02-01-2016, 04:34 PM
I love good, solid, man-to-man defense, but the Bucs badly need to mix in some zone.
The new officiating emphasis on allowing freedom of movement has changed the way the game is played. The goals -- to reduce physical play and restore the free flow that once typified college basketball -- are laudable, but some officials, players, and coaches still need to adjust.
For officials, the pendulum has swung too far. Offensive players are initiating contact and, too often, getting the call. Eventually, that may even out, but right now, officials seem to be giving the offense all of the breaks. In the Citadel game, it was obvious the Bulldog players had been coached to drive straight at the defenders, and the officials obliged with foul calls against the defense. (Wouldn't Jalen Riley have loved to play under these rules!) Understandably, players get frustrated when they play good defense, fully within the rules, and the call still goes against them.
All coaches, unless everyone on their team plays exceptional man-to-man defense, are going to have to teach and play some zone. Against the Bucs, teams have started simply going one on one, and the defender either has to give way or foul. Opponents have taken particular advantage of Peter Jurkin. His defensive liabilities often outweigh his rebounding and scoring, which limits his effectiveness and playing time. If the Bucs played a zone, it would mitigate Peter's defensive weaknesses.
The shorter shot clock, too, lends itself to zone defense. The change to 30 seconds leaves less time for an offense to work the ball around and break down a zone. And the shot clock can be shortened even further with a press designed to force a team to spend 10-15 seconds getting the ball up court and starting their offense.
When the 3-point shot came into college basketball, the Bucs were early adapters and reaped the benefits. These current rule changes and points of emphasis won't be nearly as significant, but coaches and teams who fail to adjust will find themselves losing ground.
The new officiating emphasis on allowing freedom of movement has changed the way the game is played. The goals -- to reduce physical play and restore the free flow that once typified college basketball -- are laudable, but some officials, players, and coaches still need to adjust.
For officials, the pendulum has swung too far. Offensive players are initiating contact and, too often, getting the call. Eventually, that may even out, but right now, officials seem to be giving the offense all of the breaks. In the Citadel game, it was obvious the Bulldog players had been coached to drive straight at the defenders, and the officials obliged with foul calls against the defense. (Wouldn't Jalen Riley have loved to play under these rules!) Understandably, players get frustrated when they play good defense, fully within the rules, and the call still goes against them.
All coaches, unless everyone on their team plays exceptional man-to-man defense, are going to have to teach and play some zone. Against the Bucs, teams have started simply going one on one, and the defender either has to give way or foul. Opponents have taken particular advantage of Peter Jurkin. His defensive liabilities often outweigh his rebounding and scoring, which limits his effectiveness and playing time. If the Bucs played a zone, it would mitigate Peter's defensive weaknesses.
The shorter shot clock, too, lends itself to zone defense. The change to 30 seconds leaves less time for an offense to work the ball around and break down a zone. And the shot clock can be shortened even further with a press designed to force a team to spend 10-15 seconds getting the ball up court and starting their offense.
When the 3-point shot came into college basketball, the Bucs were early adapters and reaped the benefits. These current rule changes and points of emphasis won't be nearly as significant, but coaches and teams who fail to adjust will find themselves losing ground.