Who Is running the Grinnell system?

[hjmphelp]

redlands and grinnell are still pure. Then comes tri state, macmurray, Westminster, puget and some others who have tried and altered into almost unrecognisable versions. Macmurray is probably the closest of these D3 schools to system play. The come to Grinnell tomorrow (22nd) for a 5:00 game. That could be a real hoot! There are others at the Junior College and High school level playing system ball.

And I couldn't agree with you more. It takes way more than one year to make this thing work.

[heatlee]

When you play basketball you play to win, and that means an NCAA title, not some league title.  Though the "system" is entertaining, and may get twenty wins, it has not gotten a title, and it never will because teams playing the "system" do two things that haven't worked in tournamnet play.

1.  They don't put enough emphasis on half-court defense, or defense in general.

2.  In tournament play the coaches shorten the bench.  Teams will usually go 8 deep. That is at least two fewer than the minimum the "system" plays with. And you can't run the "system with only eight players.

[smedindy]

Doesn't Marietta also run some sort of version of this?

Heatlee - for many schools, just winning a conference title is enough. It's all on the priorities.

Think of Grinnell - before this, they were nothing on the basketball landscape. Now they can contend for their conference title and make the tournament.

Each school has its own goals. Let's look at the NCAC and their realistic goals this year:

For Wooster and Witt - they want to make the final 4 and possibly win it all.

For Wabash, Denison, Earlham and OWU - they want to upset the apple cart and win the conference tourney.

For Allegheny and Kenyon - they'd like to have a good showing and maybe upset Wooster or Witt in the quarterfinals.

For Hiram and Oberlin - they would like to make the conference tourney.

Not every school has a chance to win the NCAAs, even though every one is playing to win. I'm sure CalTech would love to win a few games this year, but that's a backseat to what their real goals are.

[hjmphelp]

How many D3 tourney winners have there been anyway? Has everyone but Grinnell, Redlands, Marietta (yes, the do run some version) MacMurray, Westminster, Puget, and
Emory and Henry won the thing?

Heatlee knows all about the system. Maybe he knows the answer to this question as well.

[heatlee]

The major problem with the system is that if you have players that are talented they are usually getting  a minute to a minute and a half of playing time before they get taken out because they should be tired.  What that does is it keeps many players from getting or staying in the flow of the game. 

Also, you usually don't have your five best players on the court at one time.  When using the "system" you want to have your best players coming at the opponent from different positions, a  2 with unit A and a 3 with unit B.  It must also be realized that this system is always changing and the lineups can and will change constantly especially at the end of games, because the rotations are generally pre-planned but at the end of the game the players who are hitting their shots are staying in.  This can cause dissension if you don't have a close knit team.

Yes, this is a nice system, it can cause some upsets, it is entertaining, and can level the playing field.  But the teams that use this system run to extremes and a team that plays this way has great difficulty beating any good team with discipline.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

We had the whole system breakdown last year (is it all offesne or all defense, etc) as well as the debate about winning a tournament.

Bottom line, the team with the best combination of talent, preparation and chemistry will win the title.  And if a system team is going to do it, I'm confident it will be coach A's bunch, even if it takes another decade or two.

[digs]

Heatlee,

With the possibility of offending Jeffp, some Grinnell Grads and other fans--If you took the 10 best kids that Grinnell has had play for them during the system years and put them on a team, they still would likely not have enough talent to win the NCAA DIII title (Actually the talent would be decent, but the mix of players would be tough--too many guards and skinny big men).  And yet over these years with a motley group of guys they have been able to win some conference championships and beat a few ranked teams.  There are probably over 200 teams in D3 that cannot say the same thing.  It seems that the system is better that whatever the majority of D3 is running.

(Sorry Deikman, Brands, Clement, Wood,  Nordland(s), Boyle, ...)

[hjmphelp]

No offense taken, Digs-you are absolutely right. Except that now we seem to be getting better shots at better recruits. Class of 2004 had four good ones, 2005 had one, 2006 had one, 2007 had one, 2008 has 3 or maybe 4.

Now if you could find all those you named and the ones that are left...THEN you have something!

But remember it is ALL ABOUT WINNING!

[systemfan86]

No offense taken, Digs-you are absolutely right. Except that now we seem to be getting better shots at better recruits. Class of 2004 had four good ones, 2005 had one, 2006 had one, 2007 had one, 2008 has 3 or maybe 4.

Now if you could find all those you named and the ones that are left...THEN you have something!

But remember it is ALL ABOUT WINNING!

I agree with jeffp that no offense is taken; you could make the same statement about taking the top 10 players from 96% of the d3 teams and not winning.

And while I know he had his tongue in his cheek, I think I will take issue with the statement that it is ALL ABOUT WINNING. It IS about winning (as Grinnell has demonstrated), just not ALL about winning. No one plays the system to loose. (And I know full well jeffp agrees with that!)

[smedindy]

No one plays the system to loose

Now is it "to lose" or "too loose"? 

[hjmphelp]

Either one works for me.

[systemfan86]

Fruedian slip, wouldn't you say?

How about this? "If you play the system too loose, then you will like be playing to lose."

[Coach C]

All this stuff about talent and the system biols down to this.  Despite all of the work that coaches do, talent usually wins games.  In games with equally talented teams, coaching is still often not as important as venue.

That being said, I think that the system does have the potential to do well in the tournament becasue it is so difficult to prepare for.  If you get a team with a lot of talent running the system, i don't think a final four is out of the question.  Defense wins championships, but preparation is also crucial and if you don't ever see this system and you have a 2 day windo to get ready, you could be in trouble in a tournament situation.

I can tell you that coaches at this level area really talking abou thte system.  Even guys with long time half court slug it out offense and defense philosophies are intrigued by it.

C

[hjmphelp]

Coach C
you are right on the button. last year a mediocre GC team totally surprised a very talented Wartburg team at their place in a 140-138 OT win. That sort of thing happens almost every year.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

And, not to rehash the debate from last year, but I contend the system is essentially driven by defense.  The huge point totals throw people off, assuming its all offense.  Essentially, the focus is defense (full court press, rebounding).  While the system relies on shooters, everyone gets to throw up shots, but it is a successful defense that drives the success.  Even if they win a title 140-138 someday, we will still be able to say defense wins championships.