West Virginia 2/2 2:00 ESPN+

[Rufus]

As I've said multiple times, I'm far from an expert, but I'm firm believer that If something is not working then switch it up. Teams now know that they can just trade shots with us and the percentages indicate that they will make more, in the paint and treys, as we do with treys alone.

[leeraymond]

Yeah, I'm with you there. I have always thought coaches should go into every game with 3 distinct schemes on offense and defense. Start the game with the one you think will work best and stick with it until the opponent proves they can stop it. But as soon as they do, switch it up. We've only played a handful of possessions of trap and a handful of zone this year. We should be trying them out every game just to see if they work. Especially these days with traps and zones becoming more rare. Same on the offensive side. Try the PnR if you like it, but as soon as the defense stops that, switch to something different. We played an inverted offense for a bit against Colorado with Simas starting on the blocks. It worked great but we haven't tried it since. We've had success going small with Reed or Betsey at the 5.

Wes is afraid of giving up open threes and layups. Our defense is good at preventing those. But if you want to force turnovers, you gotta take some risks. And we need to take risks because our offense is so bad that we rely on transition opportunities. Our defense should look like Iowa St or UCLA. They give up lots of threes but they force a ton of turnovers. If Wes isn't up to the task of running a modern offense, he can start with a more aggressive defense. We might even give up more points but we need to kickstart the offense somehow. Skillings can be a menace at the top of a 1-3-1. Could be a way to get him out of his funk.

On offense we've got the pieces to be modern. We can run out 5 athletes who are 6'6 to 6'8. Skillings, Simas, Mitchell, Reed, Betsey, Rayvon. We don't have to play a traditional 5 who only sets screens or a traditional point guard who can't finish at the rim.

I have to disagree with you concerning the 1-3-1 zone. That type of zone forces the top defender to run between the opponent's two guards at the top. It is impossible for one guy on defense to play two guys on offense. I think that a switching man-to-man or a defense that has switching principles at the top of the defense could work, especially against the pick/roll. I like the 2-3 zone better than the 1-3-1 zone. Maybe some hybrid switching man-to-man and 2-3 zone (UC played this type of defense when Larry Davis was acting head coach the year that Cronin took sick leave) could work.

I do agree with you that UC's big guards, with their size, could really be disruptive if utilized in more aggressive ways on defense. Along with the guards that you mentioned, I think Page at 6'10" could also help on defense.

Basically, any defense designed to better handle the pick/roll may help.

[sedz]

I have to disagree with you concerning the 1-3-1 zone. That type of zone forces the top defender to run between the opponent's two guards at the top. It is impossible for one guy on defense to play two guys on offense. I think that a switching man-to-man or a defense that has switching principles at the top of the defense could work, especially against the pick/roll. I like the 2-3 zone better than the 1-3-1 zone. Maybe some hybrid switching man-to-man and 2-3 zone (UC played this type of defense when Larry Davis was acting head coach the year that Cronin took sick leave) could work.

I do agree with you that UC's big guards, with their size, could really be disruptive if utilized in more aggressive ways on defense. Along with the guards that you mentioned, I think Page at 6'10" could also help on defense.

Basically, any defense designed to better handle the pick/roll may help.

Yes, the 1-3-1 has holes, which is why I don't think any team has ever run that defense 40 minutes per game all season like Boeheim did with the 2-3. But it lets you trap the wings and cut off ball reversals, baiting the opposing guards into risky skip passes if they're unprepared. We actually ran it out a decent amount last year with Skillings up top. Good teams will be able to find open three point shooters in the corner - the baseline guy can't cover both. So it's not something you want to run for more than a few minutes at a time, but it can force turnovers more than straight man or a 2-3. Our man defense is really good - my idea is to try a different defense to jumpstart the offense.

[Bearcat1996]

Yes, the 1-3-1 has holes, which is why I don't think any team has ever run that defense 40 minutes per game all season like Boeheim did with the 2-3. But it lets you trap the wings and cut off ball reversals, baiting the opposing guards into risky skip passes if they're unprepared. We actually ran it out a decent amount last year with Skillings up top. Good teams will be able to find open three point shooters in the corner - the baseline guy can't cover both. So it's not something you want to run for more than a few minutes at a time, but it can force turnovers more than straight man or a 2-3. Our man defense is really good - my idea is to try a different defense to jumpstart the offense.

I think that would be a logical start. Defense creates offense. We know, historically, that we have shooters. And we know CWM has the athletes and depth to run. Why not go for broke and see what happens.