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...