Well a lot of that is having good offensive talent at pretty much every position. We had pretty much no guard offensive talent in 21 and yet we finished 17th due to incredible offensive talent in the forward positions and in spite of being one of the worst rebounding and FTA teams in the country.
Iām not saying we shouldnāt change things, but Iām mostly saying we should try to get better players.
I memory-holed that weāve done the ābring in the outside person to consult on offenseā move more recently than the Kirk Penney thing:
Indeed, Virginia was experimenting with a wholesale change in the way it approached offensive basketball. The system Bennett had installed ā a free-flowing read-and-react style that prioritizes positionless play and the intuitive decision-making of the players on the floor ā is the brainchild of Noah Laroche, the owner of Integrity Hoops, an NBA developmental consultancy that has worked with Blake Griffin, Russell Westbrook, and other professional basketball players. Laroche is a former Division III player at St. Josephās of Maine. After hitting a low offensive point, Larocheās coach, Rob Sanicola, asked his former player to help him install an entirely new offense. In 2018-19, the first full year of the offenseās installation, St. Josephās averaged 93 points per game, more than 20 per game more than it had the season before.
It did not stick.
Lasted about 1.5 games
I have no idea what to make of that when TB wanted new offensive ideas, he went way off the grid for them (I guess not so far off if Xs and Os accounts were making YouTube videos about them).
https://x.com/sam_vecenie/status/1771040968894271704?s=46
Posted this in another thread- but might just start dumping awesome sets/plays I see in the NCAAT in the hopes I can manifest change 
The Xs and Os thread might be a good spot for the NCAAT plays:
Specifically related to UVA, I actually think those kinds of set plays after timeouts or in special situations have been relative strengths for TB (I donāt have numbers, just vibes).
https://x.com/halfcourthoops/status/1114690434725568512?s=46&t=wAzMZR-0PRGT1LpN6U5x0g
Itās actually very curious that he can be so creative with the set plays andā¦less so with the base continuity offenses. Corollary to this is that he is also pretty good at diagnosing zone defensesā weaknesses and manipulating them.
The good news about the particular flameout this year is, there is no more denying the issue or any tribalism about efficiency, control, pace, etc. It is readily apparent to 99% of our fanbase that this is the red alarm issue to address. Other programs are doing it. Are we so exceptional that we stubbornly avoid change or adapting? By this time next year, I think we will have a good answer as to what level of introspection/adaptability the staff adopted.
Thatās an interesting one. Talks about how they developed a more intricate, ball-movement-heavy 5-out Princeton offense and then scrapped it for mismatch ball:
That night the Underwoods met, discussed Wrightās feedback and made a decision.
Letās do it. Enough of the fluff.
āWe were turning the ball over too much,ā Underwood said. āAnd we needed to find a way to play into advantages for Marcus.ā
They scrapped the NBA sets and started studying Wrightās old Villanova teams, particularly when he had Jalen Brunson. Domask would be their Brunson. Theyād unleash him in booty ball and also post up 6-foot-6 wing Ty Rodgers. Theyād quit posting up Hawkins and backup center Dain Dainja. Theyād keep playing fast. Seven seconds or less has always been the goal in initial offense. But if a quick shot wasnāt there, theyād try to pick on a mismatch or create them with ball screens.
Funny that it has worked better for them than for Villanova, which still plays that way.
Also, Underwood is interesting as someone who until somewhat recently was running another antiquated offense that is misleadingly called the āspreadā offense (thereās nothing spread about the spacing):
I was just thinking, I think this is at least the second Underwood transformation story Iāve read in the past few years.
Also, I like the transformation stories that you read a fair amount of this time of year, about the teams that are advancing in the tourney.
But to be fair, nobody is interviewing the teams that went 15-15 and asking like, why did that thing you tried totally fail?
Definitely an element of survivorship bias going on:
I would read the article āHereās all the things the coach of this mediocre team triedā but you usually donāt get that until theyāve actually turned it around.
I think weāve all missed the big point in the UConnās-offense-is-great story. From the story (emphasis added is mine):
The analytics sā was a world Murray had been inhabiting for nearly a decade, fascinated with how the Warriors and Lenovo Tenerife in Spain were revolutionizing their shot selection. Both teams had designed offenses that were prioritizing 3-pointers, ārim shots,ā free throws and easy baskets in transition to maximize scoring ā all while bastardizing mid-range jumpers unless the shot clock was about to expire.
Currently on the roster of Lenovo Tenerife? Kyle Guy. Come home, Kyle. Revolutionize our offense.
Or at least DM your coachās contact info to TB haha.
Hereās 13 mins of their coachās actions that you all obviously needed:
Forcing Mack to can Murray and Dino was an all-timer of a blunder from Lville AD.
Murray because he is apparently a very good and well respected assistant (and his dad looks cool in the friends and family section)
And Dino because he got upset and did some blackmail.
The Dino blackmail thing was wildā¦it very much felt like something he (Dino) really didnāt need to do but he panicked.
Oh, and on this, what I think really separates these plays from more vanilla approaches is how well designed the second side actions/reads when the initial action is denied are. Thatās what I see as the connection to the UConn offense; if something gets taken away, they flow right into an action that tries to take advantage of how the defense responds. It almost feels like they have you right where they want you once you start overplaying the initial action. And so even their late shot clock possessions feel like they come from finding an early advantage and patiently opening it up more and more until a great shot is available. Could definitely learn from that for our offense.
Exactly. Iām not the big play diagraming expert that some on here are, but the big problem with B/M seems to be that the answer to an action being well defended is basically, āRun the action again and again and again and again until it works.ā
I donāt think Virginia is totally lost in the woods, the offense just needs to be updated with more options and variations and counters.
Yes. Iāve been thinking about this a lot. Iām also not a big Xās and Oās guy but this feels like the big failure of the coaches this year. Once āthe book is out on usā if chapter 1 of that book is ādo everything possible to deny imacā then we have to come up with a response that makes a defense pay for overplaying mckneeley. and that response should not be āhave imac come off a screen and catch the ball inside the 3p line and take a long 2.ā
Yeah, I think itās one part scheme design where they didnāt do a good job of weaponizing McKneelyās gravity, one part player execution where our guys seemed to readily surrender the advantage in a possession too quickly. Maybe that has do with how they teach offense, but I feel like I can count on my hands the number of times we had the defense late in rotation and then it was swing pass, swing pass, open shot. And I can count too many times where a guy came off a screen with some space and the defender scrambling but then just let the defense catch up instead of forcing them into rotation.