Dixon vs Boeheim

[cease10]

Haven't post in a long time (not sure what happened to my history), however just came across this article in the Post Gazette on the new rule changes and found it funny. I'm with Boeheim on this. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...is-could-have-big-impact/stories/201511010064


Dixon on the new 30 second shot clock....

"Dixon said more teams will play zone defense, which takes longer to attack, and some might use more backcourt pressure so teams waste more time getting the ball across the half-court line."


Boehem's comments....

“[Coaches who say there will be more zone played] are not very smart, don’t listen to them,” Boeheim said.

“And teams that think they need to use the whole shot clock to beat teams with more talent, well guess what, they lose every one of those games.”

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

So Boeheim is suggesting adopting his philosophy is a bad strategy .
Makes sense.

 

[cease10]

So Boeheim is suggesting adopting his philosophy is a bad strategy .
Makes sense.

makes sense to me in this scenario of a shorter clock, he elaborated....

"And, to be honest, teams that play faster, they hurt our zone — teams that play slow, in general, we beat ..."

taking more time to put up a shot, allows the defense to rest and regroup. Passing the ball around the perimeter for 32 seconds does nothing to tire a defense.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

makes sense to me in this scenario of a shorter clock, he elaborated....

"And, to be honest, teams that play faster, they hurt our zone — teams that play slow, in general, we beat ..."

taking more time to put up a shot, allows the defense to rest and regroup. Passing the ball around the perimeter for 32 seconds does nothing to tire a defense.

Good thing Pitt doesn't , and our success against Boeheim and Syracuse is plenty of proof.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

From reading the national guys, pretty much every team is practicing more zone and employing more token pressure during the preseason practices. I have no idea what Pitt will do, but I do think there will be more teams dropping into zones after trying to take an extra 4-5 seconds off the shot clock just by making the ball handler zig and zag to get the ball up court.

Boeheim's been the butt of X's and O's jokes for a long time for a reason.

 

[Pittbaseball11]

There can probably be debates about the merit of this strategy, but I think Boeheim might be a little bit surprised come 11/13 if he's going in thinking there's no way zone usage will increase. Seems like it's been pretty consistent since the dog days.

 

[Bethlehemjohn]

Yeah, too bad we play too fast to carve up SU's zone.

 

[DT_PITT]

Haven't post in a long time (not sure what happened to my history), however just came across this article in the Post Gazette on the new rule changes and found it funny. I'm with Boeheim on this. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...is-could-have-big-impact/stories/201511010064


Dixon on the new 30 second shot clock....

"Dixon said more teams will play zone defense, which takes longer to attack, and some might use more backcourt pressure so teams waste more time getting the ball across the half-court line."


Boehem's comments....

“[Coaches who say there will be more zone played] are not very smart, don’t listen to them,” Boeheim said.

“And teams that think they need to use the whole shot clock to beat teams with more talent, well guess what, they lose every one of those games.”

So really ... what are you trying to say ...

 

[KiwiJeff]

makes sense to me in this scenario of a shorter clock, he elaborated....

"And, to be honest, teams that play faster, they hurt our zone — teams that play slow, in general, we beat ..."

taking more time to put up a shot, allows the defense to rest and regroup. Passing the ball around the perimeter for 32 seconds does nothing to tire a defense.

Lol.....

 

[KiwiJeff]

Haven't post in a long time (not sure what happened to my history), however just came across this article in the Post Gazette on the new rule changes and found it funny. I'm with Boeheim on this. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...is-could-have-big-impact/stories/201511010064


Dixon on the new 30 second shot clock....

"Dixon said more teams will play zone defense, which takes longer to attack, and some might use more backcourt pressure so teams waste more time getting the ball across the half-court line."


Boehem's comments....

“[Coaches who say there will be more zone played] are not very smart, don’t listen to them,” Boeheim said.

“And teams that think they need to use the whole shot clock to beat teams with more talent, well guess what, they lose every one of those games.”

If you are facing a more talented team, you will lose more often than not either way. but do you and boeheim contend that giving a more talented opponent even MORE possessions to figure that out is the way to beat them? Running really fast and putting up a crap shot with no time off the clock, now THAT'S the way to do it. Not to mention the fast break you will be giving up on the other end.

 

[Harve74]

If you are facing a more talented team, you will lose more often than not either way. but do you and boeheim contend that giving a more talented opponent even MORE possessions to figure that out is the way to beat them? Running really fast and putting up a crap shot with no time off the clock, now THAT'S the way to do it. Not to mention the fast break you will be giving up on the other end.

Yeah, that's just not logical.

The quotes from Boeheim don't make a hole lot of sense. Maybe they were taken a little out of context.

He seems to be saying that playing zone won't help teams, but he's played zone for decades. And he seems to be saying that slowing don an offense doesn't win games.

The whole rule change movement is because so MANY coaches adopted slow-down tactics and scores dropped. If it hadn't worked, teams and coaches wouldn't have done it.

I would agree this shortened shot clock will result in more BAD shots. Dixon has basically owned Boeheim by working at a measured pace to get good shots. You can check our game breakdowns and Pitt has shot very few times in the last 5 seconds, so I don't think it will have much effect on us.

Boeheim says you don't tire out a zone by passing the ball around the perimeter. That's true but good perimeter passing can and does result in getting defeders out of position, creating an opening for a pass into the paint inside the foul line or the short corner, which is how we attack the Cuse zone.

 

[KiwiJeff]

Yeah, that's just not logical.

The quotes from Boeheim don't make a hole lot of sense. Maybe they were taken a little out of context.

He seems to be saying that playing zone won't help teams, but he's played zone for decades. And he seems to be saying that slowing don an offense doesn't win games.

The whole rule change movement is because so MANY coaches adopted slow-down tactics and scores dropped. If it hadn't worked, teams and coaches wouldn't have done it.

I would agree this shortened shot clock will result in more BAD shots. Dixon has basically owned Boeheim by working at a measured pace to get good shots. You can check our game breakdowns and Pitt has shot very few times in the last 5 seconds, so I don't think it will have much effect on us.

Boeheim says you don't tire out a zone by passing the ball around the perimeter. That's true but good perimeter passing can and does result in getting defeders out of position, creating an opening for a pass into the paint inside the foul line or the short corner, which is how we attack the Cuse zone.

not to mention SU doesn't really run up the score either. Very slow offense.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

I will be willing to eat crow if the shorter clock results in higher scoring games. However, IMHO, I think the approach taken isn't the solution to increase scoring. Very very few possession actually went the full 35 seconds even with deliberate offenses. The shortened clock, in those few instances when it is really approached, will result in bad shots that are usually missed. This will easily offset any effect the shortened clock will have on a few possessions per game. Net result I believe will be no increase in scoring.

The rule about allowing less physical play will have more of an effect on the game than the shortened shot clock--if it is rigidly enforced as advertised. If there is an increase in scoring this will be the cause not the shot clock change. It will help the more talented teams to the detriment of the lesser talented thus reducing competitiveness as "matador defense" will prevail. This will only be good for the "blue bloods" and for those who cheat the most in recruiting to try and match the "blue bloods" in level of roster talent. Overall, it will be very bad for college basketball, IMO. The teams that already dominate will dominate even more.

 

[NTOP]

Haven't post in a long time (not sure what happened to my history), however just came across this article in the Post Gazette on the new rule changes and found it funny. I'm with Boeheim on this. http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...is-could-have-big-impact/stories/201511010064


Dixon on the new 30 second shot clock....

"Dixon said more teams will play zone defense, which takes longer to attack, and some might use more backcourt pressure so teams waste more time getting the ball across the half-court line."


Boehem's comments....

“[Coaches who say there will be more zone played] are not very smart, don’t listen to them,” Boeheim said.

“And teams that think they need to use the whole shot clock to beat teams with more talent, well guess what, they lose every one of those games.”

Well, Dixon's owned Boeheim with lower-ranked players, so there's that. Mr. Magoo's not Mr. Clean, either.

 

[Pittx9]

Boeheim is a cheater and a punk. How many times have a Dixon team used the whole shot clock and beat a Boeheim team? He's gotta be the biggest cry baby, sore loser in all of sports.