[Sly Fox]

VMI's high-octane offense producing points and now wins

By Kyle Whelliston
Special to ESPN.com

LEXINGTON, Va. -- The Virginia Military Institute scores 101.9 points per contest, an NBA-caliber average despite the 40-minute college game. Division I's only triple-digit scoring attack is on the verge of leading the country for the third straight season. According to one of the team's two 20-point scorers, VMI's philosophy can be summed up in eight little words.

"Shoot the ball before you turn it over," senior guard Travis Holmes said.

Click Here for Full Story

[sweetnahmah1]

"Shoot the ball before you turn it over"

Makes sense.

[flamesbball84]

i still think it's a bastardization of basketball

[RagingTireFire]

You think the shot clock is a bastardization of basketball.

[flamesbball84]

You think the shot clock is a bastardization of basketball.

no i don't.

[RagingTireFire]

Then you really shouldn't have a problem with VMI's run n' gun offense -- although in their case it seems more like gun n' run. It's roughly the same concept as the shot clock in that they're both designed to speed up the game and increase the number of possessions.

[flamesbball84]

Then you really shouldn't have a problem with VMI's run n' gun offense -- although in their case it seems more like gun n' run. It's roughly the same concept as the shot clock in that they're both designed to speed up the game and increase the number of possessions.

i'm not even going to argue about the whole theory behind that system of basketball, if that is honestly the only reason why you think this type of basketball was created then you don't even know the half of it...

all I have to say about it is find me one team that can consistently win when playing that style. I have yet to find one school who has consistently won playing that style of basketball within all levels of the NCAA. the man who created it (David Arsenault) and caused the recent craze of this "system" of basketball to spread around the US can't even consistently win with it.

one more thing to add while i am at it: i know two former coaches who who were fairly successful coaches and eventually ran that system late in their careers and both of them stated that the reason they went to it was because they couldn't get the athletes to run a "regular" style of basketball, so basically, it's for when you can't get the job done on the recruiting trail...

and those two reasons are why it's a bastardization of basketball: it doesn't win (and that's why most teams have abandoned it by now!) and it's what coaches resort to when they can't recruit well enough to get the job done.

[Chris Lang]

And you make a point there ... Duggar knows he can't recruit the traditional 7 footer or great athlete to VMI. So he's got a system that works there. It's the same concept that Air Force used under Joe Scott. Run the Princeton offense because a) it's what he knows and b) you aren't getting blue-chip athletes and tall players at the AFA.

[flamesbball84]

And you make a point there ... Duggar knows he can't recruit the traditional 7 footer or great athlete to VMI. So he's got a system that works there. It's the same concept that Air Force used under Joe Scott. Run the Princeton offense because a) it's what he knows and b) you aren't getting blue-chip athletes and tall players at the AFA.

i don't exactly see the rest of the big south getting that many 6-10 or taller players that are any good either this year, other than parakhouski from radford and kenny george if he would have been able to play. Also, VMI has a 7 footer on their roster by the way, Stephen Sargent who is listed as a redshirt freshman and has done nothing at all, which can basically some up every other 6-10 or taller BSC player other than the ones mentioned above and cruz daniels who is an ok player. So I don't really see that as a valid excuse - why does VMI feel the need to result to that system since they can't get the big players, it's not like the other BSC schools are getting quality 6-10 or taller players...

secondly, I like the Princeton offense. It's not bastardizing basketball and has proven to be effective at consistently winning games, which the stuff VMI runs has never proven to consistently win games at any level of collegiate basketball, both the men's and women's variety.

[Chris Lang]

It's not even just the height. Very few blue-chip athletes are interested in going to VMI because of all the crap the students have to go through there. Therefore you have to sell something a little gimmicky just to get the kids there. VMI was a wasteland from the 70s (when they made their elite 8 runs) to the early 2000s, so trying something new is not such a bad thing.

[RagingTireFire]

i'm not even going to argue about the whole theory behind that system of basketball, if that is honestly the only reason why you think this type of basketball was created then you don't even know the half of it...

Oh, good Lord. Please lecture us all from your infinite coaching knowledge, LC boy.

No, schools that run this offense usually can't recruit the players they need to run a more traditional offense which is why they have to maximize their number of possessions per game since they're probably going to need all of them. In theory, more possessions = more points.

[TDDance234]

When did trying to outscore the other team begin to "bastardize" the game? Isn't that the point?

[flamesbball84]

ok here is the the philosophy behind the "system" - as I've been told by two former coaches who ran it for brief periods of times (then ditched it since they realized it wasn't going to consistentl win them games) and learned it from David Arsenault and watching game film of Grinnell. the theory behind it is that they'll trade you threes for two and limit your possessions (relative to the pace of the game) by making you turnover the ball a lot. they will literally give you layups after playing defense for 15-25 seconds (depends on the coach) because they don't want to play defense that long, it makes them less capable of an offensive team because their legs will get tired playing so muchc defense that they can't shoot the three ball as well. if you are patient, you can shoot 80% because you'll be getting layups. they'd rather have a team make layups against them so they can trade 3s for 2s, which a lot of the time it doesn't work since the three point shot is a low percentage shot relative to layups, midrange jumpers, etc.

so why do I think it's a bastardization of the game: they want and will give teams layups, the highest percentage shot in the game. any style of play where the philosophy of the defense is to give a team a layup if they don't turnover the ball or jack up a three is a bastardization of the game. any philosophy that basically guarantees you team that they will lose the game if they are not hitting the three ball at a well clip is a bastardization of the game. I don't have any problems with teams trying to find new ways to win games, but this way is just idiocy. Sure, as historically indicated by every other team who has ever run this system, it will give them a good year here and there, but most years the team will be mediocre to bad.

[4everfsu]

ORU had a coach in the 60s or 70s, Ken Trickey and his philosophy was to have him team shoot about 100 times a game, even if they only hit 40% of shots, good chance of winning. I enjoy watching the princeton offense just for the fact you have to have five players who can dribble and pass, each one has to be good at the fundamentals of basketball. That in itself is a lost art of the game.

[kingaling42]

And you make a point there ... Duggar knows he can't recruit the traditional 7 footer or great athlete to VMI. So he's got a system that works there. It's the same concept that Air Force used under Joe Scott. Run the Princeton offense because a) it's what he knows and b) you aren't getting blue-chip athletes and tall players at the AFA.

i don't exactly see the rest of the big south getting that many 6-10 or taller players that are any good either this year, other than parakhouski from radford and kenny george if he would have been able to play. Also, VMI has a 7 footer on their roster by the way, Stephen Sargent who is listed as a redshirt freshman and has done nothing at all, which can basically some up every other 6-10 or taller BSC player other than the ones mentioned above and cruz daniels who is an ok player. So I don't really see that as a valid excuse - why does VMI feel the need to result to that system since they can't get the big players, it's not like the other BSC schools are getting quality 6-10 or taller players...

secondly, I like the Princeton offense. It's not bastardizing basketball and has proven to be effective at consistently winning games, which the stuff VMI runs has never proven to consistently win games at any level of collegiate basketball, both the men's and women's variety.

Consistently winning with that style of play..
1. The Runnin Rebels of UNLV were dominant in the late 80's early 90's.. 1 National Championship & undefeated going into the Championship vs Duke the next year- 1991
2. How about Pitino when he was at Kentucky in the mid 90's..
3. Nolan Richardson (winningest coach in Arkansas history, compiling a 389-169 record in 17 seasons) & the Razorbacks with their "40 minutes of Hell" pressing defense.

Even Roy Williams at Carolina resembles that style of play this year (exception that with Lawson's quickness he gets to the basket instead of all the 3 pointers). All of those teams press full court in an effort to force turnovers and force an uptempo style, shot a ton of 3 pointers (Remember.. long shots= long rebounds typically) quickly in the shot clock, and had success doing it.. I'd say a few national championships says otherwise regarding consistency...

I understand that when you press full court you are going to get beat at times, but I wouldn't say that VMI is content to allow layups- while they may not have the defensive prowess of the teams I've mentioned above- the style of play is pretty much the same- they are taking the risk of giving up layups if they don't turn you over- that's a calculated risk & all teams take that chance.. even Wooden at UCLA & Red Auerbach with the Celtics pressed teams- where's this bastardization come from?? It's just different- but it has shown to work & produce wins & championships... Plus this year they have guys who have been in the system for 3-4 years now- they are experienced & I'd say their record shows they are becoming consistent at it as well- it doesn't just happen!

You can point the finger at low shooting percentages for their losses this year but again, every team is going to have those games- right??

[Bigsouthking]

That's a great comparison 'Kingaling42'... since you seen VMI up close last weekend...

After watching LU play this season RM is playing just like VMI from last year, 4 guards and Floyd, (VMI 4 guards and Bell) shoot 3's and play all kind of different zone defenses... The difference is LU not playing as fast as VMI does, same basic concepts though.

The cool thing is RM is thinking outside the 'box' and Baucom has thought that way for the past 3 years... both coaches putting their teams in position to win games.

[flamesbball84]

First off, the fallacy here is that there is more to the system than 40 minutes of pressure D, there is another side of the ball called offense and the only team that can even come close to resembling it and had any success was UNLV like you mentioned.

The whole offense is built around jacking up 30+ three pointers a game. The past two season and this year, VMI has averaged 41.91, 36, and 35 attempted threes a game. Pitino's Wildcat squads averaged less than 10 made threes in all but one season and never came anywhere close to averaging the same amount of attempted 3 pointers as VMI has - the highest under Pitino was a "measly" 28.92, which was to no surprise to me his worst year at 14-14, never again did his Wildcats attempt over 25 threes a game.

I don't remember the UNLV games, however, because that was a before I started watching college hoops and I can't find any box scores at the moment.

Since when does 9 games indicate that you can consistently win with that system? Look at the teams who run what VMI runs, it's not consistently winning over multiple seasons. Look up Grinnell (who has been running it for over 10 years now!), look up Redlands, and look up Emory & Henry (both men and women) in the years they have run the system. Not once have they consistenly won games over multiple seasons playing that garbage.

[blwall1416]

and look up Emory & Henry (men)

I can assure you that E&H has abandoned that system. I reffed them last week & they did not run that offense against Methodist.

[flamesbball84]

and look up Emory & Henry (men)

I can assure you that E&H has abandoned that system. I reffed them last week & they did not run that offense against Methodist.

Yes I know that, that's why I said look them up when they ran it. They got worse every year running that crap.

[flamesbball84]

Looking back at Arkansas's stats, the most attempted threes they averaged under Nolan Richardson was 24.47, well off the pace VMI has established this year and the past two years.

[nickrichards]

I wonder what the old Loyola Merrimount teams' averaged?

[flamesbball84]

UNLV's school record for one season is 802 attempts in 2006-07, which comes out to an average of 21.67, which is also well below the average VMI has had.

[blwall1416]

I wonder what the old Loyola Marymount teams' averaged?

All I know is that Carolina waxed them when they played in the tourney in 1988.

123-97....UNC shot 79%.....2nd highest ever in the tourney.....set a record for most assist with 36.

[flamesbball84]

I wonder what the old Loyola Merrimount teams' averaged?

The most they ever attempted was 793 in 1988-89, which is an average of 25.58 per game.

SO basically, I believe that I stand correct on the fact that UNLV, Pitino, Richardson, and even Loyola Marymount's offense was not in the same territory as VMI and other "system" ball teams like Grinnell...

[kingaling42]

But you're basing that all on just 3 point attempts/makes.. You can't say that the style of basketball they play doesn't resemble those other teams.. If that was you're point I'm sorry but even though VMI shoots a ton of 3's why is that the defining characteristic of their style? We trailed by only a handful at halftime this weekend but the second half they took far more 2 point attempts (layups & drives) than they did 3's- if they stayed with 3's UNCA prob would have won Saturday.. VMI may shoot a bunch of 3's but unlike other years they have guys that take what the defense gives them- even if it's 2's.. they're different from the past- believe me!!