The problem is that Mooney's system is too complicated and new kids coming in take 2 years to learn it and get comfortable; while our A10 opponents and coaches have played against the Mooney system for 13 years and know it inside and out. So the opposition knows the system better than our own players.
In a nutshell....
The really sad thing is that I honestly don't think the system is that complicated. I see lots of stuff coaching my AAU groups and its not like what we do is somehow so much more difficult etc. I am at a loss to explain why it seems so consistently hard for our kids to learn. I have actually cut and broken down film on us to try and understand what we are doing that makes it so hard.
I will say this - - - on offense, we don't do anything especially novel or complex. Defensively, about 90% of what we do is standard stuff. The last 10% is very subtle and "advanced".
On offense, our system is a more complex system than say the dribble drive offense that a lot of teams run or any of the pick and roll heavy offenses that are in vogue today, but as a general matter simpler offenses work best in the hands of players who go out and make plays on their own. The pick and roll for example works great if both the ball handler and the screener can shoot the three and finish at the rim AND you can surround them with guys who can knock down shots to stymie help defense. Its super simple stuff because its theory is just to get an advantage and go one on one. But you need good/great one on one guys. For most of the NCAA teams, they need a system that's more complex than that to help create good scoring opportunities collaboratively rather than one on one. Our system has no more reads or complexities or rules than many others. Virtually all offensive systems have really two ways to score built in - - "advantage situations" and "system shots". Advantage situations are what they sound like, the offensive players and the ball move until as a result there is some sort of advantage created (e.g. your 7 footer is on the block covered by their PG or your slasher is on the wing with no help defense in position etc. or your defender is overplaying a passing lane) and you attack the advantage. How you attack etc. is less scripted and more about the guy with the one on one advantage using it however it can best be used (e.g. you cut backdoor when your guy overplays the passing lane). Create an advantage and attack. System shots are more specific. So, you are running your system to include a screen for your best shooter coming off of it to a spot where he really likes to shoot. You are looking specifically at that point in the offense for that shot. But they are not mutually exclusive. Any system has both types of opportunities built in. So, in shutting down that system shot off the screen, the other team ends up with their PG on your PF in the paint. You have created an advantage and you attack with that. The threat of the system shot created the advantage in that case. What I see in our system is that like all systems, it has lots of spots where the right play is probably to just try take an advantage and attack etc. but we seem to be very passive in looking for these opportunities or attacking them - - - settling instead to look only for the "system shot" almost all the time (except when the shot clock is down to the end). This is a very tough way to be successful because system shots can be taken away in a lot of different ways especially if you don't fear the advantage you may give up while taking away the system shot. Its this passiveness that in my mind causes our struggles on offense. It also makes the offense look more complicated because after we don't get a system shot, we keep running the offense looking for the next system shot which may take several actions to develop. It is isn't any more complicated, we just stay with it longer.
On defense, as I said, the core of what we do is the same as lots of folks (or at least looks the same). We switch a lot both on and off the ball and those switches are the core of our defensive philosophy. That's a theory that your defense is premised on. Many coaches adopt a "no switches" premise to their defensive philosophy. And then spend all their time teaching kids to fight through, over and under screens and how the screener's defender has to hedge or trap (or whatever) the screen and then recover but never switch etc. Where you should be positionally in respect to the ball, your man, your help responsibility etc before, during and after switches (and when to switch obviously) are what our defense is all about. Most of what we do is standard stuff for switching type defenses. We do have a little bit more complexity in some of what we do to "hand people off" as we play through a possession. The idea here being that while there wasn't a screen or similar action to trigger a switch, a player will still "hand off" (or switch) his man to another player. We hand off more than many teams. Communication is a huge part of this. What I can't tell is how complex our reads are for doing "the right thing" within the defense. What we end up doing doesn't seem all that tough, but we consistently see a lot of hesitation and a lot of one guy doing one thing and another guy seemingly expecting something else. That implies to me that the "reads" that tell the kids what to do and when to do it are too many or too complex. For example, a super simple read may be, if the ball is below the FT line do X but if the ball is above the FT line do Y. But they can also get very complex, requiring players to assess multiple factors to know what to do - - If the ball is below the FT line and your man is in the outer one-third of the court, do X, but if the ball is below the FT line and your man is in the center of 1/3 of the court do Y and if the ball is above the FT line do Z. This can mushroom very quickly as you add in another factor (following on the example above - - adding in some different approaches now based on whether the defenders man is ball side or weak side). I suspect our reads are complex given what we see etc.
This is a sign of a coach who is usually really good at x's and O's and theory. He/she knows what needs to happen for it to all be perfect. Great coaches make this work because they are also great teachers and can somehow teach all that to their kids, giving them just what they can handle, keeping them all at the same level, expanding it slowly but surely but always allowing the kids to have a system in hand they play with confidence and understanding etc. But not all great x's and o's guys are great teachers. And that can be difficult or even disastrous. If as a coach, I only know 60 % of what you know as a coach, but mi kids can execute 100% of what I know cause I can teach 'em great, but your kids can only execute 50 % of what you know, who is better off?
This is CM to me. He is a very good basketball guy and I think he is a real thinker so he knows what needs to happen theory wise for everything to work etc. But I am not sure he is a great teacher at all. And I am not sure he has the ability to recognize guys who he can teach the stuff to from guys maybe he can't. The reason I think he won't change the systems is because he is totally convinced they are the "best" systems and all he needs if for guys to do what he tells them to do; failing to recognize that the best system will always be one your guys can play the best not the one that's best in a theoretical discussion.
