Having coached youth basketball for over a decade, I’ve seen firsthand how foundational experiences shape a team’s identity. At the youth level, where many of Bowling Green’s current coaching staff cut their teeth, defensive principles are often taught with an emphasis on effort and communication—but translating that to the college game requires more nuance. Watching Bowling Green’s recent performances, it’s clear they’re struggling with defensive consistency, particularly in transition and perimeter coverage. I believe their shared background in youth coaching is both a strength and a limitation. It’s a strength because they know how to build player buy-in and foster teamwork, but it’s a limitation if they don’t adapt those principles to the faster, more complex NCAA environment.
One area where I’d start is on-ball defense. In their last five games, Bowling Green allowed opponents to shoot roughly 48% from the field—a number that simply won’t cut it if they want to compete for a conference title. From my own experience coaching youth teams, I learned that drilling closeouts and positioning can make a huge difference, but at this level, it’s not just about effort. Players need to understand opponents’ tendencies and be prepared to adjust on the fly. For example, implementing more film study focused on individual matchups could help. I’ve always preferred breaking down game footage with players one-on-one, pointing out specific moments where a better closeout or a quicker rotation could have changed the outcome. Bowling Green’s staff, with their shared youth coaching background, likely excels at teaching effort-based defense, but now they need to layer in more strategic elements like forcing drivers into help defenders or using weak-side rotations more effectively.
Another glaring issue is their transition defense. Statistics from their recent matchups show that Bowling Green gave up an average of 14 fast-break points per game, which tells me their guards aren’t getting back quickly enough, and their bigs aren’t communicating in those chaotic moments. I remember coaching a 16-and-under team where we faced similar issues—our half-court defense was solid, but we kept getting burned in transition. What worked for us was implementing a simple “two-back” rule: at least two players sprinting back on every possession, no exceptions. It’s a basic concept, but it made a huge difference. For Bowling Green, adopting a similar system could reduce those easy baskets. I’d also suggest mixing in more full-court press looks early in games to disrupt opponents’ rhythm. It’s a tactic I’ve grown fond of over the years—not necessarily to force turnovers, but to eat up shot clock and make opponents work harder just to get into their sets.
When it comes to defending the three-point line, Bowling Green has been inconsistent at best. They allowed opponents to hit nearly 36% from beyond the arc last season, and from what I’ve seen, a lot of those looks are uncontested. Closeouts are late, and help defenders often collapse too far into the paint. Here’s where I think their youth coaching experience can really shine—drilling closeouts with high intensity and making it a non-negotiable part of practice. I’ve always been a stickler for closing out under control, with a hand up, and I’d bet Bowling Green’s coaches emphasize the same. But at this level, it’s not just about technique; it’s about recognition. Players need to know when to stay home on shooters and when to help. Incorporating more situational scrimmages—like “shell drills” with specific closeout commands—could sharpen their instincts. Personally, I’d also experiment with switching more screens on the perimeter, especially against teams that rely heavily on pick-and-pop actions.
Rebounding is another piece of the defensive puzzle that Bowling Green needs to address. They’ve been out-rebounded by an average of four boards per game this season, and second-chance points have hurt them repeatedly. Boxing out is a fundamental skill, one that youth coaches hammer into their players, but it’s often overlooked at higher levels. I’ve noticed Bowling Green’s bigs sometimes ball-watching instead of finding a body to box out. It’s a habit that’s tough to break, but emphasizing “hit and hold” techniques—making contact and maintaining it—could pay dividends. I’d also suggest tracking offensive rebounds allowed in practice and setting goals to keep players accountable. In my coaching days, we used to chart every box-out in scrimmages, and it made players more conscious of their responsibilities.
Looking at Bowling Green’s defensive scheme as a whole, I think they could benefit from more variability. Right now, they seem to rely heavily on a standard man-to-man defense, which works against some teams but leaves them vulnerable against others. Given their coaches’ experience with youth teams, where adaptability is key, I’m surprised they haven’t incorporated more zone looks or hybrid defenses. For instance, a 1-3-1 zone could disrupt teams with strong post players, and a matchup zone could help contain dribble penetration. I’ve always believed that throwing different looks at opponents keeps them off balance, and Bowling Green has the personnel to execute more than one style effectively. It’s about building that versatility in practice until it becomes second nature.
In conclusion, while Bowling Green’s coaching staff brings valuable experience from their youth-level days, the key to improving their defense this season lies in adapting those foundational principles to the demands of college basketball. By tightening their on-ball defense, shoring up transition and perimeter coverage, dominating the glass, and introducing more schematic variety, they can turn their defense into a true asset. From my perspective, it’s not about reinventing the wheel—it’s about refining what they already do well and adding layers of sophistication. If they commit to these adjustments, I’m confident we’ll see a much more formidable Bowling Green team on the court this season.