(03-13-2014 11:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't think we'll ever be able to recruit the type of players to play the '40 minutes of hell' approach so that's a pipedream I'm afraid.

(03-14-2014 12:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think most players at the d-1 level (outside of lumbering centers) have the athleticism to play "40 minutes of hell" if you train and practice for it. Just be ready to go deep into the bench, can't play that way if the depth chart is only 7 or 8 guys deep.

John Wooden would agree very much more with mrbig on this. He would say that they "type of player" to play press and run-and-gun is one who is breathing.

It was actually his inability early on at UCLA (which had basically zero basketball tradition before he got there) to recruit the dominant big man that led him to adopt the run-and-gun style. He could get decent basketball players but not stars. He went 10 deep with guys where there wasn't a lot of difference, and he decided to turn that into an advantage by playing at a tempo that made the other guy have to go 10 deep too. The other guy's 1-2-3 (talking quality here, not position numbers) might be better than his, but his 7-8-9-10 were better than the other guy's, so the more minutes he could cause to be played by both sets of 7-8-9-10s, the better his chances to win. He won a national championship with no starter taller than 6-5. Of course, once he had won a couple of championships he could recruit anybody he wanted, and when you have guys like Alcindor/Jabbar, Wicks, Rowe, and Walton, you are no longer in a position where the other guy's 1-2-3 are better than yours.

You might say that our problem is that not only are the other guy's 1-2-3 better than ours, but so are his 7-8-9-10. I've heard Wooden address that in this way. Your 7-8-9-10 may be better than mine when they get to the gym in November. But if mine are playing 10-12 minutes a night, and practicing to play that much and contribute, and yours are riding the bench and running the other team's plays in practice, by February mine are better than yours. One other thing that maybe went hand in hand with that philosophy. Wooden didn't put nearly as much stock in scouting or game planning for specific opponents as lots of other coaches seem to. His idea was very much to get his team as ready as possible and don't worry about the other guy. If we are going to force them to play our style, what difference does it make what their style is?

Reading back over that, it's kind of interesting how Rice basketball resembles UCLA when Wooden arrived. Good academic school in a large city with a crosstown rival that hasn't been spectacularly successful in basketball, but has clearly done more than you have. I don't know if Wooden's approach would work here; I do know that it worked there.

Okay, Dr. K, all you have to do is hire the next John Wooden. Easy, right?

(03-14-2014 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What if the new coach doesn't play the way we want?

We support him, but not blindly.

(03-14-2014 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What if the new coach doesn't play the way we want?

We support him, but not blindly.

I don't know enough about basketball to advocate a specific style of play. But to me, almost anyone gets a grace period of a year (or more) before I will start complaining. Unless the individual has negatives on their resume when hired and their early actions are consistent with those prior problems.

mrbig's rules of sports:
(1) Never assume you know more than everyone else and that you are always right. You can always gain knowledge and insight from the unlikeliest source.
(2) Never be rigid with your approach. If you follow rule 1, then you have to have some flexibilty as you gain new information and insight.
(3) Always understand that there is more than one way to win and more than one approach can succeed.
(4) Always understand that every player is different. This is true both physically and emotionally/intellectually. Example of physically for baseball - some pitchers have a certain arm slot because that is how their elbow/shoulder work. If you try to make everyone do everything the same way, you might hurt the player and are basically guaranteed to have some failure. Example of emotional/intellect - some guys respond to being yelled at and some don't.

(03-14-2014 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't think we'll ever be able to recruit the type of players to play the '40 minutes of hell' approach so that's a pipedream I'm afraid.

(03-14-2014 12:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think most players at the d-1 level (outside of lumbering centers) have the athleticism to play "40 minutes of hell" if you train and practice for it. Just be ready to go deep into the bench, can't play that way if the depth chart is only 7 or 8 guys deep.

John Wooden would agree very much more with mrbig on this. He would say that they "type of player" to play press and run-and-gun is one who is breathing.

It was actually his inability early on at UCLA (which had basically zero basketball tradition before he got there) to recruit the dominant big man that led him to adopt the run-and-gun style. He could get decent basketball players but not stars. He went 10 deep with guys where there wasn't a lot of difference, and he decided to turn that into an advantage by playing at a tempo that made the other guy have to go 10 deep too. The other guy's 1-2-3 (talking quality here, not position numbers) might be better than his, but his 7-8-9-10 were better than the other guy's, so the more minutes he could cause to be played by both sets of 7-8-9-10s, the better his chances to win. He won a national championship with no starter taller than 6-5. Of course, once he had won a couple of championships he could recruit anybody he wanted, and when you have guys like Alcindor/Jabbar, Wicks, Rowe, and Walton, you are no longer in a position where the other guy's 1-2-3 are better than yours.

You might say that our problem is that not only are the other guy's 1-2-3 better than ours, but so are his 7-8-9-10. I've heard Wooden address that in this way. Your 7-8-9-10 may be better than mine when they get to the gym in November. But if mine are playing 10-12 minutes a night, and practicing to play that much and contribute, and yours are riding the bench and running the other team's plays in practice, by February mine are better than yours. One other thing that maybe went hand in hand with that philosophy. Wooden didn't put nearly as much stock in scouting or game planning for specific opponents as lots of other coaches seem to. His idea was very much to get his team as ready as possible and don't worry about the other guy. If we are going to force them to play our style, what difference does it make what their style is?

Reading back over that, it's kind of interesting how Rice basketball resembles UCLA when Wooden arrived. Good academic school in a large city with a crosstown rival that hasn't been spectacularly successful in basketball, but has clearly done more than you have. I don't know if Wooden's approach would work here; I do know that it worked there.

Okay, Dr. K, all you have to do is hire the next John Wooden. Easy, right?

Mike Schuler basically did this after taking over for Bob Polk, constantly subbing in mass. A lot of effort and focus can make up for a lot of talent.

(03-14-2014 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What if the new coach doesn't play the way we want?

I'd say that in general, we all want to win and be 'successful'. Obviously that definition changes over time... especially when you are starting from nowhere.

Let's use baseball as an example...

We never won the conference so goal 1 was to do that... once that was accomplished, to get to Omaha... Once that was accomplished to win Omaha... Once that was accomplished, to hang around near that level and to do it again.

Unless you're consistently winning the NC, There will ALWAYS be people who have suggestions/opinions about what we are missing... but that doesn't mean that we don't appreciate how difficult it is just to be in the conversation about WINNING Omaha as opposed to just getting there... or that 'our ideas' would get there in the first place. It's sort of like not being able to write software code, but certainly being able to make suggestions on how to improve the user-interface. The heavy lifting has been done by the person in charge... and we want to find ways to help with the details.

Starting from a team that hadn't won a conference... those details are really pretty immaterial at this point... and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of ways and styles to reach the goal...

SO the question was, what would each of us like to see, which can have as many answers as there are people... but every single one of them will include more wins.

If a coach succeeds, his way will be validated... but it doesn't invalidate any other ways. Only if his way fails is it invalidated. So while we can certainly debate what will and won't work and produce empirical evidence to support those opinions... they are still just opinions.... with some perhaps more educated than others.

The reason I don't prefer a slow-down sort of game is that I think it keeps games close that shouldn't be and is boring to fans. If someone wants to bring that in to make up for our lack of top tier recruiting, then I understand. If it works to get us to where we no longer have inferior talent because we've won some games we probably shouldn't have then great... but at THAT point, the strategy starts to work against you. You'll lose some games you shouldn't and again, the fans will lose interest. You're just 'failing' at a higher level. At THIS point, you have to be able to play a scheme that accentuates rather than covers up for your talent.

I will be happy to be proven wrong... or right... so long as we win.

As I said in the braun is gone thread, I think a defense-first approach like Tony Bennett brought to Virginia is the best fit at Rice. The 40 minutes of hell offense approach is great but in my view you need the kind of personnel nolan richardson had at arkansas - otherwise you you start losing 95-85 every night like paul westhead did with that approach at George Mason. On the other hand, Bennett's Pack-Line defense, defense-first approach has taken a moribund Virginia program to ACC regular season champs in just five years. Fans follow winning not style in my view. UVA has nearly sold out every game this year despite rarely scoring in the 70's. Winning 60-45 every night is pretty sweet.

(03-13-2014 11:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't think we'll ever be able to recruit the type of players to play the '40 minutes of hell' approach so that's a pipedream I'm afraid.

I really hate this kind of thinking.

I agree that an up-tempo style would help draw a crowd, which Rice MBB desperately needs. I don't think you need freakishly gifted athletes for uptempo; what you need is strong conditioning and mental fortitude to tough it out. Rice recruits should fit that bill.

Rice should aim to build deep teams of players that will stay for 4 years and work hard. I want to the Owls to have 10 solid contributors rather than 1-2 stars. Rice should also recruit undersized players with excellent skills that slip off the radars of big programs. Uptempo lowers the need for height. Give me a 6-5 PF with real skills and effort over a 6-9 PF project. With lots of solid depth and skill, Rice could run opponents into the ground, even if giving up height.

(03-14-2014 11:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't think we'll ever be able to recruit the type of players to play the '40 minutes of hell' approach so that's a pipedream I'm afraid.

(03-14-2014 12:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think most players at the d-1 level (outside of lumbering centers) have the athleticism to play "40 minutes of hell" if you train and practice for it. Just be ready to go deep into the bench, can't play that way if the depth chart is only 7 or 8 guys deep.

John Wooden would agree very much more with mrbig on this. He would say that they "type of player" to play press and run-and-gun is one who is breathing.

It was actually his inability early on at UCLA (which had basically zero basketball tradition before he got there) to recruit the dominant big man that led him to adopt the run-and-gun style. He could get decent basketball players but not stars. He went 10 deep with guys where there wasn't a lot of difference, and he decided to turn that into an advantage by playing at a tempo that made the other guy have to go 10 deep too. The other guy's 1-2-3 (talking quality here, not position numbers) might be better than his, but his 7-8-9-10 were better than the other guy's, so the more minutes he could cause to be played by both sets of 7-8-9-10s, the better his chances to win. He won a national championship with no starter taller than 6-5. Of course, once he had won a couple of championships he could recruit anybody he wanted, and when you have guys like Alcindor/Jabbar, Wicks, Rowe, and Walton, you are no longer in a position where the other guy's 1-2-3 are better than yours.

You might say that our problem is that not only are the other guy's 1-2-3 better than ours, but so are his 7-8-9-10. I've heard Wooden address that in this way. Your 7-8-9-10 may be better than mine when they get to the gym in November. But if mine are playing 10-12 minutes a night, and practicing to play that much and contribute, and yours are riding the bench and running the other team's plays in practice, by February mine are better than yours. One other thing that maybe went hand in hand with that philosophy. Wooden didn't put nearly as much stock in scouting or game planning for specific opponents as lots of other coaches seem to. His idea was very much to get his team as ready as possible and don't worry about the other guy. If we are going to force them to play our style, what difference does it make what their style is?

Reading back over that, it's kind of interesting how Rice basketball resembles UCLA when Wooden arrived. Good academic school in a large city with a crosstown rival that hasn't been spectacularly successful in basketball, but has clearly done more than you have. I don't know if Wooden's approach would work here; I do know that it worked there.

Okay, Dr. K, all you have to do is hire the next John Wooden. Easy, right?

Mike Schuler basically did this after taking over for Bob Polk, constantly subbing in mass. A lot of effort and focus can make up for a lot of talent.

The "Schuler Shuffle" and "Clown Night"...good memories.