WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[iwu70]

Pgraph reports Ehresman will play vs. CC, with reduced minutes. 

IWU70

[RogK]

That article does not include the experience of the Knox women. They ran the System for about 4 years, up until last season (if I remember the time frame). With a selection of very small players, the System did not produce winning basketball for Knox.
I don't follow the men's game much, but on the women's side, I think it's pretty clear that a System team needs height at the back end of the press (the "5" position on System teams) and at the "4" position to get o-rebs around the basket.
Here in Illinois, the women's System teams (NCC and ONU) seem to put at least some emphasis on standardizing 3FG shooting form, something I'm skeptical about. It involves hopping to catch a pass and landing with the feet in a good shooting stance; this enables the player to shoot really quickly, before a defender may get near. OK reasoning so far, but it often is a hurried off-target attempt. Also, some players end up hopping too late and get called for travelling.
Another topic is one Greg mentioned to me earlier this season : in a close game, NCC abandons the regular subbing pattern and uses 5 of their better players pretty much straight through the final five minutes or so. This means they are playing with teammates who weren't together on the floor up to that point. Also, how can they be expected to maintain a frenzied pace for the longer duration than what is customary?
Other than these criticisms, I pretty much like watching NCC and ONU play -- never a dull moment. Sometimes sloppy, but not dull. Athletic talent is certainly brought to the forefront for them and the opponent.
It is unclear how soon a System team may ever win a national championship -- they'd need a lot of very good players, like anyone else. I have heard an unfair dismissal of the System, which goes like this : "I won't think much of it until somebody wins a national championship with it." Nearly all teams that play conventional ball do not get anywhere near a national title, so those few who do try the System can't be expected to quickly yield a championship.
The combination of things they do may prove not to be the optimal style, but I give 'em a lot of credit for trying something different.

[Gregory Sager]

Let's hope "the system" doesn't take hold more widely.  Surely leads to wider "participation" by players, but not to a better form of the game, IMHO.  NCC surely got the bug some years back, but has it really led to them dominating the league.  Not so much. It inflates stats for all, but does it truly gain more wins for NCC?

Wow, Mark. Yes, it does. Yes, it does, indeed. Perhaps you're not familiar with the history of CCIW women's basketball, but North Central was a subpar program for a long, long time. The Cardinals had gone a dozen seasons without a winning CCIW record when Michelle Roof hired System guru and former Olivet Nazarene head coach Doug Porter as her assistant four years ago and adopted his style. Since NCC had gone an atrocious 7-35 (.167) in league play over the three years prior to her adopting the System, what did she have to lose?

In the first year that they ran the System the Cards improved five games in the standings and made the CCIW tourney. They've then gone on to make CCIW tourney appearances in three of the four years that they've run the System.

I would go so far as to say that the NCC women's program is the poster child for why to install the System in the first place.

That article does not include the experience of the Knox women. They ran the System for about 4 years, up until last season (if I remember the time frame). With a selection of very small players, the System did not produce winning basketball for Knox.

It's unfair to hold the System responsible for Knox's failure. Those familiar with local D3 sports in general are aware of just how poorly the Prairie Fire are across the board in all sports. It's a highly selective academic school (even by MWC standards) that does not seem to get any support whatsoever from the school's administration for its athletics department. Any coach who takes a job at Knox in any sport is set up to fail. It's got to be an ongoing exercise in despair to try to recruit student-athletes to enroll there.

[iwu70]

Greg, I take your point, understand the improvement in the NCC program.  But, have they won any CCIW championships or tournaments, have they made the Dance using the system.  I don't recall that they have.  Perhaps they will continue to improve and make such a level soon, but so far, any good team with good PGs and ball handling pretty much beats the system.  Of course, it's exciting to watch and the Stats are all ballooned out etc, even for opponents.  No doubt great for everyone getting floor time, liikely good for recruiting, I suppose.    But, at the end of the day, NCC has not made a breakthrough vs. IWU, CC, or WC, as far as I know.  Thanks for the history lesson, though. 

Plus, I haven't seen Grinnell in Salem of late either. 

IWU70

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I take your point, understand the improvement in the NCC program.  But, have they won any CCIW championships or tournaments, have they made the Dance using the system.  I don't recall that they have.

Again, Mark, it's only year four. They've had to build up the program out of nothing. That doesn't happen overnight.

You asked if the System managed to "truly gain more wins for NCC." I answered your question.

Perhaps they will continue to improve and make such a level soon, but so far, any good team with good PGs and ball handling pretty much beats the system.

That's a truism, and neither David Arseneault nor any other System defender has ever denied it. No strategy is ever going to confound an imbalance in ability over the long haul.

Of course, it's exciting to watch and the Stats are all ballooned out etc, even for opponents.  No doubt great for everyone getting floor time, liikely good for recruiting, I suppose.    But, at the end of the day, NCC has not made a breakthrough vs. IWU, CC, or WC, as far as I know.  Thanks for the history lesson, though. 

Glad you learned something today, Mark. Always happy to oblige.

Plus, I haven't seen Grinnell in Salem of late either. 

... and I don't think that you ever will, but not because of the style of basketball Grinnell plays. No MWC team, regardless of institution, coach, or methodology, has ever made it to the Final Four over the course of the 43 seasons of D3 men's basketball's existence. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for someone from that league to break through anytime soon, either. But that's men's basketball, and it's off-point to this room.

[iwu70]

Greg, always happy to be your student, though I don't think you will ever see a "system" team win the CCIW and surely not a national title in women's or men's basketball.  If the system is so great, why aren't teams in the stronger conferences doing it.  Surely Grinnell doesn't have the same level of talent, doesn't play in a strong league.  I get it.  But, NCC on the women's side will not be winning the CCIW any time soon.  What will it take, 8-9 years?   Say what you will about the system and the great improvements it has made for the NCC program, but it just won't happen. 

IWU'70

[RogK]

iwu70, I appreciate that you brought up a specific criticism of the System, beyond expressing a general distaste for it. You and Greg pointed out that good point guard play /good ballhandling can and does enable opponents to beat System teams. To be be more specific : not all fullcourt defenses are identical. IWU and Augie each have implemented a lot of fullcourt defense, but more of a blend of one-on-one pressure and some trapping instead of NCC's constant trapping/double teaming the ball. The trapping is riskier because when that sort of press is broken, a 2-on-1 or 3-on-1 fast break ensues fairly often. I think NCC is willing to take this gamble because trapping can induce turnovers and it often induces the other team to shoot quickly.
So, iwu70, you don't object to fullcourt defense per se, right? Do you object to a team shooting 50 threes per game? Is 35 reasonable? I'm not picking on you, just wondering.
We may see more teams adapt certain aspects of the System without doing the whole package, if these aspects match what their personnel can do well. A team could do the trapping but not the 3FG shooting/offensive rebounding, or vice versa. System coaches did not invent either. One aspect that is not likely to catch on is the rigid adherence to a subbing schedule involving an entire large roster, such as 17 or 21 players.
GoPerry and lmitzel may want to offer comment or corrections?
Just checked : the Houston Rockets are taking 39.9 threes per game and 46.7 2FGs.

[Roundball999]

I'm also a system skeptic but am first to admit to being not well informed on the topic. 

The only system game I've seen live is Hope's victory over NCC 2-3 years ago, by about 70.  That probably colored my opinion heavily but I was left with the impression that the system style may help when the teams (both sides) are of average talent and coaching level, but system would be a handicap when both teams have very skilled players and coaches.  This may align with IWU's observation that system teams have not yet demonstrated to be consistently at the top of their leagues and NCAA contenders.

I agree with Greg that we have little data yet and understand that my impression is based on basically one snapshot where the teams' skill level was quite different.

[RogK]

Today's matchups, all starting around dusk : Carroll at Augie, Carthage at IWU, Elmhurst at North Park, Millikin at Wheaton, North Central at Syracuse.
Not sure if parity will reassert itself. It would be fun to have a lot of teams in contention during February.
Hello Roundball999. If you're willing to look to NAIA WBB, we'd find that System team Olivet Nazarene has consistently been near the top of their league and has won conference and conference tournament. Their league has some weak teams, but also some perennially strong ones like St Xavier; league member St Francis is currently #1 in NAIA D2, St X #3. The one time ONU had a bad record was when they suspended several key players (I don't know what for), maybe 7 or 9 years ago.
Alright, now I'm going back to bed.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That article does not include the experience of the Knox women. They ran the System for about 4 years, up until last season (if I remember the time frame). With a selection of very small players, the System did not produce winning basketball for Knox.
I don't follow the men's game much, but on the women's side, I think it's pretty clear that a System team needs height at the back end of the press (the "5" position on System teams) and at the "4" position to get o-rebs around the basket.
Here in Illinois, the women's System teams (NCC and ONU) seem to put at least some emphasis on standardizing 3FG shooting form, something I'm skeptical about. It involves hopping to catch a pass and landing with the feet in a good shooting stance; this enables the player to shoot really quickly, before a defender may get near. OK reasoning so far, but it often is a hurried off-target attempt. Also, some players end up hopping too late and get called for travelling.
Another topic is one Greg mentioned to me earlier this season : in a close game, NCC abandons the regular subbing pattern and uses 5 of their better players pretty much straight through the final five minutes or so. This means they are playing with teammates who weren't together on the floor up to that point. Also, how can they be expected to maintain a frenzied pace for the longer duration than what is customary?
Other than these criticisms, I pretty much like watching NCC and ONU play -- never a dull moment. Sometimes sloppy, but not dull. Athletic talent is certainly brought to the forefront for them and the opponent.
It is unclear how soon a System team may ever win a national championship -- they'd need a lot of very good players, like anyone else. I have heard an unfair dismissal of the System, which goes like this : "I won't think much of it until somebody wins a national championship with it." Nearly all teams that play conventional ball do not get anywhere near a national title, so those few who do try the System can't be expected to quickly yield a championship.
The combination of things they do may prove not to be the optimal style, but I give 'em a lot of credit for trying something different.

I was trying to focus on the teams currently running the System - word count, you know, it was already a long column.  It was interesting to hear how the women's System offense has developed separately from the men.  The women use a lot more spacing and penetration - but, what didn't get in the column, is that Arsenault Jr, at Grinnell, is starting to go away from the triple screen clear out they've been famous for and moving to a more pro-style spacing offense.

That was my biggest discovery in this whole thing: just how much of the System just hasn't been discovered yet.  If even 30 teams decided to give it a try with some creativity, you could have a whole bunch of different approaches.  I think that this expansion of what's possible is certainly on the horizon.

[Roundball999]

Today's matchups, all starting around dusk : Carroll at Augie, Carthage at IWU, Elmhurst at North Park, Millikin at Wheaton, North Central at Syracuse.
Not sure if parity will reassert itself. It would be fun to have a lot of teams in contention during February.
Hello Roundball999. If you're willing to look to NAIA WBB, we'd find that System team Olivet Nazarene has consistently been near the top of their league and has won conference and conference tournament. Their league has some weak teams, but also some perennially strong ones like St Xavier; league member St Francis is currently #1 in NAIA D2, St X #3. The one time ONU had a bad record was when they suspended several key players (I don't know what for), maybe 7 or 9 years ago.
Alright, now I'm going back to bed.

Thanks.  Presumably, over time, if it is a superior way to play then we'll see more teams adopt it and rise to the top of their leagues.  This will take time as there are a lot of traditionalists out there including me:)

In terms of more rationale for my opinion, in the game I saw I was struck that Hope had 1) a lot of easy transition layups; 2) a lot of easy putbacks when they did miss because its hard to rebound defensively when your press is broken; 3) had the depth to not be worn down playing against the system; and 4) were mostly able to contest NCC's shots preventing easy looks at 3's.   

Much of this was because Hope had several mobile bigs that were able help against the full-court and help turn the press into easy layups and putbacks.  Having several mobile bigs happens in D3 mostly in the top echelon so that's why I wonder if the system can be consistently successful against the top teams.  In the same way I generally don't believe a full court press for an entire game is going to consistently have superior results, if both teams are equally skilled and well coached.  Too many holes to be exploited.  But I'm no coach or expert, just a former player and fan, and will watch with interest as this plays out over time.  I like watching it all!

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, always happy to be your student, though I don't think you will ever see a "system" team win the CCIW and surely not a national title in women's or men's basketball.

1. I think it's entirely possible that the System will win a women's CCIW title, whether it's North Central or some other program that might adopt it in the future. (I think it'd be perfect for Carroll, for example, since it might alleviate some of the problems that the Pioneers have in recruiting up in WIAC Land.)

2. Men's basketball is a different sport with a different set of variables, and I'm not going to even bother commenting in this space upon the possibility of a CCIW men's program adopting the System, let alone winning the league with it.

If the system is so great, why aren't teams in the stronger conferences doing it.

1. I never said that the System is great. I think that it's a useful alternative in certain situations, particularly when a program has been hopelessly grinding its gears for a long time or faces inherent recruiting disadvantages. That's not the same thing at all as saying that the System is "great" (or any other superlative).

2. Teams in general aren't using it, which makes any inferences about the relative strengths of the leagues that contain System teams moot. That's been a big part of what I've been saying here and on the SLIAC men's board in response to Ryan's concluding paragraph in his column; he's already envisioning widespread results for the System when thus far it hasn't attracted more than a half-dozen takers in D3 (the level of college basketball for which it is the most ideal), and two of those takers (Redlands men and Knox women) have already gone apostate and returned to more standard versions of basketball strategy.

Surely Grinnell doesn't have the same level of talent, doesn't play in a strong league.  I get it.  But, NCC on the women's side will not be winning the CCIW any time soon.  What will it take, 8-9 years?   Say what you will about the system and the great improvements it has made for the NCC program, but it just won't happen.

I'd ask you in return, "A conclusion that you've drawn based upon what?", but then I'd be subjecting us all to a long paean on the glories of Mia Smith and the ever-noble enterprise that is Illinois Wesleyan athletics, and so I figure that I'll just spare us all that.

iwu70, I appreciate that you brought up a specific criticism of the System, beyond expressing a general distaste for it. You and Greg pointed out that good point guard play /good ballhandling can and does enable opponents to beat System teams. To be be more specific : not all fullcourt defenses are identical. IWU and Augie each have implemented a lot of fullcourt defense, but more of a blend of one-on-one pressure and some trapping instead of NCC's constant trapping/double teaming the ball. The trapping is riskier because when that sort of press is broken, a 2-on-1 or 3-on-1 fast break ensues fairly often.

It should be pointed out that IWU and Augie don't have identical full-court defenses, either. Illinois Wesleyan employs the run and jump, a standard (although not widely used) defense developed by Dean Smith at North Carolina in the '70s and often used to great effect by teams that have great athleticism and basketball smarts up and down the lineup (North Park's 1986-87 national championship men's team under Bosko Djurickovic used the run and jump). It doesn't use standardized trap locations, and it more or less takes the game out of the coach's hands by allowing the players themselves to dictate switches and traps, which means that it requires good communication and decision-making skills and is thus prone to communication breakdowns and missed timing on the part of the defense. Augustana plays a standard man press that requires less gambling but induces less surprise from the opposition. The virtue of the System that NCC runs is that, if it's done right, it can require the opposition to use as many as three different players to move the ball up the floor, and a lot of teams just don't have three players on the floor at any given time who can make great decisions and move the ball forward out of a trap.

I think NCC is willing to take this gamble because trapping can induce turnovers and it often induces the other team to shoot quickly.

Well, yeah. As Ryan's column reiterated, the System is formula-based. There are certain set numerical goals in terms of steals, offensive rebounds, shots taken, treys taken, etc., that a team is required to accomplish in a game. Inducing turnovers by press trapping speaks for itself in that regard. And forcing the other team to shoot quickly helps speed up the game and allows the System team to therefore meet all of its goals.

So, iwu70, you don't object to fullcourt defense per se, right? Do you object to a team shooting 50 threes per game? Is 35 reasonable? I'm not picking on you, just wondering.

What he objects to is the fact that people consider the System to be a sound approach to basketball in spite of the fact that the CCIW's resident System team doesn't wear green and attend school in Bloomington.

We may see more teams adapt certain aspects of the System without doing the whole package, if these aspects match what their personnel can do well. A team could do the trapping but not the 3FG shooting/offensive rebounding, or vice versa.

I'd argue that the "certain aspects" is the System, because no two teams seem to run the System identically. Even David Arseneault has admitted that it should be tweaked to meet the needs of each specific program. Ryan aptly pointed out in his column that the System has to be run very differently by women's teams than it is by men's teams because female basketball players don't have the size and speed of their male counterparts, and thus an offensive methodology that is predicated so heavily upon skip passes to moving targets is impractical. Doug Porter seems to have developed a very sound adaptation of the System for women that obviously worked to great effect at Olivet Nazarene and has dramatically improved North Central's program success.

System coaches did not invent either. One aspect that is not likely to catch on is the rigid adherence to a subbing schedule involving an entire large roster, such as 17 or 21 players.

You really need at least three active shifts if you're going to run the System, or else you wear down your own players. Again, I refer to Ryan's column. David Arseneault, Jr. tried to employ the System while he was running the Reno team in the NBA's D-League, but the smaller roster size kept him from being successful with it.

I was trying to focus on the teams currently running the System - word count, you know, it was already a long column.  It was interesting to hear how the women's System offense has developed separately from the men.  The women use a lot more spacing and penetration - but, what didn't get in the column, is that Arsenault Jr, at Grinnell, is starting to go away from the triple screen clear out they've been famous for and moving to a more pro-style spacing offense.

Yes, I watched the Grinnell @ Lake Forest game last night, and I noticed that, while the Pioneers still rely upon overloading one side of the floor, they never set more than one screen per sequence. It's a lot more kickout-based now than it used to be, which means that the men's version of the System is starting to take some pointers from the women's version.

That was my biggest discovery in this whole thing: just how much of the System just hasn't been discovered yet.  If even 30 teams decided to give it a try with some creativity, you could have a whole bunch of different approaches.  I think that this expansion of what's possible is certainly on the horizon.

It's going to take a lot of changed minds to get the number of D3 programs (men and women combined) who employ the System up to thirty.

In terms of more rationale for my opinion, in the game I saw I was struck that Hope had 1) a lot of easy transition layups; 2) a lot of easy putbacks when they did miss because its hard to rebound defensively when your press is broken; 3) had the depth to not be worn down playing against the system; and 4) were mostly able to contest NCC's shots preventing easy looks at 3's.   

Much of this was because Hope had several mobile bigs that were able help against the full-court and help turn the press into easy layups and putbacks.  Having several mobile bigs happens in D3 mostly in the top echelon so that's why I wonder if the system can be consistently successful against the top teams.

It can't. That's why you were seeing a poor example of the System's capabilities. As I said yesterday, and as the System's adherents have always maintained, the System is not a cure-all. It cannot breach the imbalance if the opponent has significantly better personnel than the System team. Hope is one of the perennial powerhouses of D3 women's basketball and always has a deep roster stocked with talented ballplayers. The only team that is capable of beating Hope with the System on anything close to a regular basis is a System team that is itself well-stocked across all three shifts with really talented players. North Central is not at that point yet. Knox never had a prayer of even getting close to that point in a million years.

To get a better estimation of the System's capabilities, you'd need to see the current North Central team play, say, Albion or Adrian.

In the same way I generally don't believe a full court press for an entire game is going to consistently have superior results, if both teams are equally skilled and well coached.  Too many holes to be exploited.  But I'm no coach or expert, just a former player and fan, and will watch with interest as this plays out over time.  I like watching it all!

The primary virtue of the System isn't the press per se. It's the attrition involved. A System coach bets that your players will wear down and increasingly make more and more mistakes, or will be incapable of making good plays, over the course of the game as they tire, because your fifteen to seventeen players will simply exhaust them by maintaining a frenetic pace with their comparatively fresh legs. Teams that use standard press defenses don't go nearly that deep, nor do they keep attacking defensively by continuing to double-team the ballhandler in the halfcourt after the press has been broken and the fast break has been nullified. F'rinstance, although I really hate to use a men's team as an example here, undefeated and #2 Whitman on the men's side uses a 40-minute press approach similar to that of the Augustana women -- and it's a team that employs a ten-man rotation. The System's just a different kind of beast altogether.

[Roundball999]

Greg, thanks for the thoughtful discussion.  I take your point about the talent disparity in the game I watched.   But if the primary virtue of the system is attrition as you say, then one logical conclusion might be that the system makes sense mainly when the other team is superior across the first 5-10 players and your best hope is to wear those players out.  That makes sense to me; it's an equalizer when you're at a disadvantage. 

But the main takeaway (opinion) for me is still that all else being equal (talent, depth, etc which negates the attrition issue) I think a system team would win less.  No real way to prove that I understand. 

[RogK]

Roundball999, if any coaches read this stuff, I think they would like you to send them "several mobile bigs." Mobile bigs are pretty darn useful.
If the opposition has several of them and your team doesn't, you're screwed regardless of how you play.
I don't think of the System as superior, but rather as an alternate (and entertaining) method.
One-on-one fullcourt defense seems a pretty safe defense, assuming the defenders keep up with the advancement of the offensive players. Kind of like forechecking in hockey, if the forwards can hurry back on defense. This is how IWU can press a lot and not get burned very often (this judgment is based on seeing them in prior seasons). Pressing has a secondary value in that it eats time off the shot clock.
Ryan Scott, thanks for the additional info. I hope somebody among those you interviewed mentioned the Knox WBB experience. Whatever advantages the System brought to Knox, it wasn't enough to produce a lot of wins or overcome their small physiques.
I'm pleased to learn from you that a lot of thought is still going into modifying the System as it could yield more interesting variations, as you pointed out. Eventually though, we may not know where System ends and something else begins. Like jazz overlapping blues.
I still think we may see "cherry-picking" come into use in basketball, not necessarily within the constraints of System ball. Think soccer without offsides rules.
As I was about to post this, other posts came in, so I apologize if my comments duplicate those already written.

[Roundball999]

One-on-one fullcourt defense seems a pretty safe defense, assuming the defenders keep up with the advancement of the offensive players. Kind of like forechecking in hockey, if the forwards can hurry back on defense. This is how IWU can press a lot and not get burned very often (this judgment is based on seeing them in prior seasons). Pressing has a secondary value in that it eats time off the shot clock.

Agree completely.  My previous comment about disadvantage of full court press really assumed press with trap, where by definition someone is left open or at the very least you're relying on some sort of zone approach.  I like one on one full court pressure for the reasons you mention and more.

Yeah, mobile bigs are good .  Of course it's relative; at this level it means about 5'11" not 6'2" or more as at higher levels.