Transition: When Bobby Cremins announced his retirement, he stated it was time for the program to take a new direction under new leadership. In the many interviews since his initial announcement, Coach Cremins consistently repeated his motivation. He wasn’t sure what went wrong on his watch, but he was comfortable with the reality that it was time for both Tech and himself to take a new direction. Coach Cremins was always a strait forward individual and one can only assume that his belief on this matter was sincere.

For many Tech Hoops faithful, there simply is no separating Tech basketball from Bobby Cremins. For them, Tech basketball and Cremins are one and the same. The idea of Tech playing basketball without the Silver Mane on the sidelines is wrong for some. Moreover, the idea of rooting for another coach at "Cremins’ post" is offensive and disloyal. The plain fact exists that Cremins was a quality man who accumulated fans and friends the way Bill Gates makes money. There are a horde of people who would lie down on the railroad tracks for Bobby Cremins. While this may make the transition for a new coach sticky at times, it also makes fans of bobby Cremins feel good to know that he left Tech a very rich man, and not just in terms of money. There is no doubt that Cremins will land on his feet.

Cremins words were prophetic. It was time for a new direction, he said. And a new direction is what was accomplished.

The search for a new coach was as controversial as Coach Cremins’ retirement. The entire matter was shrouded in secrecy. Rumors abounded, and almost all were unfounded. When the shroud was lifted, a surprise candidate emerged as new Head Coach. Again, many fans were outraged at the hiring of an unknown coach with only three years experience as head coach, and not at the High Division I level at that. Many fans thought that Tech would spend to land a high profile coach more fitting to the program’s standing. Whether it be out of respect for a coach of 19 years seniority, or a head Football coach who turned around a floundering football program, the Tech administration was clearly not going to swallow a salary higher than that made by Cremins or O’Leary. That reality likely eliminated most high profile candidates.

Thus, the direction settled upon by the search committee was an inexperienced, ambitious "up-and-comer" by the name of Paul Hewitt. At the beginning of the search process, Hewitt was a long shot. But, the Siena head coach made a strong impression on the committee, and was named the man. In his three years as Head Coach at Siena, Paul Hewitt took a program that had won 22 games combined in the previous three years to his arrival, and went 66-27 (.710).

Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the new coach’s hire was his lack of pedigree. Most inexperienced coaches that make it to the highest levels of Division I have a well defined coaching pedigree. They come from an established lineage: The Iba-Sutton lineage, the Knight-Krzyzewski lineage, Dean Smith, Rick Pitino. Bobby Cremins was a Frank McGuire man. But coach Hewitt came from a tiny college and learned to coach by mostly attending camps. His coaching style originates from the mixing pot: Raveling, Lappas, John Thompson, Ric Pitino, etc...

In many respects, Coach Hewitt has been a man who has come out of nowhere his entire career to date.

New Direction: Coach Hewitt enters his new post with explicit expectations of his program. He minces no words, leaves little to the imagination in how he plans to operate his program. And if a change in direction is what was needed for the program, then that much at least has been accomplished. Coach Hewitt’s points of emphasis are very clear and represent a dramatic departure to what we have seen in previous years:

1. Run and Press. Coach Hewitt will attempt to implement a hybrid system. Many Tech fans have long cried for an explicit, signature system for Tech basketball. A system with specific goals and expectations where fans are clearly able to perceive what the team is trying to do, and therefore, easily see if the goals are being met. Those fans will get their wish.

On offense, Hewitt will be running a run and stun style employed by Providence and Kentucky under Pitino, and that currently used by the Pitino protégé, Billy Donovan at Florida. The system involves pushing the ball up the court on every possession to make the opposing defense work and scramble for 40 minutes. In theory, the benefits are two-fold: first to get a shot off before the defense is set in order to get open looks, and secondly, to wear the opposition down so that they are not able to operate at peak efficiency at the end of games, and to get into the opposition’s bench.

A signature of this style is not to take much time off the shot clock to get a shot away. Shoot before the defense is set is the goal. Take open threes at any time.

Some fans have expressed concern that such a system is disorganized and will be of limited success at the ACC level. Coach Hewitt has said specifically that the running game can look disorganized, but for it to be effective, it is actually highly structured, with players having to be at specific places at specific times during a given situation.

On defense, Hewitt intends to use a variety of full and three quarter court presses. He has compared his defensive style to that played by Georgetown under John Thompson. The signature of that defense was to swarm the ball with hard nosed, physical athletes. Thompson’s teams were very physical and athletic. The success of those teams depended on frustrating the opposition by being disruptive to the offensive sets. The opposition is forced into bad shots by making it difficult to get the ball to the open man. On the ball defense and swarming physical pressure to force turnovers or at least delay a team getting into it’s normal offensive sets, is what we may see.

This type of defense is physically demanding, requires hard-nosed athletic players and lots of them. the potential down-side of such a defensive scheme is that many teams that have played helter-skelter defense has effectively disrupted not only the offense of the opposition, but their own offense as well. The Virginia teams under Jeff Jones are a recent ACC example of a tough defensive team that could never score. Also, such a defense is physically demanding, as is the offensive scheme, so a very deep bench will be necessary.

2. Physical Conditioning: An glaring concern in previous Tech teams that became more obvious through the years was physical conditioning (see last year’s prospectus). And this will be another area demonstrating a change in direction. Coach Hewitt has explicitly emphasized the need for his players to be in peak physical condition. He made his point understood early on. In his second day as head coach, hewitt had his team out for sprints at dawn because two players missed classes the previous day. The morning runs have been a daily routine since classes have started.

Another issue with Tech teams over the past four years has been confidence. Tech teams have not being playing with confidence (see last year’s prospectus). Coach Hewitt has stated that players that are in peak physical condition play with confidence. If he is correct, then two major areas of concern with recent Tech teams can be addressed together.

Coach Hewitt has also stated that physical conditioning is a great equalizer. You do not have to be a great athlete to work hard and be in great physical shape. If the opposition is not in as good of shape as your team, then that becomes an advantage. If your team is in at least as good of shape as the opposition, then conditioning is not a disadvantage to overcome. Basketball fans have seen examples of this week after week: you do not need to have great physical gifts and skills to out-work the opposition.

The schemes to be initiated by Coach Hewitt will demand that the players be in top physical shape. Not only will they have to be in shape to run, but they will have to be hard-nosed and mentally tough to play the defensive schemes he plans to implement. The personality of the team will have to change substantially from last year. The team chemistry will have to be one where the players aim to out-work the opposition, and play very hard and very physical. And do so for 40 minutes.

3. Player Development: Coach Hewitt has repeatedly emphasized the role of individual instruction with his athletes in his program. In addition, the coach has stated that he is a believer in teaching the game. He wants his players to understand the game and to be able to recognize situations during the game and make appropriate decisions based on what they are looking at. Hewitt has stated that he wants to teach kids to know what to do on their own, and not teach them plays he can call from the bench. A point of emphasis in the new Coach’s program is to teach the kids to understand the game, and understand his system.

The individual instruction is not limited to the mental aspects of the game. Coach Hewitt has also emphasized three fundamental skills that all players will be expected to be proficient: shooting, dribbling and passing. In the offensive system Hewitt intends to implement, all players on the floor will have to be able to shoot, dribble and pass. Individual instruction in these areas will also be an area of emphasis for the new coach.

The new coach also has been apt to discuss player development as a point of emphasis, especially in regard to his days as a Villanova assistant coach under Lappas. Coach Hewitt believes in the idea that players can improve. That you can teach players both skills and how to play the game. He has commented on how some players at Villanova that were not considered to have NBA potential coming into college, developed to the point of being drafted. Kerry Kittles and John Celestand were players mentioned. Player development will be an interesting aspect of the new coach’s tenure to watch.

Personnel: To immediate qualify this section, it is problematic to try to evaluate the talent of this team with regard to an entirely new system and staff. The new environs can easily redefine the talent that we have already seen. While it is easy to just evaluate athletic and basketball skills of individual players, how that will translate on the floor makes it all just guesswork. And yours is just as good as mine.

Last year, the team returned all significant contributors from a 15-16 (6-10) squad, and added ballyhooed 2G starter Shaun Fein and wing athlete Mo Moore. On paper, the team looked better. The results were even worse: 13-17 (5-11). Yet another reminder that teams don’t play on paper.

Lost are Jason Collier and Jason Floyd. Collier was a gifted scorer and a physical presence inside. Basically, no one fills his shoes on this year’s squad. Otherwise, seven substantial contributors return:

Alvin Jones (SR): Had a disappointing Junior season. A great athlete with great size. Good leaper who can finish with authority and able to block shots in bunches. Outstanding defensive presence. Has small hands and has trouble catching the ball, partially due to poor footwork and balance. Awkward offensive post moves, again due to poor footwork and balance. Shot is inconsistent, again because of.... Was not in the best of shape. Alvin has not been a leader, rather his game mirrors the overall demeanor of the rest of the team. As the team did poorly, so did Alvin. He seems to have fire in his belly, but it is easily dowsed by frustration when things go bad around him. He was a much maligned player last year. Could be special.

Shaun Fein (SR): Despite high expectations by the staff, the jump from Stoney Hill College to the ACC was a little too steep for a smooth transition for Fein. His game is reminiscent of Drew Barry in that he is very active on the court, but with more propensity to shoot. His shot was inconsistent last year as he had trouble getting shots off over tough defense. He did show flashes of heating up last season, but they were too far and few between to help the team night in and night out. He did average nearly 11 points per game, despite his difficulties. Decent athlete with decent skills that has potential to get things done at this level.

Jon Babul (SR): Babul was hurt most of the year and that hurt the Jackets. He is a smart and tough player, able to play defense effectively both inside and outside. A hustler and scrapper who could be a valuable leader for Hewitt’s proposed offensive and defensive schemes. Still didn’t show any confidence on the offensive end. Shot was inaccurate to within two feet of the rim. Not a great leaper or finisher on drives. In the half court set, he was left unguarded to double Collier, Jones, etc. If he could develop some offensive confidence, he could be very important on both sides of the court. May really benefit from Hewitt’s system.

T.J. Vines (SR): Another player that had a disappointing season. Still looked too bulky to me, and his shot was more inconsistent this year than the year previously. More of an undersized 2G, as he lacks playmaking skills. Struggles bringing the ball up the floor against pressure, but was improved over the previous year in that regard. If he slims down and regains some quickness, steadies his shot and improves his handle and passing, he will really help us.

Daryl Labarrie (SR): Didn’t play much last year. Likes to flash into the lane for runners. Most have said that his game was not suited for the half court game. If his game is more suited for an open floor game, then he could be a contributor. Not a great athlete or defender. Maybe we will get to see enough of him to give a better assessment of what he can do.

Tony Akins (JR): Quick player that really struggled with leg cramps that limited his minutes. Very good handle and easily establishes separation from the defender. showed flashes of being a deep scoring threat, but still not effective finishing on the drive. Not a natural playmaker. An ACC caliber talent that has of yet to bloom.

Mike Isenhour (JR): Played sparingly. Not very athletic but has some size. Played tight and nervous. Reluctant to shoot in the few minutes I saw of him. Due to his size, he will likely see some time.

Clarence Moore (SO): Fine athlete struggled making the transition from the post to the perimeter. Doesn’t have a true position yet. Showed flashes of a good outside shot. when he started, and got into a flow and he was very productive. He was around the ball, does good work on the boards and was active. Off the bench was much more cold and tentative. Would not be much involved. Presently healing from a broken foot. Barring complications, will be an important player for Hewitt’s system. he is the type of athlete that can make the run and press be very effective.

Marvin Lewis (FR): Our top rated recruit is a 6’3" 2G with the reputation of one of the finest outside shooters in last year’s prep class. Not a stellar athlete, he will likely be more of a spot-up shooter. Great student. We need scorers, so he will get his chances to show what he can do. Let’s hope he has an all-around game.

Halston Lane (FR): Another shooter, comes in with the reputation of being versatile. Good rebounder, hard working defender, decent handle, decent on the drive and nice from range. Not a great athlete and a little small to play WF, but is hard nosed. Does he have the quicks to play WG?

Robert Brooks (FR): A late signee was not highly rated out of high school. A high school center with a small forwards body. He is very athletic and a hard nosed kid. Has real good bounce and nose for the ball. Raw offensively. Development will be the key word. Due to physical demands of the system, he will likely be needed to see minutes.

Summary: Worthy of comment is that the all the contributing players with eligibility remaining returned, despite the coaching change. The returning players are coming off of disappointing years, and the incoming freshmen are not highly rated. So on paper, the team does not look promising. That was then and this is now.

The returning players were evaluated based on their performance in the old system. Now there is a new system with new priorities that the players have had an entire off-season in which to work. Those new priorities include vigorous physical conditioning, extensive individual work-outs, development of shooting, dribbling and passing skills, and an entirely new offensive and defensive sets in which to utilize them.

Is a pigs ear still a pigs ear, or does this caterpillar change into a butterfly?

Some fans have raised concerns that the program does not have the physical talent to succeed in a running attack. That is especially true when trying to apply defensive pressure. Lack of athleticism makes playing pressure defense difficult. But we do have a great physical presence in the paint in Jones. And a player does not need to be able to be a great athlete to run hard and play hard.

In any system, superior athleticism and basketball skills are an advantage, however, playing hard and fine execution is also very important. Great physical talent is not enough for any system to succeed, there needs to be execution and desire. The coach that can get his players to execute his schemes, will see success.

Thus, this season presents fans with a great opportunity to see the results of a great experiment. The question is, given essentially the same players, can a change of system fundamentally change the outcome of basketball games? Can one off-season have an impact on the quality of play of the team in general, and individual players specifically? These are the questions that will make the season so interesting to watch. Same players, different system: Same result?

One advantage the Jackets do have in their favor is the "Honeymoon effect." Whenever there is a coaching change, for a the first few years of the new coach’s tenure the entire program tends to benefit from an infusion of enthusiasm and energy. Teams that had been struggling but are under the reign of a new coach tend to play hard and frequently do better than expected. Also, the opposition is at a disadvantage if the new coach is an unknown. Conference rivals tend to know the opposition so well because they play the teams twice every year. But the arrival of a new coach, especially one that is a relative unknown, makes preparation for the new coach’s team more difficult, at least initially. also, the opposition tends to expect to see the same kind of team that they whipped the previous year. So there is a chance we catch the opposition napping on occasion.

The Honeymoon effect cannot turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse, but we have to take any advantage we can find.

You won’t see a prediction of the team’s record this year either. Look for the team to play better this year than last year, and that may or may not mean more wins. We will likely have a better record this year, but don’t bet on going to the Big Dance or a finish in the top half of the ACC. That is not the kind of metamorphosis we will likely be seeing this year.

Regardless of record, this will be a fascinating year to watch. What happens when a program abruptly changes direction, but with the same players? Will Coach Hewitt’s emphasis on player development show dividends in the play of Alvin Jones, Jon Babul, Tony Akins, Shaun Fein, etc.? Will the team shoot better? Will they play harder? Will they be able to run and press with the personnel at hand? Will we be a tough and hard nosed team with the same players from last year? Will we see the difference right away, or will it occur progressively over the course of the year?

We embark on a great experiment. Not knowing the outcome of so many questions, but holding great hope, makes for an exciting year.