The Identity Crisis
by Grady Clapp on May 5, 2010 9:09 PM PDT
Email
PrintWithout a doubt, the hardest part of the 2009-2010 basketball season to stomach was the losing. But there's another loss that struck a chord with a lot of Cougar fans, myself included.
I'm talking, of course, about the loss of Bennett Ball.
When Cougar basketball was mired in the depths of despair during the late nineties and early aughts, they tried a number of things to sort it out. They played normal tempo for a while. They ran and gunned (ganned?). But nothing really worked until Dick Bennett showed up and instilled a system centered around defense and slowing the game down. Cougar fans were at times reluctant to embrace it, but they eventually came around. It instantly made the Cougars competitive, or, failing that, lose by a smaller point spread. When the reigns were passed to Tony and the Cougars made their tournament runs, BennettBallMania had officially arrived.
I arrived on the WSU campus in 2003 predominantly a Zag fan, and left it by far and away a Cougar basketball fan. Bennett Ball deserves a lot of credit for that. Sure, it's ugly. Sometimes really ugly (as in 81-29 ugly). However, it's also disciplined. It values a lost art in modern basketball - the mid-range jumper. Teams rely on defense, passing and cleaning up the defensive boards. The athleticism and the transition game of teams like the early 00s Arizona Wildcats are negated. It's a brilliant plan for a team like the Cougars, who need a system to match the fact they aren't going to routinely recruit the athletes of a UCLA or even a UW. Bennett ball fit us. Set us apart from our rivals. Made a lot of opposing fans hate us simply by lowering scores and causing ugly basketball.
Fast forward to 2009, when Tony Bennett is duped into the lovely school-to-school lateral move that his Cougar predecessors like George Raveling and Cindy Fredrick enjoyed so much. Now, former AD Jim Sterk is forced into making an interesting choice. Scrap Bennett Ball and find the best coach available, or find a not as well qualified coach who can keep the system (and possibly the momentum of the program) going strong.
Obviously, Sterk chose resume over system, going with Ken Bone as the new head coach, despite the clear change in style of play and tempo. This next point could be argued a bit, but the best choice to keep the old system around would have been to hire assistant Ben Johnson. But with no prior head coaching experience on his slate, the best move for WSU and Johnson was ultimately to keep Ben around as an assistant. While Johnson has provided a lift in recruiting (including re-recruiting Brock Motum and the other Bennett holdovers), he clearly isn't around for the purposes of slowing down the game or instilling the virtues of 40 minutes of man-to-man defense.
If Ken Bone doesn't work out, I think the biggest regret we'll have as fans is that we didn't push hard enough to keep Bennett Ball around. Although, then again, who would've taken the helm under that mantra? Again, Ben Johnson had never run a collegiate program, which is almost a mandatory requirement in this day and age (there are some notable exceptions, of course, like Tony Bennett, or Mark Few, or any number of assistant coaches who are essentially head coaches in-waiting). But outside of that, who? One of Bo Ryan's assistants at Wisconsin? A slow style mid-major coach with no recruiting ties to the Northwest and no high major conference experience? Stew Morrill plays slow at Utah State, but I always felt we'd be doing to the Aggies what Virginia did to us. Probably even worse, considering Morrill has been there for over a decade, is an institution at USU, and is a native of Utah.
Ultimately, we all agreed then (and a lot of us still believe) that Ken Bone was the best man available. He has a great head coaching resume, Pac-10 assistant coaching experience, NCAA tournament experience at Portland State and recruiting ties embedded deep in the Northwest. The important thing to remember is this: we can always get it back. If Bone doesn't work out, it may be in our interest to find a Bennett disciple somewhere out there, or another coach that could help us potentially reclaim some of that lost glory. Maybe it will be Tony once again when he's fired in two years by UVA. Heck, Stew Morrill might still be available once again, and we've all seen with Dana Altman what a difference a few years makes. Coaching is as unpredictable today as it is lucrative.
For now, all we can do is hope Ken Bone's system works. Root for it, and enjoy the lack of lengthy scoring droughts and occasional offensive futility. But if Bone doesn't work out, it's back to the drawing board. And that drawing board could have a lovely picture of Dick Bennett on it.
Still, and this is important: it doesn't matter what style you're playing when you're winning.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The real deciding factor
for both systems is having the correct style of player to execute the given style of play. In the Bennett system, it requires a cerebral, fundamentals heavy player, and one that is going to need time to develop a feel for the strategies involved. The Bone system requires athletic, fast players who can turn an opponents misstep into 2 easy points, and who can get back quickly when their own team messes up. Taylor Rochestie would be lost on a Bone team, just as Reggie Moore would falter in a Bennett system.
I am not totally convinced that Ken Bone can get the caliber of athlete he needs to win to come to pullman. It is not a recruits dream by any stretch of the imagination. This is a problem for every sport at WSU. We need a special coach to be good, someone who gets more out of their player than should be expected. If Bone can make a splash with the group he’s got, and I think he can, then the recruits he needs will come to Pullman. We’ve seen what success for our football team brings in recruits (Mike Price Era), and the same can happen for basketball.
by Fightfightfight on May 5, 2010 10:06 PM PDT reply actions
I've been working on something about recruiting
The premise that he needs players to fit the system is correct, but it’s too early to know whether he can or can’t get those players. He is on the right track, though.
Pullman is a dream
We need to stop saying Pullman isn’t a dream. For most of us and many recruits, it is a dream.
I could have gone to UW but didn’t want to. I grew up in Seattle and was glad to get away. I didn’t fully appreciate just how incredible Pullman would turn out to be, but I was glad to be getting out of Seattle.
If fans like you essentially keep saying “Pullman sucks,” how do you think that sounds to recruits?
The message I often read and that I hope gets through to recruits and their families is that WSU and Pullman is awesome. Yes, it is out of the way but that is part of the college charm that allows one to focus on school, athletics, and socializing with other students.
I LOVE PULLMAN!
by CougarsRock on May 6, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The reason the Bennett system worked
was not because we had outstanding players. Sure, some of them were pretty good (Weaver, Lowe, Rochestie) but that’s not the point. The reason Bennett ball worked was because we had a group of guys that were not necessarily outstanding basketball players but instead a group of guys that believed in the system and were willing to work hard to make it work and win games. Dick and Tony took the recruits they were able to get and made them part of this system. It was a “whole is greater than the sum of the parts” thing. This is the main flaw that I see in Bone’s system. Fact is, not matter how much we talk about someday becoming a college that is a recruiting magnet, its never gonna happen. We aren’t UCLA, and we aren’t Duke. To run Bone’s system and be successful at it, I personally believe that these are the types of players that you need. You need high caliber scorers. I guess all I can say is that it’s going to be interesting to see how this turns out.
I've got to disagree with some of this.
Of course some of Bennett’s success was due to the system, how the players bought in, ect, ect. However, we experienced a HUGE drop of between the sweet sixteen team in 2008 (26-9) and TB’s last team in 2009 (17-16). We only lost 3 players after the sweet sixteen team, so why was there such a huge drop off in 2009 if that success wasn’t due to having “outstanding players?”
On a separate note, I also don’t understand why people keep saying things like, “we aren’t Duke or UCLA.” I’m pretty sure there isn’t a Coug fan in the world that thinks we are or will ever have a program on Duke or UCLA’s level. We also don’t need to be on that level to be successful. Why can’t we be like KSU? Why can’t we get more players like Klay Thompson? I don’t see any reason why we can’t get those types of players to Pullman. Bone doesn’t need a team full of 5 star recruits to win he just needs players that can strive in his system. Let him get those players before you cast judgment!
Speaking of recruiting
We’ve offered Kevin Noreen a scholarship, Cougfan has him as a 4 star recruit and yahoo a 3 star, he’s pretty light for a big man but definitely has alot of talent, is there much of a chance that we get him?
I've kept an eye on him since his BC release
He did have a private workout and we were there. What I don’t know about him is just how talented he is against real competition. He plays in Minnesota, which isn’t exactly a hotbed, and also played in a lower classification. He also plays for a “Double Pump” team, which isn’t exactly the top tier of select programs.
I don’t know whether we have a shot at landing him or not. There’s a bunch of teams that seem to have offered, but he’s visiting Northwestern and maybe Indiana.
So, here's a question about Ben Johnson then
Knowing what we now know about who’s around, did it really make a difference? Of all the Bennett recruits, only Motum (a Johnson recruit, probably) is left. Simon is still coming, but I don’t know how much he was committed to the coach, or if it was the school.
The defensive aspects of the pack really don’t fit with Bone’s system, as far as we can tell. I guess we’ll find out how much he can adapt his defense this coming year, if that’s what he is in charge of.
I think Ben was kept mostly for his work with big men
along with the Motum connection, rather than for defense. Though from what I’ve read, Bone is a real student of the game, likes to ask lots and lots of questions, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s interested in the pack, but like you said, I don’t think he’s going to keep it.
The biggest question for me is the athletic quality of his recruits, which will only be answered with time.
Bone will keep the momentum
I feel like Bone will keep the positive momentum of the Bennett era going, with his own style of play. He has been successful in the past at SPU, UW and PSU. I like the tempo of his style of play, and recruiting local players here in the NW is one of his special traits. We already have some good local talent in/coming into the program, which is something Bennett just could not do because of style of play. I think Bone just needs some more time to continue to bring in his type of players. We may be suprised by the level of the talent he is able to land.
Tony last year
What do you think Tony would have done with last years squad? I don’t think he would have been very successful. Xavier would have been his starting point guard and John Allen his back up? I don’t think KT would have had 130+ free throws. KT would have been the same exact player offensively and we definitely would be as excited about KT as we are now. A good thing about Bone’s system, is that it gives players a better chance of opening up their offensive game and NBA possibilities. I also think Tony received the benefits of his dad’s program. Weaver, Low and Cowgill all came from Dick’s regime (I know Tony helped recruit). It would have been interesting to see where Tony was after 4 years. Tony was smart, he saw what was coming the next season and left on a high note. I am excited about BoneBall. I think if he is here another 4 years, you will see a lot of talent come through. Remember Reggie came because Nate Robinson and Brandon Roy recommended him—NBA players recommend Bone. Bone also has a excellent recruiter in Curtis Allen (NW roots). Don’t be surprised if you see a kid named Hikeem Stewart here in a couple years. He is the younger brother of USC standout Lodrick Stewart…Rainer Beach product (Basketball Hotbed). It only takes a few talented players to come to start the pipeline…Reggie was our first. I wouldn’t compare Bone to any of the coaches pre-BennettBall. I hope he gets the chance to turn this around, because it will be exciting.
member of CougCenter since 9/2/08
This is exactly right
I think it’s a little too easy to get caught up in nostalgia about the Bennett system. The main question to me (like Grady says above) is: who (including Tony) would have coached the team in a successful continuation of BennettBall? I like the idea of one of Bo Ryan’s assistants but it would still be a bit of a gamble.
Or, put another way, what would our Sweet 16 team look like if Bone had been in charge? We had decent athleticism, depth, good basketball IQ… I don’t think we’d have been any worse, and we might have been even better. Let’s give Bone a few years before we start getting worried.
By the way, my magical prediction is that when our whole team are upperclassmen in two years, Bennett will be forgotten amongst the successes of Bone.
The Bennett's don't have a big coaching tree.
In fact, I don’t think Ryan has ever coached under Dick either, so technically, not in his coaching tree.
Terry Porter was the only other name that seemed a serious contender that I thought was intriguing.
That said, I still like the Bone hire.
by TiltingRight on May 7, 2010 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions
The only thing Ryan and the Bennetts have in common is Wisconsin and style.
There’s absolutely no other connection. No tree.
I agree, but don't agree.
There’s no reason to believe we would have been significantly better under Tony than we were under Bone. That’s the part I agree with.
What I don’t agree with is that Tony wouldn’t have recognized and worked with KT on driving to the hoop more. Also, he was working on bringing in a PG from the Chicago area IIRC, though I can’t remember his name. Not to mention, there’s a good chance Joe Harris would be coming to Pullman as well.
We know Tony is pretty well wed to the Pack defense, and it’s so bloody effective, why shouldn’t he be? But he was an NBA player, and a very good coach, and if you think he wouldn’t adjust to the talent/skillset a kid like Klay, or Reggie, or Brock Motum, or Patrick Simon bring to the floor, or that he wouldn’t develop those kids in a way that improves the teams chances of winning, then you’re letting your bitterness over his leaving cloud your vision.
by TiltingRight on May 7, 2010 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't say I am bitter
At the time I loved Tony and I still like him as a coach and what he stands for, but after he left Pullman I can now analyze the situation without beer goggles (if you know what I mean). We were all enamored with TB while he was here. This is also similar to being heart broken by a girl you thought was the one (why would she do this to me?), but after a while you are able to look at the situation with a clear head and realize maybe she wasn’t that good for me and there are other girls out there just as good or better—I can move on and I will be fine—and you may have actually been dating down. Although, I don’t think we were dating down with TB. I know I said it, but I didn’t really mean it when I said Tony left because he saw what was coming in the next year. The may be a little truth to it, but I think he really left because he saw a better opportunity and he is a east coast guy and so is his wife.
We know TB wouldn’t have adjusted to Reggie because he would have never landed that recruit. Although, I have to give TB credit he landed 2-four star recruits this year in Virginia. I don’t think that being an NBA player necessarily makes you a great coach, great talent evaluator or great recruiter. Bone has been spent a lot more time evaluating talent and recruiting than TB. He has been doing it since Tony was born. He has also coached many more players and players that have gone to the NBA. He has seen players like Brandon Roy develop from a freshman in HS to a NBA player. I don’t know if TB would have developed those players you listed or not. This is hypothesis that can not be tested. We can only go by opinion right now. We never did get to see what he would have done outside the shadow if his dad (with his recruits and his development of them). TB will probably be able to get better recruits at UV and be able to get players to the NBA, but we will wait and see. I know getting players to the NBA doesn’t necessarily mean the program is successful, but it is just the example I am using for developing players talent. You can develop great talent that doesn’t got to the NBA, but can make a great college player/team. I am frankly tired of talking about TB. This is like breaking up with a girlfriend and still fooling around. It is better to go cold turkey and move on. I guess I am tired of looking in the rear view mirror. We are sure talking a lot about Bone after one season—everything takes time in Pullman. How long did it take the Bennetts to implement their system and get their type of recruits in hear? I think we need to realize we are not going to have John Calipari and Nick Saben type of turn arounds in Pullman and I don’t think I would want that kind of thing at WSU anyways. I hope with Wulff and Bone that we have a turn around that is built for the long haul, because I think both these guys will stick around if they are successful. Bone is a NW guy and Wulff is a Coug.
member of CougCenter since 9/2/08
I am being a hypocrite right now--after my previous post
But I have to say did you see that TB landed a 4-star recruit from California? This kid was in Canada. TB had to have been recruiting him under the radar at WSU.
http://virginia.scout.com/a.z?s=190&p=8&c=1&nid=4334259
member of CougCenter since 9/2/08
On the note of player development,
Look at Taylor’s progression over his three years on the floor. Aron Baynes’ improvement his last couple or years. Weaver developing into an NBA type player. Tell me Robbie didn’t get every last bit of production out of his abilities on the floor. Or Low. The evidence is there, with or without the “beer goggles.”
Cougs were very high on Tony while he was here. Now many of them are down on him or questioning things we thought we knew. My point is, there’s a reason we were all pissed and hurt when he left, and it had more to do with than just the timing. He was/is a very good coach. No reason to question his abilities.
I believe Bone is/will be a very good coach for us as well. I loved the identity we had under TB, but I also loved watching the Sonics play in their hayday. That pressing, trapping, disruptive defense and lightning fast transition game still gives me goosebumps thinking about it, so I’m not down on a style change either. My thing, quite simply, is this: I know Bennett Ball can work in Pullman. I’ve seen it. I don’t know if the uptempo style can. I think it can. (I hope it can)
The reference to being bitter wasn’t necessarily for you. But there’s still tons of TB bashing as if the only thing he was good for was holding onto his dad’s shirttails, and we should know better.
by TiltingRight on May 7, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with you.
I agree with a lot you have said. I guess I am tired of the TB references, but we do come here to talk about these things. I feel sometimes it is hard to compare apples and oranges. I agree with you about the identity—I miss the 5 ingredients instilled in the program by Bennett: humility, passion, unity, servant hood and thankfulness. I am exciting about Bone and I try not to look back to what could have been.
member of CougCenter since 9/2/08
Nice post SCC
One of my pet peeves is when people write their opinion as fact (not as much on Cougcenter). The truth is as you wrote, we don’t know what would have occurred if Bennett would have stayed and we don’t know how he will do at Virginia. Do I get tired of talking about him, sometimes. But, there are times that it interests me as well.
Anyway, nice write up.
Yes, the losses were disappointing
But, I was not as upset as the writers on the blog. There is a fine line between winning and losing. This team stopped making shots, wide open shots. If Klay and Reggie play as the did the first half of the season and the first part of the Pac 10 season, you aren’t writing this post. But, they didn’t and here we have this post. A post that is already thinly sounding the alarm one year into the Bone regime.
If you think that Klay and Reggie’s high end is the players that shown the second half of the Pac 10 season, then I understand you being worried. If you think they are the players from the beginning of the season, then don’t be worried.
Frankly, I am not worried.
Finding an identity...
While I became just as devout a believer in Bennett ball as anyone, I really feel that the most important thing isn’t the system you run, but how you run it. In other words, whatever you do, do it well. I think Bone got a little crossed up last year trying to incorporate parts of the Bennett system into what he wanted to do, instead of just focusing on one style and running it well. I also have faith he learned from that. He made a lot of comments last year about how we aren’t going to be like we were with the Bennets, that I think exposed a little of his insecurity taking over a program where the fans were married to the previous staff’s style of play. It showed in his hybrid defense that Harmeling did a pretty good job of dissecting on Cougfan. I really think if he just focuses on what worked for him in the past he’ll be fine. I chalk the offensive woes up to players finding their way in a new system that was a bit out of their comfort zone, but the awful defense seemed to be the result of trying to appease the culture here with a hybrid system that didn’t work. I think every team should have something they do exceedingly well that gives them some pride and an identity. Under Bennet it was defense and efficient, patient offense. Under Bone it should be relentless attacking offense that shocks opponents and keeps them off-balance. \
As far as athletes go, they’re already here. Casto, Capers, Thompson, Moore, Watson, Motum, are all pretty darn athletic, and our 3 new guys don’t look like couch potatoes to me.
I was thinking the same thing watching them
Even before the season, I wondered how they would try to incorporate elements of Bennett’s system into Bone’s. It seemed like the two were as close to opposites as you could get. I hated the “pack hybrid” and thought it wasn’t a good idea at all. Stretching the pack to beyond the three point line takes away the biggest benefits of the pack system itself.
You’re right, we do have athletes and are continuing to get athletes. Bone’s system can work and has everywhere he’s stopped. But, as you said, he needs to run his system the way he wants it to be run. Last year was the adjustment year, this year we should see more of what he wants to do, especially since there’s been a purge of players and he’s bringing in his type.
Well said.
And Bone said numerous times that he didn’t expect to fully make the transition for 18-24 months. So according to that timeline, we should get a really good look at what BoneBall will look like in Crimson and Gray sometime next season.
by TiltingRight on May 7, 2010 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
This bothers me...
I hate articles like this!! Everyone was loving Ken Bone this year when he was winning. His style is different but it wins games and consistency will come in time. What bothers me is that people swear by Bennett, look at his team last year they nose dived just the same as the Cougs. As for Wisconsin, they may make the tourney every year, but they have not been at the top in a long time. I say we let the guy have the first couple years to set up his system without bashing him on our own message boards! I swear at times we are our own worst enemy…Cougcenter should support the Cougs…not the recruiting efforts of others by bashing our coaches.
I really think you missed the point.
And I’ve said this before, the purpose of this blog is not to “support” the Cougs, it is to provide opinions and analysis on Cougar-related topics. If you want “rah rah” support, go somewhere else.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on May 6, 2010 12:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I hope you are kidding, don't become the thought police
There are people that go over the line in their posts, I understand when you get on their cases. But, like the word “kleenex” has become synonymous with “tissue paper,” to many people “blog” and “message board” is the same thing.
I also like that Cougcenter doesn’t want “group think” either. We are free to express our opinions, especially when my opinion is right every time. :)
But you must understand...
It is a lot of fun to ban someone. The more infractions that come with the consequence of bannation, the better.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on May 6, 2010 1:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You know, (except for me, of course) you should ban people
and charge them to to become “unbanned.”
If they go away for good, no big loss. If they pay, you guys make money. It is a win-win situation. :)
I was mostly kidding
But generally, when people call it a message board, that usually means they’re bringing those kinds of expectations and applying those kinds of standards to the site. Clearly, we’re shooting for something just a liiiiiiiitle higher.
I understand the point you are making
However, I would guess that the majority of people wouldn’t know the difference between blog, message board, site, etc.
What makes this such a great place is that for the majority of the time, you are all a “voice of reason” and that alone makes Cougcenter a lot higher than other Cougar sites.
I think that is part of the reason that this post caught some of us as an unusual post.
This article caught me off guard as well
The portion addressing if Bone doesn’t work out then there is a picture of Bennett in the future is a sort of passive-aggressive coach bashing that we at this site are typically against. It is far too early in Bone’s tenure to start talking about new coaches and new schemes.
I agree that Bennett-Ball was fun to be associated with because it plays well with the Coug mindset that we need to be a little off color to win. But if we can win in Bone’s style then we will beat our rivals at their own game and that can also be fun.
by Couginthepink on May 6, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I suppose you could take it that way
The timing seemed a little odd, but I understand the gist (especially in light of the fact that we’re still in the late signing period with a scholarship in our pocket). As I wrote about earlier this year (and linked above), we did have an identity crisis this past year. Bone’s success will hinge on whether he can successfully implement his “identity” on this program. It’s something to keep an eye on as recruiting wraps up and we head into next year.
Test: Am I banned :)
I think the world of my Cougs! hands down best place to go to college in the universe. This is a totally biased statement, but let someone try to prove me wrong. I support Ken Bone and what he is doing. And will continue to support him as he implements his strategy, at some point he has to stand on his own and face the results…That day however is not after this year or next. Think about what this team would have done without Moore (a Bone recruit). I just think this article was too judgmental for someone that has already proven himself to be a good coach, which is something that none of us have done. I think we should remember how easy it is to be a critic. I am still optimistic of what we have going in in bball.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
