Ultimate Fastbreak Basketball

I kind of took as more of a jumping off point than an honest question of who would win. IIRC, Grinnell played D-1 Drake a couple years ago, and got blown out by 20+ points. Drake scored well over 100 points.

 

Institute this rule:

All field goals attempted in the first eight seconds of a team possession will count three points if made, regardless of where on the court the shot is attempted.


Instantly,

a) pressing
b) fast breaks
c) secondary breaks
d) medium-range jump shots,

... all return to the game.

 

I like this idea in theory. But a lot of the charm of the old LMU games is seeing them race like their ass is on fire to the three-point line, and pull it.

My high school team in 1992, at the time set a Kansas state record for three-pointers made in a year; I think the number was 252. That's just how we played. Coach said if you've got an open shot within 25 feet, you're shooting it. We went 24-2 and won State that year.

We even had a set play for a kid, who was 6-3, and had range that started at the locker room. If we got the ball with under 10 seconds or so left, we would leave this kid about a foot or so behind the spike line, act like we were just going to post someone up down low, kick it out to the kid, and launch it.

 

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=4304&SPID=236&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=500&ATCLID=204870322

The more things change, the more they stay the same;

Oregon women; Coached by;

Paul Westhead

 

Well, the real charm in watching the old LMU games, or current Grinnell or other "system" teams, is watching them haul ass up court and doing something -- anything -- not necessarily firing 3-pointers.

As opposed to the overwhelmingly prevalent "9 players jog upcourt at half-speed while one player trudges sleepily across halfcourt in about 8 seconds, comes to a stationary dribble about 35 feet from the basket, no defensive pressure so no 5-second count, the dribbler waits about 20 more seconds while a couple other players move around a bit, maybe somebody gets open but usually nobody does, the dribbler passes it off to the side where the second guard dribbles 5 more seconds off the clock, OMFG the shot clock is running down, better chuck one up. Clang, no good. Opposing team gets rebound, pass to point guard, who begins trudging sleepily upcourt... Repeat for 40 minutes (48 in NBA)."

 

Actually, Michigan State's motto is break on a make, blitz on a miss. They actually push harder on a miss, but unlike other run and gun teams, they are much more selective with their shots. If they don't like what they have, they pull it out and use a significant amount of the clock, that's why their games are often times low scoring.

 

They break if they have clear numbers. They rarely do because most opponents send 1 to the boards, 4 back (which contributes greatly to their usual high rebounding numbers). When they don't have the numbers, they walk it up verrrrrrrrrry slooooooooooowwwly, and then usually waste about 20 seconds running the Henry Iba Memorial Weave.

Of course, they're like Loyola Marymount compared to Wisconsin, who rarely breaks WITH numbers. I swear I've seen Wisconsin pull it out on a 3-on-none.

 

That won't ever happen, simply because most teams prefer fast-paced anyway since players are only getting bigger and more athletic.

 

Currently there's no strategic advantage in doing anything but walking the ball down, milking the clock, and only taking shots if they're wide-open dunks or 3-pointers.

 

The Lakers of the 1980s were doing the same thing the Portland Trail Blazers did in 1977 to win the title.
Bill Walton and Maurice Lucas rebounding and tossing outlets to Lionel Hollins, Johnny Davis, Bob Gross and Dave Twardzik. Jack Ramsay built his whole system around the fastbreak.

 

And the same thing as the Celtics of the 1960s (usually among the highest-scoring teams in the league). Russell, to Cousy, to Sharman/Jones/Havlicek.

The one most glaring thing you notice in watching basketball videos from the 1970s and before, is that virtually every team took a lot of what would now be considered "quick" jump shots, i.e. they came down court, made a pass or two, and took jump shots.

 

What I suspect would actually happen is that players would try to put up the first available shot they get in order to score that one-point bonus for a quick basket, instead of looking for the best shot (OK, fine, nobody hardly ever looks for the best shot now, but it'd be even less likely in this world). Mid-range jumpers are great as part of a plan, but running up the court and firing an off-balance 18-footer because the shotclock reads 19 wouldn't be it.

A few years ago I covered a school with a traditionally poor boys basketball program. They only made the region tournament one year in its 20-year existence, even after they expanded playoffs to include roughly half the schools. New coach comes in, sees the usual array of small guards and overmatched forwards, and goes to the Grinnell/LMU method. Not knowing this, I get to their first game (I was at a weekly and I was only going to get season preview stuff). Look at the scoreboard and it reads 76-70. Figure they changed the time or I fucked it up, and I already missed the damn thing. Photog tells me it's the halftime score. Final score was something like 132-125, making it the second-highest scoring game in state history.

They did this all season and got quite a bit of attention for it. They averaged probably close to 90 points a game, and closer to 100 for the wins. They managed to snag a couple of upsets that they wouldn't have gotten had they played the previous season's offense. Of course, the good teams that liked to run were licking their chops -- I think one game was 144-90 or something equally gross. And at the end of the season, they were the same 9-20 they were the season before.

But at least they made games a lot more interesting, you might be thinking. You'd be wrong, at least with these guys. They'd run up the court and take a 3-point shot almost as soon as they hit the time line. Then they'd press, hit or miss. Problem is, if they weren't easily spooked by full-court pressure, their opponents would either cruise for an uncontested layup, or they'd break the press and score almost as easily. It was like watching an All-Star game, hold the all-stars. Different, yeah, but the novelty wore off quickly.