There's two problems jfriske (and I say this as a fairly ardent supporter of the 2-3):
(1) I think the BB's are wrong re: 2-3. Or rather, their explanations were incomplete. Yes, it's true that with good SB, you can build a team that does a good job when they contend inside shots. The problem is that it also reduces the number of inside shots you're able to defend. (Imagine that out of 100 inside shots, 50 are "open", and 50 you defend. With the 2-3, your success in the ones you defend does go up, but instead of there being 50 of them, there might only be 40, with now 60 "open" shots). So you do better on contested inside shots, while simultaneously increasing the proportion of open shots, with the net effect somewhat of a wash. Since you are unequivocally worse vs jump shots/3's, the overall effect is a strong negative. Unfortunately, I think the solution is pretty simple (inside offenses should incur a penalty to flow-- this would both solve the problem, by countering the change in % of open shots, and makes sense, since the more your bigs handle the ball, the worse your flow should be). This is unfortunate, because I don't think we're likely to see any changes here (or even have the discussion).
(2) Even if we assume that a 2-3 can work, we don't have the personnel for it. We did a lot of testing of variations of it in scrimmages this season, and in all the metrics we checked (not just final score), it was miserable. Maybe that means it can't work, or maybe it means we don't have the players for it. But in either case, it doesn't seem to work for us. And with so few people on BB believing it could work, there's very little movement towards training the "right" sort of players.