I'm not exactly sure where I want to take this, other than to take a look at Tony Bennett's success at Washington State, then dissect how he's winning at Virginia right now, whether or not that success is sustainable via recruiting, the model for how he wants to put his team together, and what the future holds for Bennett and Virginia Basketball. Whelp, looks like I actually do know exactly where I want to take the post, after all. (I honestly never know until I start writing.)
First off, however, an acknowledgement: I've gone on record a few times saying I didn't really enjoy watching Bennettball. That's true, I admit it. I came up as a young pup loving Arkansas Basketball under Nolan Richardson, so the "
40 Minutes of Hell" style of stifling full-court pressure, steals, dunks, jams, and pull-up 3s in transition is still what really gets my blood pumping. Playing fast and reckless, but killing teams with defensive intensity. I've always hoped we'd eventually get a Richardson protégé here at Virginia, without really knowing if the style/system would work in the ACC or if this school could recruit those types of basketball players out of Duke, UNC, Maryland, and Georgetown's back yard.
40 Minutes of Hell at UVA was always my dream. Only now am I realizing that my yearning was really not for that specific system, but instead for an identity - any identity - for Virginia basketball, with bonus points if that identity feels a little bit exciting and sexy.
We're halfway through Tony Bennett's third season at UVA, and while it's not exactly exciting, the packline defense has somehow become
sexy. Fans are embracing it for its extremely low points yields, its consistency and reliability, its ability to travel to away games, and mostly for the wins it generates. The basketball-savvy media (Andy Katz!) pounding the defense drum and heaping praise on Bennett and his rebuilt program certainly doesn't hurt, either. At its core, Virginia is a basketball school, and Virginia has smart basketball fans who know quality when they see it. Tony Bennett's packline defense is quality... and it is now officially sexy to Virginia basketball fans.
Bennettball and the packline is not
40 Minutes of Hell. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. But I (like most Virginia fans) am eagerly embracing what Tony Bennett is doing with this program right now. Scoring 45-50 points in a loss really sucks, but scoring 55 points in a win is a lot more fun than scoring 75 points in a loss. The key word is and will always be
WIN.
Okay, back to the script laid out in the first paragraph...
Tony Bennett's Success at Washington State
Sometimes it's easy to forget that this is Tony Bennett's sixth season as a head basketball coach. Just six. Granted, he was groomed for the job for many years under his legendary dad Dick Bennett, but this is just his sixth season as a head coach, and his third at the helm of a program he built from scratch himself.
In his first year as head coach at Wazzu, he took the Cougars to the second round, and in his second year the Sweet Sixteen. Both years they won 26 games, tying the Washington State all-time single season wins record. Those Cougar teams were built around two star players -- Derrick Low and Kyle Weaver. Low was a sweet shooting 6-2 combo guard with a good stroke from the perimeter and Weaver was a wiry 6-6 stat-stuffing wing who scored, hit the glass, and played great defense. Both guys were good ballhandlers, both were facilitators and playmakers, both could score, and both played exceptional defense.
 |
| C'mon, you remember Derrick Low. |
Aron Baynes, Taylor Rochestie, and Robbie Cowgill played key complimentary roles on Bennett's two tournament teams at Wazzu. Baynes was a solid 6-10, 250-pound bang-minded big man; good rebounder, good low post defender (held Tyler Hansbrough relatively quiet in the Sweet Sixteen), good shot blocker... but not an exceptional athlete. Rochestie was a 6-1 point guard with nice touch from beyond the arc. Cowgill was a skinny, athletic 6-10 power forward who played D, blocked shots, and rebounded. He scored most of his points on stickbacks and garbage plays around the basket.
Washington State
IS NOT a basketball school. Bennett found this success with players his dad recruited to the Palouse to play the packline defense. None of these guys were hotly coveted coming out of high school, they just fit the systems being run by the Bennetts.
 |
| Kyle Weaver was always the key. |
The interesting thing is that with Low, Rochestie, and Weaver on the floor together, Bennett had three guys adept at handling the basketball. All three could shoot from the perimeter, as well (that was a trait that each developed under Bennett's coaching -- none were deadeye shooters prior to their Washington State careers). Basically, two combo guards and a "point forward" type of wing. Cowgill was the energy/glue guy on the interior, and Baynes was the classic back-to-the-basket big man.
This team, with no real superstars and nothing but a lot of grit, a good defensive system, and a penchant for taking care of the basketball and getting good shots on offense somehow won 52 games over the course of two seasons, earned a 3-seed and a 4-seed in back to back tournaments, and won three games in tournament play. Not bad.
Baynes and Rochestie returned in 2008-09, but without Low and Weaver - the real engine driving those Wazzu teams - the Cougs went 17-16 (8-10 in the Pac-10) and lost to St. Mary's in the first round of the NIT. That seemed to be the floor for a program now rooted in Bennettball philosophies.
In sum, Bennettball was able to quickly elevate the Washington State program to heights it had never experienced (three NCAA tournament wins all-time prior to Bennett, three NCAA tournament wins during this two-year run). Tony Bennett's systems took average talent to the top-25, but it still relied on experienced upperclassmen in Low, Weaver, and Cowgill to make it all work. Keep that in mind as you think about Bennettball from a Virginia perspective --- experience is key, as is cohesive play from the players on the team. Chemistry, if you will.
Dissecting How Virginia is Winning Now
We hold opponents to an average of 51 points per game on 38% shooting (26% from 3). We out-rebound our opponents by an average of over six boards per game. We hold opponents to just seven assists per game (a remarkable number). We average just 11 turnovers per game. We shoot an efficient 46% from the field. We knock down free throws at a nice 73% clip.
Basically, we control pace and play a brand of defense that forces our opponents to be patient and selective with their shots (a feat many college teams simply cannot accomplish on a regular basis). We find points from Mike Scott, with Sammy Zeglinski, Joe Harris, and Malcolm Brogdon providing balance from the perimeter, and get junk scoring from the rest of our bigs. 65 ppg doesn't set the world on fire, but it's more than enough when you're holding the enemy to just over 50 ppg.
 |
Mike Scott once urinated in a semi truck's gas tank as a joke...
that truck is now known as Optimus Prime. |
This is Bennettball. It was the same way at Washington State. It's packline D -- preventing the dribble-drive, sealing the baseline, hedging at the top of the key, making carefully-orchestrated defensive rotations, forcing bad perimeter shots, and putting the entire team in favorable position for rebounding. It's one shot per possession. It's valuing our own possessions on offense, grinding along to find good shots via screening for screeners, running curls, passing. It's patience at all times. It's control. It's taking the shot clock down to force opponents to get gassed playing defense. It's keeping scores low and close, and trusting our senior leadership and solid free throw shooting to win games at the end. It's forcing teams into the uncomfortable situation of playing to our pace, with minimal "easy" buckets and very little chance to get out and run. It
is not always pretty... but it's pretty damn effective.
Does this work in the ACC? Night in and night out, yes. There are enough teams in our conference that rely on talent and athleticism and are willing to put inexperienced / unintelligent / impatient players in key roles, which plays right into our hands. (See also: UVA 70, Georgia Tech 38 on Thursday night.) Against well-coached, ubertalented teams like Duke and UNC... jury's out. I think Bennettball gives us a relatively low ceiling, but always gives us a very high floor. Mostly, it allows us to compete favorably with more talented teams on a regular basis. Bennettball takes the pressure off of recruiting and puts it on player development and experience. It's working, we're winning. With two 5th-year seniors, one true senior, and a junior in the starting lineup, we're winning. The systems look good, the style is effective, we're generating national pub, we're earning cred as a program, and we're winning. And winning is always going to be the only thing that matters.
Is Bennettball's Success Sustainable at UVA?
Yes.
But look, most hotshot basketball recruits don't want to play in a system that limits possessions and intrinsically prevents gaudy stats. Bennettball is not a stepping stone to the NBA. If you follow recruiting closely, you are going to see UVA fail to attract top-notch recruits, and you are going to see a lot of attrition from within the program. KT Harrell and James Johnson are not the exception, they are the rule with this type of system. Jamil Tucker, Jeff Jones, Sylven Landesberg, Calvin Baker, John Brandenburg, Tristan Spurlock, Billy Baron, and Will Regan all left early with eligibility remaining under Tony Bennett's watch. Most of today's basketball players just do not want to play in a system-driven, defense-first program, especially one that requires so much skill and rehearsal, with minimal room for improvisation. Big-time recruits don't want to put in the
YEARS of hard work required to properly learn the intricacies and nuances of the packline defense, and you don't see much playing time for Tony Bennett if you aren't proficient running his defense. Recruits want to put their athleticism on display, and they want to run and jump and dunk and score. Shooters want the freedom to jack up shots in volume. Therefore, once the new car smell wears off on Bennett and his Virginia program, I think you'll see us settle onto a plateau of recruiting players just barely inside the nation's top 150 (in the 75-150 range), and players outside the top 150 who are good fits with the system. Our recruiting rankings are really good right now, but in another few seasons I fully expect those rankings to drop.
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of players out there who are perfect fits for this system. Workers who just want a chance to compete at the highest level of college basketball. Guys like Sammy Zeglinski, Joe Harris, Paul Jesperson, and Akil Mitchell. These players will find their way to Virginia, and Tony Bennett will be able to solidify the program with high-effort players who possess just enough talent to win games in the ACC. I see a future of good shooters, good ball handlers, defensive specialists, raw athletes with no other ACC-level offers, and bigs who want to play early in their careers. (Did I just describe every single player on our current roster?) We won't see one-and-done players who bolt for the NBA, we won't see supremely talented scorers, we won't see can't-miss big men, and we won't see explosive wings who can jump out of the gym... except for Justin Anderson. But more on him later.
 |
| Justin Anderson: our next superstar! |
Mike Scott might be a flash in the pan for Tony Bennett, but Anderson is on his way (more on him later). We'll get lucky and land a stud every few years, and we'll develop a homegrown stud every few years, as well. They key is keeping those guys integrated into Bennettball and happy with their roles on the team... and happy playing a brand of team ball that leads directly to winning games.
We'll be a .500 type team at worst, with spikes up to 22-26 wins and 3- or 4-seed status every few years when the experienced upperclassmen stack up on our roster; when we get a raw Jerome Meyinnse-type big man who develops into a legit, go-to double-double machine.
Is Bennettball's success sustainable at UVA? Yes. Any system built on defense and intelligence is sustainable because you don't need transcendent athletes to make it work. Taking the onus off of recruiting and putting it on player development is a good idea for a basketball program like Virginia. We'll never be able to out-recruit Duke and UNC, and with the cohesive and effective Bennettball systems in place, we won't need to kill ourselves trying to compete with those blueblood programs on the recruiting trail.
 |
| Key 2014 recruit Devon Hall |
Recruits like Paul Jesperson -- limited athletically, but possessing good size, a nice shooting stroke, high basketball IQ, defensive acumen, and a solid work ethic -- ranked in the 75-150 range of the overall national top 150, are going to be the bread and butter recruits of Bennettball. These are the types of recruits Bennett can attract to his system, simply by being able to offer playing time in a vogue conference like the ACC, and by being able to offer the old-school team experience that so many other basketball programs cannot deliver.
A quick look at all of Bennett's recruits to UVA:
- Will Regan -- 2010, 148 overall
- Joe Harris -- 2010, 119 overal
- KT Harrell -- 2010, 30 overall
- James Johnson -- 2010, 108 overall
- Akil Mitchell -- 2010, not ranked in top 150
- Billy Baron -- 2010, not ranked in top 150
- Malcolm Brogdon -- 2011, 104 overall
- Paul Jesperson -- 2011, 136 overall
- Darion Atkins -- 2011, not ranked in top 150
- Justin Anderson -- 2012, 35 overall
- Teven Jones -- 2012, not ranked in top 150
- Evan Nolte -- 2012, 120 overall
- Mike Tobey -- 2012, 109 overall
- B.J. Stith -- 2014, top 150 not yet ranked
 |
| Jesperson is the prototypical Bennett recruit. |
Average national ranking: 116 overall. These are not the marquee recruiting classes that you'll see at Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas. Just five of the nine Bennett-era recruits who made it to Charlottesville are still on the team today. So it's relatively low rankings with a high amount of attrition. Not usually a recipe for success, but I think it works for Tony Bennett because he hand-picks
his guys, and those guys have to earn their burn. So the ones who make it, stick around on the team, and end up making a career-long impact are the guys who fit the system in the right ways. (Think Joe Harris.) Eggs break to make this omelet.
To the naked eye, it looks like throwing players at a wall to see what sticks, and in many ways that's what it is. But it's throwing players at a wall to see who's got enough toughness and desire to stick. KT Harrell didn't stick. Joe Harris did. James Johnson didn't stick. Akil Mitchell did. And so on and so forth.
Bennett doesn't bend and contort his philosophies or systems in order to accommodate his players. In fact, quite the opposite. He recruits into his systems. He's rigid in what he does. If the player doesn't end up being a good fit, he doesn't play, and behind closed doors is likely encouraged to move on to a different school. It's a harsh way to operate, but Bennettball is always going to be greater than the sum of the parts... which leaves no room for ego from those individual parts. Click into the machine or be replaced. This is where the cohesion happens, and this is where chemistry is developed. Team first.
Some recruits legitimately want to subject themselves to Bennettball. They want to learn to play within the constraints of true old-school team basketball, eschewing the running, scoring, glitz, and glamour of modern up-and-down full court hoops. Some recruits honestly want that deep down in their guts and soul, and some recruits honestly think they do. But once they are here and grinding through the constant defensive drills and being held accountable for those perfect defensive switches, that perfect positioning, those perfect decisions, they realize that it's not the right way for them. Bennettball is not about instant gratification.
I think about it kind of like I think about joining the military. Except there's no punishment for desertion or going AWOL from Bennettball. You just transfer to a different school, sit out a year, and you're on your way. That's why I think we'll always see a fairly high amount of attrition with Bennettball. But honestly, once you discover that a player is a bad fit, it's better for them to go ahead and leave. Otherwise, you end up with one of those situations (see also: Solomon Tat) where you get very little from the player and you just end up counting down the days until the scholarship cycles through the four years and is opened up for someone new. With only 13 scholarships to give, you have to hit on 50% of them in order to have a good team. If you're not a "hit" for Bennettball, it's best for the team if you move on and open up the scholarship for someone new.
At the end of the day, I think we'll continue to see big recruiting classes and a fairly high amount of attrition. It's just the way of life for an inflexible* system like Bennettball.
* I chose the term "inflexible" carefully here. It's a term with negative connotations, but like it or not, Bennettball IS inflexible. That's part of its blessing and also part of its curse.
All of the above being said, you still have to recruit talented players into your program. We can't beat Duke and UNC with Ivy League level players. That's why it's so important to land guys like Justin Anderson every once in a while, and make sure they have a defined role in the system so they will stick.
 |
| JA: our next superstar? |
Justin Anderson? Yeah, he's a stud. An athletic freak whose game reminds me of Vince Carter's. Anderson is less of a shooter and stronger than was Carter, but they play the same style of ball -- above the rim. JA is probably the opposite of the prototypical Bennett wing player, but he brings a lot of things to the table that should play very well within the Bennettball systems -- strength, good defense, plus-level rebounding, determination, grit, a team-first mentality, patience, the willingness (eagerness?) to play a facilitator role for his teammates, and the list could go on and on.
To me, Justin Anderson is the ultimate experiment for Tony Bennett. Will he actually fit the systems? If he doesn't, will Tony bend the inflexible systems to make a stud fit? If not, what happens? Would Anderson cut and run? (He really doesn't seem like the type, but then neither did KT Harrell.) I can't wait to see Anderson in action next season, because he's the best recruit we've had since the '90s, and he's something entirely new for Tony Bennett... though I can see a bit of Kyle Weaver when I look at Justin Anderson.
The Roster Model
Based on his recruiting patterns and examples of composed teams he's been able to put on the court, this is how I think Tony Bennett wants to build his basketball team:
Backcourt:
Two interchangeable combo guards, or maybe a pure point and a combo. In either case, two guys capable of bringing the ball up the floor and making plays for teammates... and also knocking down the perimeter jumper and/or taking the ball into the lane as situations dictate. Shooting guards with zero handle need not apply. Sammy Zeglinski seems to be the model here, along with Derrick Low and Malcolm Brogdon. I don't think Jontel Evans is a guy Bennett would usually recruit, though Teven Jones is more Evans than Zeglinski. Mustapha Farrakhan had the defense and the shooting ability (though streaky), but I think his handle wasn't quite where Bennett wanted it. Bennett is currently recruiting a number of true point guards and combo guards in the 2013 and 2014 classes, after having terrible luck drawing a point guard into the 2012 class (Teven Jones was a late-blooming "plan B" type of recruit.)
Wings:
Tall spot-up shooting types, jack-of-all-trades types, and/or athletic 3/4 tweener types with a developing outside shot. Bennett can use one true wing or two (as I think we'll see next year), but he prefers his wing players to stretch defenses to the perimeter. The wings also need to be able to get in there and rebound the basketball. Bonus points if you have a plus handle and are a point forward type, like Kyle Weaver. Joe Harris and Paul Jesperson appear to be the prototype. Evan Nolte, also. Justin Anderson, not so much... though again, he
could be our more explosive version of Kyle Weaver. Sweet shooting wings appear to be the easiest players for Bennett to find and recruit into the program, so it's easy to see a logjam develop on the roster at this spot. In fact, we're about to have one such logjam in 2012-13, with Harris, Jesperson, Anderson, and Nolte all pushing for playing time. The lack of bigs on the roster next season might open up the four-guard lineup, which is really more like two guards, two wings, and a power forward/center. I don't think that's exactly what Bennett wants, but he's comfortable using that look when he needs to.
Bigs:
One traditional banger and one athletic pogo stick. Strong rebounding is an absolute must. Good footwork and strong defensive instincts are also smiled upon. Back-to-the-basket offense seems to be the white whale here -- always sought, never found. Bennett has proven himself (and/or his staff) highly adept at developing raw bigs into good players (see also: Jerome Meyinnse, Assane Sene, Robbie Cowgill, Aron Baynes, and of course, Mike Scott.) Bennett also likes his big men to be able to shoot the mid-range jumper. He seems to like his 4s being able to shoot from 3, ala Will Sherrill and now Mike Scott. Will Regan fit the Sherrill mold, James Johnson was the back-to-the-basket white whale. Once his offensive game rounds out a bit more, Akil Mitchell is Virginia's Robbie Cowgill. I think Bennett took a shot in the dark on Mitchell, but that's something he's willing to do -- roll the dice on athletic guys with height beyond 6-8. I think Darion Atkins was recruited to be the athletic pogo stick type, but is showing flashes of being a bit more than that. Mike Tobey is another white whale, as was Marshall Plumlee when Bennett was putting the full-court press on him two summers ago.
Good bigs are always the toughest players for non-blueblood programs to find, and that's no different here at Virginia. What is different is that Bennett has a very good track record of being able to turn projects into players. That's the trait I'm most excited about with our basketball coach, perhaps even more than the effectiveness of the packline defense.
What the Future Holds...
Well, first and foremost, I think this year needs to culminate with an NCAA Tournament appearance. We're certainly well on our way, and probably only need to win another seven games or so to punch the dance ticket. Once that happens, Bennettball could easily make serious noise in March.
With a tourney appearance this season, I think any Virginia fans still sleeping will come out of their apathetic slumber and embrace what is happening in the JPJ. Virginia will return to full "basketball school" status, and will settle in as a team that consistently finishes in the top half of the ACC, though usually behind Duke, UNC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Look no further than Wisconsin in the Big 10 for obvious parallels.
 |
| Coach forever, Bo Ryan. Please. |
Speaking of Wisconsin, that is our next serious roadblock to a period on sustained success on the hardwood. Bo Ryan is 65 years old, which means he doesn't have much more than 8-10 years remaining to patrol the Wisconsin sideline before retirement. Once Ryan steps down, the Badgers will come after Tony Bennett, and they will come
HARD. Would Bennett be willing to step away from a program he built from the ground up at Virginia in order to take over the program his dad put on the map decades earlier? It might boil down to the money and fan support at Virginia.
If UVA fans buy in on Bennettball, and I mean buy all the way in, then
Tony Bennett could be our Coach K. Cavernous JPJ Arena needs to be filled, and the basketball fan culture needs to get back to early 1980s levels for that to happen.
To me, Tony Bennett is going to write his own destiny at Virginia over the course of these next 5-7 years. He's going to win games and take us to tournaments, that much is given. If he wins enough in March, and takes Virginia to a few Sweet Sixteens... or even beyond (from my lips to God's ears)... to the tournament's third weekend... then the fanbase will solidify, the program will develop a bedrock reputation, and he'll be coaching at Virginia with a blank check in his pocket and a smile on his face for the next 30 years. If he can't gain much traction in the tournament, fizzling out in the second round a couple of times and failing to make it in off the bubble a couple more, then I think he goes to Wisconsin when they come calling.
That's it -- between now and 2020, if Bennett can take Virginia to
FOUR NCAA Tournaments and advance to the Elite Eight once, then he's our Coach K. If not, he's our next Jeff Jones.
Conclusion
Bennettball is not
40 Minutes of Hell. It's not a pulse-pounding, exciting brand of basketball. But it is the first cohesive system Virginia Basketball has had since Terry Holland forged our identity around hard-nosed defense and rebounding. Bennettball can take us to heights we have not experienced since those teams of the early '80s, the key is for Virginia fans to properly embrace it for what it is, and for the right players to stick when Bennett throws those recruiting classes against the wall.
This is an exciting time to be a Virginia basketball fan. Can you sense that electricity? That's the goosebumps you're feeling about returning to relevancy in the ACC and in the college basketball landscape. With Bennettball at its core, Virginia Basketball is important again. Wahoowa and hallelujah.
GO HOOS!
