So they give up a very high percentage shot in exchange for a comparatively low percentage shot? This makes perfect sense.But, they do have a 2 for 1 approach (willing to give up a lay-up in exchange for getting a 3 pointer on the other end)
So they give up a very high percentage shot in exchange for a comparatively low percentage shot? This makes perfect sense.But, they do have a 2 for 1 approach (willing to give up a lay-up in exchange for getting a 3 pointer on the other end)
So they give up a very high percentage shot in exchange for a comparatively low percentage shot? This makes perfect sense.
So, if Iowa had an early exhibition against a Sister's of the Poor team and they kept Aaron White in the entire game and ran the offense through him to get him 100 points, while practice players sat on the bench with the team up 50 points, you would be cool with that?
You say the other team has responsibility. Yeah, that is like saying a 5th grade team would have the same kind of responsibilty playing a Senior Varsity High School team.
I could imagine it might be hard not to match bad sportsmanship with bad sportsmanship by aiming for sending that player off on a stretcher or forfeiting the game due to players fouling out before the stats get news worthy.
Loyola Marymount ran kind of a watered-down version of the "Grinnell" system. It worked pretty well when they had good players. In a lot of their games, the opposing team was completely gassed by the end of the game.Where is the evidence for this? I think it would be really interesting to see a major college program run this system. For a good read, read the book, Coaching the System: A complete guide to basketball's most explosive style of play. They argue this very point in the book.
Loyola Marymount ran kind of a watered-down version of the "Grinnell" system. It worked pretty well when they had good players. In a lot of their games, the opposing team was completely gassed by the end of the game.