against a set defense.

Ever wonder why coaches burn timeouts after made baskets? The answer is not so much to stop the clock (it does that anyway in college these days), but to allow its defense to be set and ready for the opposing offense. By retreating after made baskets, the defense gives itself the best chance to be prepared for the offense. No transition buckets. No defender out of position because of a failed trap in the backcourt. Nobody scrambling to find their man or spot in the zone. Get back and get ready.

2) It leads to bad fouls and bad defense.

Why commit fouls 80 feet away from your basket? Why put your team in 4 on 3, 3 on 2 situations when fouls are often committed? Why encourage things like reaching and gambling that get your team into foul trouble and give up easy looks? The advantages of pressing are out-weighed by the compromising positions into which it puts your team.

3) It gives up easy baskets to your opponent.

There is a passage from John Feinstein's classic "A Season on the Brink" in which Bobby Knight asked an Indiana player what the Hoosiers ought to address during that day's practice. The terrified player suggested Indiana's press. Knight, in classic bully Bobby Knight fashion, dismissed the idea by stating that good teams easily overcome full-court pressure.

As a coach, I try to sell my team on this idea. We want the other team to press us because we will beat it and get easy looks. We will get lay-ups or we will get odd man attacks (3 on 2, etc.) that work to our advantage. There is a common thought among coaches that pressing works great against bad teams, but it will kill you against good ones. Why focus on something that works in November, but hurts you in March?

4) It wears you out as much as your opponent.

Denny Crum, another coach who preferred to press, liked the fact that pressing allowed him to play lots of players. Louisville could recruit more talent because he could promise minutes to everyone, it kept the bench happy and practicing hard because they actually got to play and it made depth a factor in the game's outcome.

But what if you don't have much depth? Furthermore, what team can honestly claim it has a bench as good as its starters? Take Tennessee - Bruce Pearl likes to go 9 or 10 deep when he is pressing his opponent. That means benching Chris Lofton. That means benching Tyler Smith. That means benching JaJuan Smith. If I were the opposing coach, I would be more than happy to watch those guys sit down because they are using so much energy with their press.

5) You have to score to press - it only works in certain games.

Too many pressing teams over-rely on their press to generate energy and points. What happens when your opponent locks down defensively to keep you from scoring? The UCLA vs. Memphis Elite Eight game from two years ago is a great example of this problem. The Bruins put the clamps on the Tigers' offense, so Memphis was never able to make on its runs that came with its full-court pressure. The Tigers were stuck in a half-court game and were sent packing because of it.

Verdict?

I think it all depends on the level of play. I have never seen a successful full-court press in the NBA because the players are too good with the ball for it to be worth the risks.

In college, it seems to work well in certain situations. I would definitely use a full-court attack - it helps with recruiting, puts people in the seats and can blow open tight games - but would be wary of relying upon it too much once the conference schedule and March Madness begins.

In high school and middle school basketball, I would (and do) press all game long. It is tough to sell guys on riding the pine at this level (really hard to sell mom and dad on it), so playing 9 or 10 people is a good idea. Pressing helps that happen. Ball-handlers are less skilled at this level and are also pretty small, so trapping is most effective. Finally, it is so hard to run a good offense and knock down contested shots in high school that transition, easy buckets are worth the gamble.

Tomorrow - America's Game or the World's Game?

The Great B-Ball Debate - Man or Zone?

Welcome to part two of our five-part series on the greatest debates in the basketball world today. Today we will dissect the age old defensive debate between playing man-to-man defense or a zone defense.

There are a variety of college programs built upon playing one or the other of these defenses. Bob Knight, to my knowledge, has never played a possession of zone defense in his coaching career. John Calipari, Bruce Pearl, Mike Krzyzewski and Ben Howland are all known for their pressure man-to-man defenses. Jim Boeheim won a national championship with a 2-3 zone and John Beilein has successfully resurrected the 1-3-1 attack. Billy Donovan popularized using a man defense early in the half, then switching to a zone attack when shooters' legs were tired and outside shots fell short.

While choosing a defense is often situational, there is a long-running debate among fans and coaches about which is the most effective defensive strategy. Let's look at the arguments for both sides and then break down which defense is most often the most effective.

Why Play Man-to-Man Defense

1) It puts the greatest pressure on the offense.

With the exclusion of trapping zone defenses, there is no greater, more consistent pressure defense than a tough man-to-man defense. The ball is guarded tightly, the passing lanes are denied and each shot is contested. While there are always holes in a zone attack, it is difficult to get open looks against a good man-to-man defense.

This pressure often leads to turnovers which are the easiest source of points in basketball. The "hot" new term in the game is the "live ball turnover" which means that the ball changes hands in a manner that allows the offense to immediately transition into its offense (a "dead ball turnover" forces the offense to inbound the ball, allowing the defense to get set). Man-to-man teams are often high-scoring teams because they force these turnovers and convert them into easy lay-ups.

2) It allows for specific, favorable match-ups.

When playing a man defense, a coach can isolate his/her best defender on the greatest offensive threat of the other team. In a zone defense, there is no ability to do so because a player is responsible for his/her area on each possession. One way to successfully attack a zone defense is to find the weakest defender and move your best offensive threat to that area of the zone.

3) It is an aggressive defense.

Zone defenses are often derided as passive because there is certain element of "if you do (this), you can beat us." The (this) is usually make outside shots. There is a tired but true cliche of "shooting a team out of a zone" that occurs when a team is hitting its outside looks.

A man defense does not sit back and hope for misses, but instead forces the offense to work for open looks. As one of my old coaches liked to say, "It takes a man to play a man." Sexism aside, the idea that it takes some cahones to play this type of defense instead of a more relaxed, passive zone is a prevalent one in the basketball community.

4) It helps with rebounding.

The first shot usually won't beat you, says another basketball truism, but the second one will. Zone defenses do not have specific block out assignments. This often leads to offensive rebounds when the defense fails to quickly identify the players that need to be sealed away from the boards. In a man defense, the assignment is simple: block out your man. The best rebounding teams in America (Michigan State and the Tennessee Lady Vols come to mind) play man-to-man defense.

Why Play a Zone Defense

1) Zone defenses make it tough to score.

Isn't that what defense is supposed to be? A good, active zone forces the offense to take long, low-percentage shots. There are few easy lay-ups with so many men close to the rim. There is little dribble penetration because everyone is facing the dribbler. It is not easy to score from the block because it is easy to double down from the wing or guard positions. If you look at low-scoring games, there is often a zone defense involved on one side or the other.

2) Zone defenses keep your best players on the floor.

You don't see many fouls called against zone defenses because there is so little guarding of dribble penetration. The most common way to attack a zone defense is by passing the ball and moving the zone. Passing the ball does not lead to fouls; dribbling the ball does. By playing a zone, a coach can shorten his/her bench and use only the top players on the team. Jim Boeheim is notorious for only going 7 deep most of the time because he does not need to go any deeper with his zone defense.

Also, remember that free throws are the easiest points and best possessions in basketball. The team that shoots the most free throws usually wins. Playing a zone defense limits these easy points.

3) Zone defenses can hide poor defenders.

We used to play a zone defense to hide our horribly lazy post-defender. He was a terrific shot-blocker and solid rebounder, but he did not like to leave the basket area. Whenever we played man-to-man, the opposing team would bring his man to the top of the key to get him out of the paint. This strategy neutralized our shot blocker and often caused trouble for our defense if his assignment could shoot the ball or if that man was setting good ball screens.

The solution? We played a 2-3 zone and stuck his butt in the paint. You can also hide a slow defender in a zone because there is so much help readily available as to discourage the offense from attacking him/her off the bounce.

4) Zone defenses offer great variety.

Many coaches like to switch up defenses to confuse the offense. Employing a zone from time to time does just that. In fact, there are a variety of things a coach can do with his/her zone to change things up, including trapping the corners, slumping back to encourage outside shots and tweaking the alignment (a 2-3 can easily become a 1-1-3 or a 1-2-2). Instead of allowing an offense to get comfortable against the same scheme every trip down the floor, a zone causes confusion and forces a team to be prepared for multiple defensive strategies.

5) Zone defenses slow the game.

The Georgia Bulldogs used an effective zone defense against the Tennessee Volunteers last weekend to nearly steal a win. Despite being clearly over-matched by the #2 team in the land, the Dawgs forced the high-octane Vols to make multiple passes to get a good look against their zone. This shortens the game.

You will see many underdogs try to slow down the game and limit the number of possessions by using a zone defense. Think about it like this: if I played Michael Jordan in one-on-one, I might win occasionally if we were playing to two baskets just by getting hot or really lucky. If we were playing to ten baskets, I would never, ever beat him. An underdog team will use this same idea - limit the number of times the opponent has the ball by slowing down the game - to pull off an upset.

Verdict - Man or Zone?

If I came right out and said "Zone is better," I would probably have to turn in my coaching card. I know my coaching mentor would never speak to me again. He still blames me for a loss we suffered 8 years ago when I suggested a zone that we used for three possessions of the entire game. Most coaches are man-to-man coaches who only use zones as a last resort. Someone like Jim Boeheim is respected by many of us for having the guts to so proudly advocate the zone defense, even if we deride him for it at the same time.

At the same time, I have a hard time watching zone defenses work so well and then claiming that man defense is the only way to go. I know that my teams have lost games to a good zones that caught us on the wrong night. It is frustrating to run into a tight zone.

I have become convinced that the very best philosophy is to build your team on man-to-man principles, but to also have a zone ready just in case. I was once a man-to-man martyr who was willing to lose games for the cause of playing man the entire time. No longer. I like to play zone when the ball is being taken out under our own basket. I like to use a trapping zone from time to time. If I see that my guys cannot defend our quicker opponent, we will force them to beat us with jump shots against the zone.

The bottom line is that, as coaches, our jobs are to give our players the best chance to win the ball game. It seems bull-headed and counter-productive to do anything but straddle the fence in this long-running defensive debate.

Tomorrow - To press or not to press, that is the question.

Hard to Play Field Position Like This

Colquitt is in all kinds of trouble...

The Great B-Ball Debate - Foul or Defend The Three?

Welcome to a five-part series looking at the greatest debates in the basketball world today. I'll break down the arguments, toss in some basketball history and throw my own two cents into the equation.

Our first topic is one of the most hotly debated topics in basketball among coaches and fans - whether or not to defend the three-pointer when leading by 3 points at the end of the ball game or prevent the potentially tying shot by fouling the dribbler.

It is amazing how often this particular situation plays out, especially in March when so many games come down to the final possession (this situation can also play out in the NBA, but less often because of the ability to move the ball to half court with a timeout).

In last year's NCAA tournament, Xavier decided to defend Ohio State up three points instead of fouling, gave up a game-tying shot and lost in overtime. In my own coaching career, I ordered a foul on the dribbler with my team up 3 only to watch my instructions carried out while the opposing player heaved up a half-court prayer. Sure enough, the kid was awarded three shots and made them all to send us into overtime. Luckily, we won the game in the second overtime period.

People tend to think that coaches ought to foul in this situation, but fail to do so because of the fear that it might go wrong (see my situation). The strategy of fouling is simply this - instead of trying to defend one shot, force the other team to make a free throw, intentionally miss the second, grab the rebound and put it back into the basket to get the necessary three points.

Let's break down the arguments on both sides of this debate:

Why Defend Instead of Fouling

1) Defenses are made to defend shots, not commit fouls.

While the idea of fouling a dribbler sounds easy enough, there is plenty that can go wrong. If the dribbler should suddenly become a shooter in the moment of the foul, he now gets three shots at the line to tie the game. There is no coach in America who would rather give up three free shots from 15 feet to tie to the game vs. one defended 19.9 footer.

There is also the chance that the fouler might be over-aggressive and commit an intentional foul in this situation. That would mean two free throws as well as the basketball. While it is difficult to imagine a college referee making such a dramatic call, high school referees are notorious for being quick with the intentional call and more than willing to make a big call at the end of the game.
2) Trust your defense.

One stop to win the game - that is what you build a defense to do. If you need to resort to trickery to win in this situation, what does that say about your defense? There is not a team in America who, in this situation, would chose to foul instead of defend.

3) You can only go to overtime in this situation - not lose the game.

Here is the scenario that scares most coaches out of trying this strategy: the first foul shot is made, the second is missed, the rebound is tipped out to a three point shooter who buries the shot to win the game.

It is not a likely scenario, but why open yourself up to that possibility. The only way a four-point possession can occur if the team defends is with a foul on the shooter, something that should never, ever happen to a defense.

Why Foul Instead of Defend

1) It takes multiple things to happen to tie instead of one lucky shot.

Even if a team defends well, there is always the chance of a banked three pointer or answered prayer to send things to overtime. By fouling, at least four things must go right for a tie. The first foul shot must be made (#1), the second must be missed properly - it must hit the rim (#2), the rebound must be secured (#3) and the put-back must go in (#4).

One thing vs. four things - those are easy odds.

2) The foul can work without actually working.

Bruce Pearl uses this strategy at the end of games and got a great break because of it during the Vols' victory over Mississippi State. The Bulldogs were looking for a tying three-pointer down 74-71 and Tennessee was looking to hack the dribbler. Everything went perfectly, except that the referee decided not to call the foul. The Vols were instead able to disrupt the dribbler and force an even worse shot because they were trying to foul instead of defend.

3) Free throw blockouts are the best odds a team can get in basketball.

It is 4 on 3 with one of the three not allowed to rebound until the ball hits the rim. That means it is really 4 on 2 in the paint to avoid giving up the offensive putback. If you cannot win in that situation, you do not deserve to win.

What is the best strategy in this situation?

After hours of breaking down tape, deep meditation and prayers to ever known deity, I am convinced that defending is the best idea in this situation.

For me, it all comes down to this - my job is to put my team in the best position to win the game and not lose it. The only way my team can lose in this situation is to foul the dribbler and potentially give up a four-point possession.

The only time I might change my mind in this scenario would be if my team was depleted for the overtime session. Perhaps I have a few guys disqualified for fouls and expect to lose. I might take my chances on losing in regulation to give myself the best chance of winning in regulation.

The Great B-Ball Debate (Part 2) - Man vs. Zone

UGA-ly, but Vols Win in Athens

The great Athenian philosopher Socrates used to teach his students through questioning. After watching the Vols survive a scare in Athens, Georgia yesterday afternoon, I have some questions of my own:

#1 - Where was the vaunted Tennessee press? Georgia had no depth, its starting point guard was suspended and it worked beautifully the five times the Vols got into it, but for some reason Coach Pearl was hesitant to launch his full court attack. If the Vols came out from the opening tip and pressed the holy heck out of the Dawgs, Tennessee wins this game by thirty points.

#2 - Was Pearl keeping his cards close to his chest because of next Saturday's Memphis game?

#3 - Where was the 3-point shooting? The Vols, other than Chris Lofton in the 2nd half, looked hesitant and without confidence as they launched brick after brick from beyond the arch.

#4 - Where was the Volunteer depth? I have not watched a game all year where the starting five played so many minutes. No Josh Tabb. No Ryan Childress (who was cleared to play). I guess the Vols did not need to sub because they were not pressing and were not in foul trouble, but the deep bench is one of their greatest strengths.

#5 - Where is the consistency? J.P. Prince - we never know what we are going to get out of you. Ramar Smith - you drive into the paint and throw up junk far too often for a team with this many weapons around you. JaJuan Smith - Georgia was sitting in a zone and you could not light it up like you did Arkansas.

#6 - Is Chris Lofton mortal? I don't know.


The Vols always seemed to be in control of the game, even during the last possession when the Dawgs had shots to tie the game. I HATED Pearl's decision to foul Gaines at the end of the game (which is going to be a blog article soon). I was impressed with how many good looks the Vols got against the Bulldogs zone and impressed with Wayne Chism's offense inside. It is yet another win for the Vols even if it raised more questions about this team.

Bruce Pearl to Indiana?

I feel a little dirty right now because, for all I know, I am the one starting this rumor. I have not read it anywhere else yet, possibly because Kelvin Sampson has yet to be fired (though he is clearly a dead man walking in Bloomington), so I am tempted to just keep it to myself.

Then again, what are the chances that Indiana's AD reads the Scenic City Sportsblog?

Why would Indiana go after Coach Pearl?

1) He is one of, if not THE, hottest coach in the country right now with a team poised to make a run at the Final Four.

2) With only three years in Knoxville under his belt, the roots might not be strong enough yet to keep him loyal to the Vols.

3) He is a Big 10 guy (got his start as an assistant at Iowa) - might want to come back.

4) He won his national championship at Southern Indiana - might want to come back.

5) He won his notoriety at Wisconsin-Milwaukee - might want to come back.

6) The University of Illinois hates him. Still.

7) Post-Sampson - Pearl has a clean record with the NCAA.

Why Would Coach Pearl Go To Indiana?

1) It is Indiana basketball.

2) $$$ - Can Tennessee pay Fulmer, Summitt and Pearl the big bucks that Indiana could throw at Pearl and nobody else?

3) Pearl got divorced this summer - would it be easier to start his new life elsewhere?

4) Even though things are great in Knoxville right now, he will lose Chris Lofton, JaJuan Smith and probably Tyler Smith next year. Strike while the iron is hot - this is the year for Pearl to leave if he has thoughts of doing so.

Why Would Coach Pearl Stay at Tennessee?

1) Why go live in Bobby Knight's shadow? He is already close to becoming the most beloved men's basketball coach in Tennessee history.

2) Illinois hates him. Still. Why should he voluntarily (no pun intended) walk into that tornado?

3) Loyalty to Tennessee? The university was the first to hire him despite the suspected blackballing after the Deon Thomas situation. It has been responsive to his requests, specifically renovating Thompson-Boling Arena. Maybe the roots are strong enough to keep him.

4) Tennessee is becoming a basketball state - look at Memphis, Vanderbilt and even Chattanooga is having a strong year. Indiana is the past; Tennessee is the future.

5) How bad is this probation going to be? If Pearl is limited as far as scholarships and post-season possibilities, he is entering a no-win situation.


After working out all the details and weighing all the options, I feel better about this scenario. If Indiana has any brains at all (after hiring Sampson, I have my doubts), they will inquire about Coach Pearl. The job he is doing in Knoxville is one of the most impressive resurrections this side of Lazarus.

I'm afraid we are going to deal with these types of rumors every season with Pearl. Tennessee has not, historically, been a basketball school, so the lure of going to an Indiana, UCLA, Duke, etc. will always be there. I also wonder if Coach Pearl has the type of Roy Williams/Coach K personality that is content with maintaining a strong program or if he is more comfortable building the program.

I do know this - I never lost sleep wondering if Jerry Green or Buzz Peterson might bolt Knoxville for another job. This is a nice problem to have.

Indiana Pays Price for Hiring Known Cheat

I have had the privilege of meeting many of college basketball's greatest coaches over the course of my own coaching career. Tubby Smith was a delightful, honest and classy individual - the same guy you see during games and in interviews. John Calipari was pleasant, hyper and distracted. Lute Olson was friendly, handsome and a bit overweight (not that it matters, but it surprised me).

Meeting Kelvin Sampson was a different experience for me. Sampson was heavily recruiting one of my former players and I was invited by our head coach to sit in on a meeting with Sampson and his assistant coach. I was somewhat starstruck by Sampson who had been to a Final Four and won everywhere he has coached.

I left the meeting wanting a shower.

Kelvin Sampson is a used car salesman who knows how to coach basketball. He had canned answers to questions. He spent ten minutes defending himself against allegations that we were not making about him. His exchanges with his assistant coach were rehearsed and phony.

Sure enough, Sampson was found to have made improper phone calls to recruits and got the University of Oklahoma placed on probation. In the months afterwards, Sampson was punished for his lack of ethics by being hired as the new head basketball coach at Indiana University.

Indiana has always had one of the preeminent basketball programs in the country. Led by Bob Knight, the Hoosiers won three national championships while running a clean program that graduated its players. Heck, the greatest basketball movie of all-time is called Hoosiers.

Indiana should have known better than to hire a known cheater like Kelvin Sampson. It should have been worried, rather than elated, when Sampson unethically recruited Eric Gordon who had already committed to Illinois. Now, it is about to get burned. Big time. The Hoosiers are looking at probation, loss of scholarships and the need to replace Sampson who will likely be fired in the coming weeks.

Indiana University only has itself to blame. When a school hires someone like a Kelvin Sampson, Jim Harrick, Dave Bliss or Jerry Tarkanian, what else do you expect? They are liars. They are cheats. They win, but at what cost?

For Indiana, the cost is not just basketball probation, but an institutional black eye that was earned not from Sampson's phone calls, but from hiring a known cheat in the first place.

Vols Skin Razorbacks

Safe to assume JaJuan Smith is healthy again?

After suffering from a high fever during the LSU game before eventually winning the game with a steal and breakaway lay-up, the Cleveland Kid put up 32 points to help the Tennessee Vols pull away from an over-matched Arkansas squad 93-71.

With Arkansas clearly intent on locking down Chris Lofton, the perimeter opened up for Smith who blistered the Hogs with a barrage of outside shooting. The second half belonged to the Vols after Arkansas seemingly quit after putting up a decent fight in the first half.

The game was an ugly one thanks to whistle-happy officials who called 27(!) fouls in the first half. Once again, the Volunteers' depth paid off as Arkansas could not match the talent of the UT bench when its own starters took to the pine with foul troubles.

Frankly, there is not much to write about this one. The Vols survived an ugly opening half and completely dominated the second one.

T-minus 9 days until Tennessee vs. Memphis...

Tennessee Talk for February 13, 2008

Sorry for my blogging absence, but it has been a hectic week. I was able to fly to Houston last weekend, because I have the most wonderful wife, to watch my old basketball team compete for its league championship. The boys finished 3rd after a thrilling consolation victory over their San Antonio rival. Upon getting back to town, I realized that a week of paternity leave had left me way behind in grading, planning and basically every other occupational area. On top of all that, I haven't watched much sports to have anything to blog upon (missed the LSU scare), so nothing has been itching to get from my fingertips to you.

Enough about my trials and tribulations - let's get to the Tennessee Talk!

Vols Survive LSU

I saw nothing of the game, but did listen to the final minutes on XM Radio (man, that is a fun thing to have. Thanks, Budget). It sounded like we got sucked into a half court game and couldn't make a free throw. The latter has been a problem all year long, but we haven't had too much of a problem with the former.

I know many people were shocked by the close score, but I really wasn't. With John Brady being fired (which was undeserved in my book - Final Four two years ago???), I expected the LSU kids to play hard. That is an awfully big shake-up to expect anything less. It is always tough to win on the road in the SEC (ask Kentucky), so I have also come to expect tight games no matter the opponent whenever we play in someone else's gym.

I feel like Norm MacDonald citing German love for David Hasselhoff, but this game once again proved my theory that Bruce Pearl finds a way to win close games. LSU had the ball with the game tied and the shot clock off and the Vols won in regulation. There is something about this coach and something about this team.

Next game is tonight against a pretty good Arkansas team.

Lady Vols Steal One From Rutgers

That sure was a long .02, wasn't it? The Lady Vols blew a big halftime lead and should have lost to Rutgers on Monday night, but were aided by the clock stopping at .02 which game Rutgers a chance to foul Nicky Anosike. Down 1, Anosike made two clutch free throws to give the Lady Vols the win.

A few things here - I just read that Thompson-Boling Arena, like many places these days, uses a system that stops the clock on the referee's whistle. Each official has some type of device that instantly stops the clock when it detects the sound of it blowing through a tiny microphone place in the actual whistle. What that means is that it might not have been a homer clock operator stopping the clock in order to give the Lady Vols a chance to win, but a game official who anticipated a foul before it actually happened and chirped his/her whistle. Some systems can determine which of the various people stopped the clock, but the Thompson-Boling system is not one of those.

The other aspect of this that a somewhat justifiably whining C. Vivian Stringer ought to acknowledge is that there was no reason for Rutgers defender Kia Vaughn to tackle Anosike when she secured the rebound. Try to block the shot. Block out in the first place. Let it go because the clock is about to expire. Any of these would have been better options than putting two hands on Anosike's shoulders and yanking her backwards. It made the call too easy in a moment of the game when referees usually (not counting the Villanova/Georgetown debacle) try not to call anything. Even though there is a good chance the Scarlet Knights got hosed by the clock malfunction, there was no reason that Anosike should have been fouled.

Letter From Gerald Jones

In case you haven't seen it:

Dear Coach Fulmer, Teammates, Volunteer Fans and Parents:

I am sending this letter to each of you in order to express my sincere regret for embarrassing the University of Tennessee and the football program because of a most unfortunate, well-publicized situation last week. Even more importantly, I have let my parents, coaches, teammates, fans and myself down. Please accept my apology for my lack of judgment. There are no excuses.

I have been abundantly blessed in my life with a wonderful family and the unbelievable opportunity not only to play football, but also to get an education at one of the premier universities in America, the University of Tennessee.

Finally, I want to thank Coach Fulmer for the opportunity he has given me. Please know I have learned a hard life lesson, and I am committed to making sure it never happens again. I accept the responsibilities for my actions and will now move forward.

Respectfully,

Gerald Jones

Why don't more troubled athletes do this? After reading it, I like the guy more than I did before the arrest.

Chavis Flirts With Leaving

John Chavis interviewed with the Atlanta Falcons about becoming their new linebackers coach, but is staying with the Vols. Honestly, I would have been okay with Chavis leaving after the way our defense played this year. It often seems like Chavis's schemes are easy to pick up and that the defense was not always playing hard. I think Chavis knows that he is on the hot seat for next year more than Fulmer and more than Clawson. Another sub-par defensive year and Chavis will be unemployed.

Suns Get Shaq and Adande Steals My Article

I had a terrific article working in my mind last night about how the Shaq-to-Suns trade was like my favorite band signing with a major label (Steve Kerr was the A&R guy calling for a catchy single), but decided to get some sleep instead.

I wake up this morning to find J.A. Adande beat me to the punch, sans the band angle, with this terrific article:

Slow Burn For Suns

I was not sad to see Shawn Marion go, but am devastated at the loss of the Fun & Run Suns. I don't want to watch Shaq wrestle for position on the block while everyone stands around to make space. I don't want to see Nash pull it out because nobody is running with him. I don't want to ever see the Suns violate the shot clock..

Last year during the playoffs, I had just high hopes for the NBA. With the Suns and Golden State Warriors scoring lots of points with a fun style of basketball, I thought the entire league might see the wisdom of playing this type of loose, aggressive offense.

Instead, I got a Spurs/Cavs final and now I've got Shaq clogging up the post.

Thanks, Steve Kerr. Thanks for ruining the fun.

Tennessee Talk for February 6, 2008

My Volunteer excitement is tempered this morning by the loss of 24 lives in our state to tornadoes last night. It is remarkable how quickly things like election primaries and SEC basketball games can be put into perspective when truly important events capture the morning's headlines. Let's keep these friends in our thoughts and prayers.

Clinton vs. Huckabee?

What is this, Arkansas? At least my own Hamilton County came out for Barack Obama. I still haven't sorted out yesterday's results, other than that I'm surprised Clinton won Massachusetts and California, surprised Obama looks like he is getting Missouri and surprised that people are still voting for Mike Huckabee. He really is Mitt's Ralph Nader these days.

By the way, how sad is it that Ralph Nader is now known mostly for being an election spoiler? I watched a PBS special about his wonderful crusades for regular folk like you and me, but he tarnished his place in history forever with his stubborn, destructive runs for president.

Enough politics...back to sports.

Vols Destroy Gators

Bruce Pearl went Steve Spurrier on the Florida Gators last night.

Remember the game in The Swamp when Peyton led the Vols to an early lead, only to get blown out in the second half 62-37? That is what happened to Billy Boy and the young Gators last night. Florida jumped out 16-3 on the Vols, but one of my time-tested coaching quotations held true once again:

"Early leads are false leads."

As an assistant coach, I used to say this to our head coach every time we fell behind early. It became somewhat of a running joke as I would use it when we were playing a team of 6'8 monsters that were going to run us out of the gym regardless of when they took the lead.

Back to Florida's false start, the Gators hit everything they threw up (even a banked three) in the opening moments of the game, but no team can keep that up for 40 minutes. The Vols also started out ice cold, but these guys are not the St. Louis Billikens - they are not going to stay cold for long. Once the Vols settled in, made some shots and improved their pick & roll/sprint defense, the #7 team in the country had its way with the two-time defending National Champions.

Which brings me to this - Bruce Pearl owns Billy Donovan. I love Donovan as a coach and as a man (he was one of the most impressive people our coaching staff met during the recruitment of DeAndre Jordan) and don't expect this to hold true forever, but Pearl is 4-1 against him so far. That is 4-1 against Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Jai Lucas, etc. That is impressive.

I try not to waste my energy on officials (I'll leave that to the messageboard morons), but last night's crew was awful. The Gators were in the double bonus with over 10 minutes left in the second half!

Here is the dirty little secret that every coach in the country knows: referees punish you for playing hard.

The Vols play as hard defensively as anyone in the country - they pressure the ball, they battle in the post, they look for strips, pokes and deflections and they get punished for it. There is a certain sympathy factor that happens when a defender is harassing an offensive player. As the Vols defense started to clamp down on the Gators in the second half, they were bailed out by sympathy calls.

Dribbling out of bounds? Foul on Crews. Unable to get to the basket in the post? Foul on Chism. Can't get around the ball screen? Foul on Williams.

The Vols do foul too much, especially with out of control charging violations and stupid hacks instead of moving in front of the ball. I'm worried that they are getting the reputation of a team that fouls. If referees think the Vols are trying to get away with things like slaps, pushes or shortcuts, they are going to continue to whistle the Vols for nickel-and-dimers. That could be the fatal flaw for these Vols come March when getting to the foul line can be the difference between surviving and going home.

The benefit of playing this way was seen in the glorious final minutes of last night's game. Florida was gassed; Tennessee was not. They ran the Gators out of the gym because the waves of fresh bodies and 40-minute intensity wore them out. There are few teams in the country as deep as Tennessee and few that can withstand their assault.

Bruce Pearl is a modern-day Ulysses S. Grant in this regard. He understands that part of his advantage is man-power. The bad guys can win battles, but he is going to eventually win the war with his constant pressure and superior depth. Last night's color commentator wanted Tennessee to get out of its press all night long, claiming it made Florida better. That was easy analysis whenever Florida beat the pressure for a lay-up, but where was the retraction at the end of the game when Florida could do nothing but raise the white flag?

Remember - Robert E. Lee beat U.S. Grant all through out 1864, but lost his army in the process. Pearl loses a battle or two over the course of the game, but usually takes the other coach's sword when it is all said and done.

A few more random thoughts:

- I'm already starting to have Chris Lofton withdrawal. It hit me last night just how much I'm going to miss watching him next year. I know, I know...there is still over a month left in the season. Maybe I'm just a little emotional these days with a new baby girl in the family, but I got sad thinking about the Vols without Lofton. That guy is freaking unbelievable.

- I know he got up hot, but did J.P. Prince really deserve a technical last night? He got tackled for no reason and came up angry. He was immediately stopped by teammates, did not deliver a punch or push and nothing came of his reaction other than the pathetic image of Teddy Valentine issuing six technicals to Prince (I guess only one counted). It reminded me of the Steve Nash play from last year - rewarding the thug for, well, being a thug.

- I imagine Pearl apologized to Donovan for JuJuan's late three-pointer (man, that guy is stroking it right now), but I hope that instead he said, "You undercut my guys on lay-ups and I don't call off the dogs, got it?"

- Welcome back, Josh Tabb. Keep up the D.

Signing Day

Unless Fulmer pulls off a John McCain comeback, it isn't going to be a pretty day for the Vols. Most of the "recruiting experts" have the Vols' class down at the bottom of the SEC and somewhere in the 40s nationally.

Hmm...what do we make of this?

On the one hand, it is sad because Fulmer has always been a master recruiter. Is he losing his touch? Did the coaching fluctuation cause it? Did the hiring of Dave Clawson fail to inspire? Was it the blowout losses to Cal, Florida and Alabama?

On the other hand, who cares? Have you ever looked at a list of the top prospects from given years? You won't recognize half of them. These "recruiting experts" are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about football and next to nothing about the kids about which they are experts. Having coached a 5 star basketball recruit, I can tell you that I never once saw a representative from Rivals or Scouts Inc. at our games, that their statistics were all inflated and inaccurate, and that they never once talked to our head coach about the player in question. These rankings are often based solely on things like 40-yard dash times (always inflated), physical size and strength (hardly guarantees success, right Tony Mandarich?) and numbers compiled against pathetic high school competition.

Let's look at some of this year's BCS teams - Hawaii, Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas - do you think they built their program on top-rated recruiting classes? It is great to have freakish athletes like Eric Berry, but the Vols also need guys with heart and desire. That does not show up on Rivals.com.

Finally, and maybe this is just a way to spin it, Vols AD Mike Hamilton warned that the Vols were after linemen over specialty positions this year. Linemen will never generate the excitement that quarterbacks and tailbacks garner. In fact, the schools that get the top-rated classes often do so by signing loads of players (many who will never play a down on the field) with a few highly-prized offensive players. That wins your recruiting prizes, but not football games.

Bottom line - the sky is not falling. One bad class does not a program destroy.

Good Ole Rocky Top
Rocky Top, Tennessee

Good Knight and Good Luck

I am a basketball coach today because of Coach Bobby Knight. I became an Indiana Hoosier fan because of Coach Knight. I even became a Texas Tech basketball fan.

I have read multiple books on The General. I have punted basketballs during practice in his honor. I proudly wear a Red Raiders t-shirt these days because of Coach Knight.

Coach Knight knows the hundreds of players he has influenced over his remarkable career - guys like Mike Krzyzewski, Isiah Thomas, Quinn Buckner, Steve Alford, Damon Bailey, Uwe Blab, Calbert Cheaney, Kent Bentson, Randy Wittman, etc. etc. etc.

He does not know me. I saw Coach Knight speak at a coaching clinic last year, but that was as close to The General as I ever got. He never challenged my manhood or called me a "son of a bitch."

All Bobby Knight did for me was make me want to be a coach.

From a purely basketball sense, I wanted to be Bobby Knight. The motion offense thrilled me with its simplicity. There were not set calls or designed plays - just motion. Screen and cut. React to the defense and pass the ball. It favored nobody, but together it was impossible to guard. It worked against a zone or a man defense. It was what James Naismith must have envisioned when he hung the first peach basket.

I learned much about basketball from Steve Carpenter (no relation) at The McCallie School who ran a beautiful version of the motion offense and also studied Coach Knight. We used to score 80 points in high school games with regularity, sometimes even eclipsing 100. It was not complicated - just screens and passes.

By the time I started studying Indiana basketball, it was on the decline. I used to wonder if Knight no longer cared about winning championships, but simply wanted to coach great kids and see if he could still win with inferior players. People forget, however, that Knight put together the Hoosier squad that Mike Davis led to the Final Four. He was primed to make another run for the title if he could have only controlled his behavior.

I love Bobby Knight, but I doubt I would like him. He is a bully. He does not treat people the way he expects to be treated himself. His jokes often seem mean-spirited and condescending. I wish Knight could have found a way to control himself at Indiana so the story could have ended happily. He became one of his idols Woody Hayes when he put his hands on a kid in anger. He couldn't resist chewing out a student on campus whom he felt was disrespectful towards him.

The thing about Knight's behavior was that it almost always originated from an honorable place. I cannot excuse Knight's bullying, but many of his tirades stemmed from expecting better of his players than they expected of themselves. The man had deep core values that drove him to greatness. He was never bothered by criticism from journalists and critics who lacked these values.

As a coach, I wanted these types of values to be the core of my coaching and my program. If writers want to find fault in Coach Knight's arrogance and obnoxious behavior, let them. That won't be the legacy of Knight in my eyes. He will be the man who challenged the way I thought of the game, who inspired me to be a motivating force in young peoples' lives and who made me want to coach.

Vols 2 Bulldogs 0 - Vols Over Mississippi State

They do make things interesting, don't they?

The Tennessee Vols have a way of letting teams off the ropes, but still finishing the fight at the bell. Mississippi State took a standing 8-count with about ten minutes left in Saturday night's SEC showdown, came back with a furious rally of three-pointers, but could not ever catch the Vols as Tennessee got another SEC road victory 76-71 in Starkville.

I pointed it out last week and I'll point it out again - Coach Bruce Pearl's teams know how to finish games. Tonight probably was not the best example (Chism holding the ball to get fouled, the unforced travel call against the Bulldogs), but each time the Vols go into the final minutes in a tight one, they walk away with the W.

With so many weapons, there seems to be a new star every game. Tonight, Jordan Howell, Duke Crews and Josh Tabb stepped up with some big plays, but it was once again the Chris Lofton show. What has gotten into, or should I say back into, this guy? He looks so much hungrier than he did just two weeks ago.

Here are two things to watch with Lofton - he is the best player I can remember at finding the .01 seconds between the help and recovery to get a free look when he comes off a ball screen. Every team makes sure to show help off the screen when he uses it which is usually enough to dissuade mere mortal shooters. Not Lofton. As soon as the big man retreats and just before Lofton's man gets back into his face, he gets that sweet looking jumper away.

The other thing that I have noticed about him is how hard he is coming off screens these days. To me, that is the biggest difference between pre-SEC games Lofton and the current version. He is coming right off the shoulders of the screen, curling in if he needs to or flaring out if he can, but always coming off hard and tight. There is no room for his defender to get over the top and he makes them pay for trailing behind.

Before I get to my minor complaints, did Coach Pearl's kid really get onto the floor tonight before Ryan Childress?

I don't know what to make of Tennessee's inability to finish off opponents. Part of it is UT's style that creates so many possessions. If the game is longer, the early 20 point leads do not mean as much. Pearl cannot put the brakes on his boys when they are built on speed, pressure and attacking, but the Vols lengthen the game when they ought to be shortening it.

Another aspect of the Vols inability to hold leads is their bench. While they do have great depth, there is an undeniable drop-off between the starting five and guys like Brian Williams, Jordan Howell and J.P. Prince. It will be interesting to see if Pearl shortens his bench come tournament time.

Finally, the Vols foul too much. They put opponents into the bonus too early and allow too many foul shots. There is no better possession in basketball, according to statistics, than ones with foul shots. You get more points on foul possessions than ones when you attempt either 2-point shots or 3-point shots (thanks to John Calipari for that stat). It may not seem like a big deal at the time, but those are easy shots that add up and also do not allow the Vols to apply their turnover-forcing pressure.

I think the last of these problems can and ought to be fixed. I wish Tennessee would front the post rather than play behind so much. I wish they would eliminate the 2-3 reaching fouls per half that happen when there is no chance at getting to the ball. I wish Wayne Chism and Tyler Smith would see the benefit of avoiding their 1-2 stupid fouls/game (boys - you get to keep playing if you stay out of foul trouble!). I'm not stupid enough to think Coach Pearl has not mentioned some of this, but I also imagine he hesitates to do so because he does not want to temper his team's aggressiveness. If this is true, I respectfully disagree with him. Look at Duke's pressure defense that rarely results in the Blue Devils being in the penalty so early so often. There is a happy medium between aggressive and undisciplined that the Vols will hopefully find soon before March.

Gators on Tuesday - it does not slow down, does it?