The following document may prove to be apocryphal, reconstructed by our staff at betterthanalayup.com from note fragments discovered in two Chicago north side watering holes near Loyola University’s lakeshore campus.
The first bits were uncovered by Loyola undergraduates at Bar 63, formerly known as Hamilton’s Bar and Grill; the second, more intact set found in a corner booth at Bruno’s Lounge. Both sites are a close walk from campus and have been frequented by students and professors going all the way back to Loyola’s 1963 national championship days.
Are these fragments the work of Sister Jean Dolores Schmidt, the 98-year-old nun who has been the Ramblers’ team chaplain since 1994?
Impossible to know.
On one hand, it’s hard to believe that a member of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary would find herself in a neighborhood tavern, yet alone leave her work product behind. On the other, the fragments betray a certain level of scholarly discipline one would expect of a woman religious working at a university, and though largely conversational, the writing tone occasionally reveals a tendency toward “Latinisms” in its rhetorical structure, a style often exhibited at Jesuit institutions.
In any event, regardless of their authenticity, the fragments are incomplete. Many of the critical elements comprising a comprehensive scouting report are either missing altogether or treated in a helplessly cursory manner. Michigan’s out of bounds plays, press attack, occasional use of zone defense as well as its full-court pressure tactics, and the like are not revealed in the fragments. More importantly, only five of Michigan’s players are profiled and the author’s recommended match-ups do not appear. Thankfully, a quick Google search will uncover details about Michigan coach John Beilein’s offensive attack for an interested reader.
Despite these limitations our staff is proud to offer this reconstruction and regardless of Sister Jean’s role in its creation, we join her in shouting, “Go Ramblers!”
In a post several years ago – Time Trumps Territory – we explored basketball’s first law. We learned that basketball is fundamentally a game governed by time, not by the space in which it takes place. We play within the dimensions of the court and are constrained by its boundaries, but we don’t capture territory. Instead, we pass through it and must assault the basket according to timelines established by various clocks: the game clock, the shot clock, and the various “countdowns” employed by the officials to govern different situations of play – inbounding the ball, crossing the half court line, etc.
Success in a game like football rests on seizing territory and improving your team’s field position even if you are unable to score during a particular possession. You take control of the field in ten-yard chunks. As you advance the ball across the field toward the goal line you “control” that portion of the field that you have crossed – it’s “behind” you; you “own” it. To improve your position on the field, you may even turn the ball over to your opponent by punting. In effect, you trade a difficult position and an unlikely chance to score for a more favorable location, biding your time until you can regain possession. Football is a chess match over territory.
In basketball there are no static lines or fronts. It’s not a stop-start-stop game during which the offense and defense align across from one another, snap the ball to initiate play, then, do it all over again in a contest to seize territory. Instead, the action is continuous and fluid, the teams seesawing back and forth between offense and defense, the position of the players constantly shifting in relationship to the ball, the basket, and the movement of one another.
And, it is in the midst of that continuous and fluid action that we discover basketball’s second law: Space Shapes Time.
In my last post we explored the law of unintended consequences – that strange phenomenon that often occurs when we take an established routine or “way of doing things” – cutting the grass, driving to work, drafting a memo, playing a game, virtually anything – and change the routine or rules or circumstances under which the activity takes place.
Sometimes the change produces the outcome we desire; in other instances, the opposite occurs, often because the participants shift their behavior in unexpected ways in response to the initial change in routine. The well-intended result in one area often ripples into an unintended consequence in another.
I promised to explore how the law of unintended consequences has played out in the world of college basketball. Here goes. Continue reading…
Imagine waking up tomorrow to discover that you’ve been named head coach of a new franchise in a newly formed professional league called the North American Basketball Association. Like their counterparts in the NBA, your squad will play on a traditional sized basketball court outlined with the same markings and using a basket suspended ten feet from floor. For all practical purposes you’ll be coaching the same game under the same rules… but with one, critically important difference.
There’s no game clock.
The first team to reach 50 points determines half time. The first team to reach 100 is the victor. Game over. Continue reading…
Three years ago I presented an extensive piece on coach Gene Sullivan’s innovative matching zone defense. Since then several coaches have asked when I intend to publish Part II – an exploration of special situations requiring adjustments to the defense as well as ways to employ contemporary trapping tactics within the defense’s structure and rules.
Since Part II is not yet available I thought I could be somewhat responsive to these requests by presenting a brief supplemental to the original piece.