Every year, I look forward to the first exhibition game for a couple of reasons. One, a reunion with the cheap beer stand directly behind my seats where I can get $6 glasses of ice cold Pabst Blue Ribbon; and Two, a reunion with all of the people who I’ve sat by for eight years at the Qwest Center that I don’t otherwise see socially.
The guys who sit to my right are big fans, but not the type who follow every little offseason story and certainly not the type who follow recruiting in June. They show up every year clutching a roster sheet, and as each new player checks in, they glance at the sheet, and then make the sort of observations one makes when the only available data are height, weight, hometown and how a player looks physically. Does that make them less of a fan? No way. They’re in their seats well before tip every game, and they never leave early, even in a blowout. They join me in antagonizing those who sit behind us by standing to cheer, to yell at the refs, and to make noise. They follow the team to St. Louis every year. They’ve followed them to NCAA games out of town, and gone to every NIT/CIT game. But they just don’t follow message boards or read about recruiting.
I was once like that. I was once a die-hard fan who, once March ended, moved on to following other things in the offseason, then returned to the Jays each October. A little part of me sometimes wishes I could go back to the days when I’d show up for the first exhibition game cold, knowing nothing about the new players, letting my own two eyes make my first impression of a player instead of what some recruiting junkie tells me about a player. But the rest of me knows that’s never going to be the case anymore; I’m too emotionally invested, too much of a die-hard to ever not follow the offseason storylines on a daily basis again.
Knowing this about me, during the first exhibition game my seat neighbors have taken to picking my brain about each player, hoping I can fill them in on scouting reports and background info. Last night, this led to lots of “Who’s this Jay-hans guy?” and similar questions, with answers coming from me, some smart, some ironic, all informational in some respect. Now, since I don’t ordinarily enjoy being a know-it-all, what do I get out of this? Their analysis of the game is generally quite astute; I enjoy hearing the opinion of people who are seeing these players for the first time, especially when the people expounding the opinion are pretty intelligent in their analysis. They help me notice things I might not notice on my own. Its a symbiotic analytical relationship.
What did we learn last night, then? Lets start by listing five general things we noticed.
One: Everything is flashier, more Hollywood, and more accessible. This is superficial, to be sure, but its important in the entire picture of a program. During starting lineups, after the visitors are announced the house lights go out, a 45-second video clip with accompanying music plays, and blue spotlights follow each player from the bench to the court as they’re introduced. Dana’s ban on headbands is gone, as evidenced by Wayne Runnels rocking the headgear. The uniforms are flashier, incorporating a third color (silver) into the color scheme. When players dunk, the head coach doesn’t look annoyed. Before the game, the head coach has an actual conversation with the radio crew during the “Coaches Keys to the Game” as opposed to the generally annoyed “Do I really have to do this?” tone that Dana often took during those segments; likewise the postgame interview lasted for nearly eight minutes, with McDermott offering honest assessments mixed with great information all delivered in a tone that let you know he wasn’t conducting the interview because he had to, but because he wanted to. Dana’s postgame interviews would sometimes last 90 seconds even after a win and have very little in the way of actual information or insight. And McDermott sent not one but two players out to do radio interviews postgame! That, more than anything else in this category, blew me away last night.
Two: The young players will probably look better early on than the veterans. Doug McDermott touched on this during his postgame radio interview (Did I mention how awesome it is that Coach is making players available to do those? I did? Well, I’m going to keep mentioning it because it rocks.), noting that players who played for Dana are not only trying to learn Greg McDermott’s system, they’re trying to unlearn Dana’s system. Like Yoda tells Luke Skywalker in “The Empire Strikes Back”, they must unlearn what they have learned. Meanwhile, young players have never been taught a college system so they’re more of a blank canvas, and will likely adapt to Mac’s style quicker. For example, defensively, Dana Altman wanted his players to force the ball handler to the baseline; Mac wants them to force the ballhandler to the center of the half court. Doing that means your shoulders have to be squared differently, and your feet have to be positioned differently. Unlearning Dana’s way of playing defense and learning Mac’s style may prove more difficult for returning veterans than for young players, and we saw a lot of evidence of that last night.
Three: Our defensive strategy is drastically different. Under Dana, the Jays switched defenses frequently, going from a straight zone to a man-to-man to a matchup zone, sometimes changing on each possession. When he had the leaders to pull that off, it was effective. When he didn’t, they struggled and gave up lots of easy buckets. It was clear last night that Mac is running the same pack-it-in man-to-man defense he employed at UNI and Iowa State. Essentially, he aims to deny open looks inside of 15 to 18 feet, making sure any basket inside of the arc is heavily contested and that if it goes in, that you’ve earned it. Now, that means you’re going to give up some three-pointers, but if you’re not giving up anything easy, you take the trade off. Obviously, the execution was bad last night, but as that gets cleaned up as the season progresses, I think we’re going to notice a much tighter, more physical defense inside the arc. That’s a marked difference from Dana’s philosophy; neither is better, per se, they’re just different.
Four: Greg McDermott is not going to force a square peg into a round hole. Over Dana’s 16 seasons, he proved to be a stubborn coach who expected his players to adhere to his strategies and ways of doing things on the court. That’s a good thing, don’t get me wrong; when he had players willing to change their games, or who already fit those molds, he won and won big. But sometimes that stubbornness cost him, particularly in recent years. Mac had a very telling remark in his postgame radio interview to that end. He said that Jahenns Manigat, the freshman guard from Canada, has never played the point guard position, and as a natural two guard his instinct is to score and that he wants to get to the basket. OK, so he’s playing out of position, big deal. It was the next line that floored me. “That’s a trait you love to see in a guard, and we don’t want him to lose that trait.” Blink. Blink. A coach recognizing a player’s strength, and recognizing that while its not perfect for his style its a worthy strength and that its his job as coach to figure out how best to utilize that strength to make the player as good as he can be? Blasphemy! He then went on to say that while he’d like to do certain things schematically, “We’re not built like that.” He mentioned that line three times, and then described what he was doing to adapt, both with individual players and with his offensive/defensive strategies as a whole. There’s no stubbornness with Mac, and that’s a welcome change in my opinion.
Five: Suddenly, opening the season with three cupcakes seems like a genius plan. Some fans, myself included, were disappointed to see Alabama State, Northern Arizona and Louisiana as the first three regular-season opponents. As usual, the coaches know way more about these things than I do, which is why they’re the coach and I’m a fan. Being able to play three winnable games, at home, while continuing to work out the kinks and the wrinkles before heading on the road to play Iowa State seems like a damn good idea right about now. For me, the Louisiana game is the key game in the early schedule; by the time the Ragin’ Cajuns come to town, the team will have two real games under its belt, and two more weeks of practice. If team looks confused, sloppy, or just not very good by then, perhaps as fans we can start to worry.
Overall, it was an exhibition game, and even under an experienced staff, its a mistake to be too excited or too concerned based on the team’s performance. Exhibitions are always a poor showcase of talent and ability, because a lot of experimentation is happening with lineups and such. Forming general opinions on things, like I did with the people sitting around me last night, are what fans can take away from exhibition games. Once the team has played a real game, all of us as fans can decide whether we think the team is destined for greatness or the gutter. Doing so beforehand is a mistake. We’ve all seen some awfully good Creighton teams who looked like complete crap in exhibition games; remember that, take a deep breath, and get ready for next Friday.
You bet.