March Madness

I've recently discovered that I'm not interested in high powered basketball. I find no joy in a power conference team with blue chip recruits, and traditional, boring basketball. I want to be clear that its not any one of those things in itself that I find boring, but the combination. Georgetown for example is both a power conference school, with blue chip recruits, but it plays a very innovative Princeton-styled offense. Syracuse is a great example of a combination that doesn't interest me. I realize its a great program, I realize they're good at basketball. I just wouldn't watch them play if you paid me.

West Virginia. Air Force. Butler. Gonzaga. Marist. VMI. Winthrop. Princeton.

Those teams interest me. Princeton is included more for its historical relevance than for its current success. The others, at least in the past few years have been successful with somewhat unorthodox styles of play (in the case of Marist, success is relative. Honestly I just like the way they play, regardless of the outcome).

I love the Three point field goal. I feel like it is the greatest of equalizers. A team that can do it consistently and successfully can use that ability to overcome height or athleticism disadvantages. As much as I'd like to say that you could win on the three alone, I feel that the three point shot only opens up the game for said 'unathletic' team to be able to operate. Much like a dominant big man can open up space for his team mates, a great three point shooting team can create similar opportunities, from the opposite perspective (inside/out vs. outside/in).

The problems with this particular style of basketball is the necessity to have every player on your team be a perimeter scoring threat. Recruiting a college team like that is probably just as difficult as finding a top-20 recruiting class, just from a different perspective.

Unorthodox defenses also rank high on my list. Just last night I watched West Virginia and Air Force play (unfortunately not against each other) and saw WVU's 1-3-1 defense, interspersed with constantly changing man and zone schemes. The ability to change defenses on the fly is an underrated team skill. Air Force was running some sort of hybrid man-zone matchup. It confused the players from Clemson all night. The Air Force loss had more to do with ineffective offense, than defense.

I need these things to be interested. As a coach, I can appreciate the need to pound the ball inside to the big man, or to run your typical flex/motion/4-low/double post sets. They just bore the hell out of me. I guess if I coached teams that had more traditional players, then I could play more traditionally. The truth of the matter is that I'd rather coach a team that shot more three's and trapped the half court in a 1-3-1.