Game Awareness Skills, the FIBA World Championships and College Basketball Recruiting

Every August and September, college recruiting heats up, and people argue whether a player fits into one program more than another. The comment made more than any other is that a player is an “up-tempo” player and would not fit with a program that plays a slower tempo.

As I listened to Fran Fraschilla’s commentary during the USA v. Brazil game at the 2010 FIBA World Championships, I thought of these comments. Fraschilla stressed that Team USA is at its best in transition; the implication is that Team USA is not as good playing in the half-court or playing at a slower tempo, much like the comments made about many of the best high school players.

Now, players like Kevin Durant play well in any situation. However, across the Internet, bloggers, media and coaches have argued about what players fit better in the International game and who is a “FIBA player” vs. an “NBA player.” Players like O.J. Mayo are labeled “NBA players” while players like Chauncey Billups are described as good fits for the International game.

When I hear people describe a high school player as an “up-tempo” player who does not fit into a slower tempo program, I figure that the player is unskilled and lacks game awareness. After all, what types of players excel in transition? Who excels in the half-court?

Transition situations create a numbered-advantage for the offense which makes decision-making easier. With youth players, I play advantage games because they are not expert decision makers so they need more time and space to make decisions and execute skills.

With experienced players, I use disadvantaged drills to challenge players’ skills. For instance, to practice ball handling, I use 1v2 and 2v3 drills which condense the space and time. Expert players need to play in smaller spaces and need to play quicker because they play against bigger, faster, longer players who cover more ground.

For some reason, both with Fraschilla’s commentary and throughout the Internet regarding Team USA and high school recruits, U.S. players do not play well in limited space and time. They thrive in open court situations where they can use their quickness and athleticism in space, but they do not thrive in more half-court situations.

Many blame the different FIBA rules or the officials or the lack of practice time. However, many people say the same thing about high school recruits moving to NCAA basketball and even college players moving to the NBA. This is not a symptom of the FIBA World Championships but something that appears to be consistent throughout all levels.

Why? Watch a youth game. The game goes up and down the court like a track meet. The best players are the biggest, strongest, fastest players who out-run the others to score lay-ups or who out-muscle others in the paint for rebounds and put-backs. As players move to junior high school and high school, many teams press, which create transition situations in both directions. Coaches and administrators even argue that zones are bad for youth players, but full-court 5v5 games running up and down the court are good for development.

At the college level, to recruit the elite players, a coach must get up and down the court. According to many who follow college basketball and college basketball recruiting, the top players do not want to play in the half-court; they want to get up and down the court. College basketball is a guard’s game featuring dribble penetration and few post plays, so everyone, regardless of height or skill level, wants to be a guard and dribble the ball.

In the NBA, teams largely take advantage of match-ups or run plays to create match-ups that favor them.

Through this development system, prior to the NBA, the best players typically are the bigger, stronger, faster players. While these players may possess very good technical skills (shooting, ball handling, footwork), they can fall back on their size or athleticism. LeBron James, for instance, is very skilled; however, if he needs to, he can use his pure speed, athleticism and strength to bully opponents and get to the rim. Now, that does not lessen his skill level or talent or make him a bad player – he uses what he needs to use to be successful. However, it also does not force him to use different strategies or use his game awareness to create a shot.

Now, imagine that these players matriculate through 12 years of basketball where the best players, those who eventually play BCS and NBA basketball, can clear out and take their man whenever the going gets tough. Many blame AAU coaches for this; however, it is not AAU coaches. From a winning standpoint, it is the right approach, which is why coaches at every level use the strategy.

However, the end-product is that few coaches challenge players to develop their game awareness and discover new strategies to create baskets. When forced to play in situations where they cannot rely on their athleticism to overpower opponents, these flaws are highlighted, often for the first time in one’s career. For some, this happens in high school; these players do not make college teams. For others, it happens in college, and they are reduced to role players or sit on the bench. For some, it does not happen until the NBA. For the elite few, it may never happen, unless they face the right opponent in the NBA play-offs or the FIBA World Championships.

In the play-offs, LeBron James was exposed by the Celtics, in a sense, because he (and his team) struggled to adopt the necessary mental strategies to change his approach against the Celtics’ defense. In a sense, he worked harder, but not smarter. He fell back on his physical gifts, not his mental strategies, and his physical gifts were not enough to overcome the Celtics’ defensive game plan (his supporting cast obviously had something to do with the eventual loss, too).

Several years ago, I criticized the Cavaliers because James always received the ball 30-feet from the basket and had to beat five defenders. Against Brazil, USA fell into the same trap, especially in the final 5:00. There was almost no movement away from the ball and players simply took turns trying to go 1v1 (1v5). They reverted back to their old youth, high school and college habits, but they were unable to get the cheap calls because FIBA officials will not bail out an offensive player like high school, NCAA and NBA officials.

How do we correct this flaw?

We need to change youth basketball. I created the Playmakers Basketball Development League as a means to develop game awareness, but more and more, I think 3v3 leagues are the answer for beginner players.

Youth soccer players do not start with 11v11 full field soccer. They use small-sided games, starting with 4v4, 5v5, 7v7, 8v8, etc. They give players more space and time with the ball. Each player gets more repetitions with the ball to execute basic skills.

In an average game, rather than run up and down the court for an hour with 1-2 players dominating the ball with their size, strength and athleticism, each player gets more possessions and teams must use basic tactical skills (give-and-go, screens, on-ball screens) to create shots. Once they start with this development and learn the basics through 3v3 play, they can continue to use these skills in 5v5 play, hopefully in leagues with more balanced competition so 1-2 players cannot dominate the action co completely.

Every time that I hear that a player is an “up-tempo” player, I get frustrated. Former UCLA player Drew Gordon said that he was an “up-tempo” player, and he wanted to run the court and dunk. That might be a more fun style of play, but if he has a hope of playing at the next level, it’s not going to be because of his dunking ability. He’s an average athlete at the NBA level with below-average height for his position. He has no post moves, poor footwork and no shot beyond 12-feet. That’s why he is an “up-tempo” player: because he lacks the skills to play in the half-court. He has no real position: he lacks the post skills to be a post player and the shooting and ball handling ability to be a wing. He is the exact type of player who needs to play for a coach who forces him to play in the half-court and develop new skills. Instead, rather than develop these skills at the college level to give himself a chance, he transferred because he wants to dunk and run and do what he can do already.

As long as this mindset pervades, analysts like Fraschilla will have to make a big deal out of FIBA basketball to explain away the occasional struggles of Team USA when a team forces Team USA out of a transition game. It’s not that FIBA is a different game; it’s that many U.S. players lack the game awareness of a Steve Nash or Kobe Bryant to fall back on when they cannot overpower their opposition. Waiting to develop these skills in a three-week training camp before the World Championships will not solve the problem; instead, the solution starts early with an emphasis on game awareness skills for all players from the beginning of their playing careers.

Zone Defense, Player Development and Summer Basketball

I think differently than most people. Sometimes, my radical viewpoint gets me in trouble. This weekend, I engaged Hoopgurlz in a discussion of zone defense via twitter because of a post it made:

HG: In a game between elite athletes, we cannot be more imaginative than a zone defense? Can’t we just let the kids play each other?

I see this point made a lot. Why do we not want good athletes to be good, smart basketball players too? Why do we only want players to play in a style that fits their strengths? Shouldn’t players develop their weaknesses or other parts of their games so they perform well regardless of the style of play, defense, or offensive system?

I replied simply to the post with a link to two recent articles where I defended zone defense (I am not a zone coach. I just do not understand why people de-value it to such an extent):

Why does every1 hate zone defense? Are zones bad? http://tiny.cc/0hss5 Can you teach fundamentals w/zone? http://tiny.cc/mqkek

As I read through the tweets from HG and others, I realized that the disagreement about zones centers around the way that we envision basketball.

Most people, it appears, break down the game into two subsets: skills and strategy. For these people, skills are the technical skills like shooting, ball handling and passing, while strategy encompasses nearly everything else.

HG: Are club coaches teaching skills or tactics? Also these are exposure events and Nike Nationals uses shot clocks.

Now, I do not know why exposure events should have different rules than other games. HG covered the Nike Nationals and reported on scores like the games were important and outcomes mattered. It even referred to the tournament as the “unofficial club championship.” I also have no idea why a shot clock should matter to a discussion of man-defense versus zone-defense.

I hope that club coaches teach skills and strategy. Strategy is part of the game, too. However, I break down skills into four areas: Psychological, Technical, Tactical and Athletic. I hope that club coaches develop all four areas, not just one area.

Because I view the game differently, I have no problem with zones because I believe that the skills required to play successfully against a zone are worth developing. Others dislike zones because they feel that the only way to play against a zone is to memorize a zone offense (strategy) and if you’re practicing strategy, it takes time away from skill development.

HG: We never said we hated zones. We just don’t think it has much of a place in club ball. Club teams practice 2x a week. They’re supposed to teach zone offenses? Our stand has nothing to do with whether you can teach or evaluate individual defensive principles with zones.

Now, this is interesting because Hoopgurlz’s first response to me was:

HG: lots of college coaches hate the zones, too – they say it doesn’t show if they can defend at next level. We agree with them.

This brings up an important point: what is the point of these games? Hoopgurlz covered the games, the “unofficial club championship” like they mattered, but this comment seems to suggest that they exist solely for the purposes of the college coaches’ evaluations? Do these games matter or are they purely showcases? Should high school players spend their entire summers traveling the country simply to showcase for college coaches?

I also disagree with their premise. I can evaluate players in a zone defense and see if they can play at the next level. Furthermore, playing against a zone defense often reveals more about a player’s offensive skill set, in these environments, than playing against man-defense, as I responded via tweet:

watching players vs zones can tell a lot about IQ, spatial awareness, creativity, court vision, etc. that may be lost in m2m

As for practice time, most high school teams practice three times per week. Is the extra practice session per week the one where coaches should teach zone offenses?

Furthermore, the players at Nike Nationals are experienced, elite players while many high school coaches have inexperienced and unskilled players. With which group should we worry more about the amount of time devoted to skill development rather than strategy?

In the games that I watched last week, teams had multiple out-of-bounds plays and press breaks: if they have time to install these, don’t they have time to practice against zone defenses?

If the issue is that teams do not have enough practice time, the problem is the game to practice ratio, not zone defenses. Tennessee Flight won the Nike Nationals led by a player from Southern California; Cal Storm was arguably California’s best representative and featured players from Hawaii, Oregon and Colorado. If these teams gather players from around the country, how much do they actually practice anyway? Shouldn’t this be the issue?

Some of the teams likely played 20+ games in July without a real practice; blaming zones for the lack of skill development seems to miss the point completely.

During July, many people tweeted about the poor play at these and other tournaments. Among the comments were complaints about selfish play, too much dribbling, lack of passing, poor effort on defense, poor shot selection, bad shooting and more. Now, which of those tend to occur more against man defenses than zones?

For the past couple years, many have complained about the poor skill development (again, focused primarily on technical skills) compared to International players. Right or wrong, many characterize the International game as featuring more zone defense (I don’t know, as when I played and coached in Europe, I did not see any more zone than here).

What skills does a zone defense force an offense to emphasize?  Passing, shooting and player movement. What skills do the most prevalent man offenses in club basketball (dribble-drive-motion) emphasize? Dribbling and shooting lay-ups.

If players do not move without the ball, do not pass well and do not shoot well, they will not play well against a zone defense. Since players struggle with these skills, does that mean we should vilify zones?

Maybe we should force these teams to play zone defense so teams cannot rely on one player bullying her way to the rim, taking a bad shot and playing volleyball for the offensive rebound!

Again, the central argument comes down to the way that we view basketball. If you view basketball as skills and strategy, and view strategy primarily as plays, then I see how a zone as well as presses require more strategy.

However, if you view skills as comprising four different areas, learning to play against a zone is just another area of skill development, like learning to run a pick-and-roll, learning to set screens, learning to shoot a floater or learning to throw a post-entry pass.

Playing against a zone does not require added strategy; instead, it requires an understanding of where and how to attack, as well as some simple principles. For instance, just as I teach players to follow behind a dribbler who penetrates toward the baseline against a man-defense, I teach players to fill the area vacated by dribble penetration against a zone. It is essentially the same skill, and, to me, it is a skill.

For me, strategy is the game adjustments that you make based on your team’s skills and strengths. For instance, when to call a timeout; when to play zone; when to foul late in the game; etc.

Strategy, in this sense, is unimportant until players have developed their skills to a reasonable level. For instance, with my junior varsity girls’, we never worried about these type of issues for the entire season; my only focus was athletic, technical, tactical and psychological skill development.

However, at the professional level, I incorporate strategy in every practice. I would end every practice with a situational game so players know how to play when up 3 with 12 seconds to go or down 5 with 31 seconds. At this level, strategy is very important, as players at that level should have mastered the basic skills.

The elite club level incorporates skill development with some strategy, as it is important for players to learn how to manage game situations. Also, since these players have gone through the three learning stages with most of their skills, practice drills can incorporate multiple elements – like a shooting drill that incorporates the pick-and-roll action or shooting off a flare screen as one would receive against a basic 2-3 zone. These drills refine the technical skills and introduce and develop the basic tactical skills, which then can be incorporated into small-sided games or practice scrimmages to develop the full open skills, which involve the decision-making component.

Of course, this type of practice requires a different approach than the normal block practice environment. This is how I think about the game, so zones present another skill to develop. For those who see the game in terms of skills and strategy, I understand their difference of opinion.

However, rather than blame zones for the lack of skill development, we should examine the game to practice ratio and possibly broaden our definitions of skills to incorporate all the various basketball skills and not just a certain aspect of the game.

USA Basketball, AAU and Talent Development

Last night, I read an article titled “USA Basketball: The new AAU?” by Eamonn Brennan. Brennan quotes Coach K who would prefer that more players played for USA Basketball rather than the numerous summer tournaments. However, USA Basketball faces a two-fold problem: (1) an embarrassment of riches with too many talented players per age group to play for one USA Basketball team; and (2) too many NCAA and NBA roster spots to fill. As Brennan writes:

Of course, not everybody can play for the good ole US of A; as currently constructed, there are simply too many talented prospects at any given age group. Nor is it necessarily preferable to the AAU circuit for many players, some of whom might not want to travel overseas for competitions. But it would be interesting to see USA Basketball evolve into its own sort of ancillary developmental system, the way many foreign soccer nations (Germany is the shining example) prioritize player development at the national level over club involvement from an early age. It may never take hold, but it’s an option. And if any ambassador can spread the idea, it’s Coach K.

First, USA Basketball taking a role in youth basketball development is not a novel idea, and one which I have espoused for nearly a decade at this point.

Second, Germany does not prioritize national team development over club development. Instead, it was the renewed partnership between the Federation and the clubs that has created a footballing renaissance.

Christian Seifert, the Bundesliga’s chief executive said that the national team’s stark improvement was a direct result of the overhaul of Germany’s academy system, with all 36 clubs in the two Bundesliga divisions now obliged to operate centrally regulated academies before being given a licence to play in the league. Of the 23-man national squad now in South Africa, 19 came from Bundesliga academies, with the other four from Bundesliga 2 academies.

In fact, the German’s new development system is not unlike the Elite Development League idea from the original Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development.

I also read an article about global soccer that discussed changes in China and the United States and juxtaposed those changes with the actual development of the world’s best footballer, Lionel Messi. China has focused on 500 15-17-year-old players. Meanwhile, U.S. Soccer has a different approach.

Sunil Gulati, the U.S. Soccer Federation president, who hired Reyna this month, is thinking younger, much younger. He has asked Reyna to start with what the federation calls Zone 1, the formative years from ages 6 to 12.

Throughout July, tweet after tweet has dismissed and denigrated the club basketball played at the NCAA-certified recruiting events with every day featuring a new tweet trying to depict the ills of the summer system in 140 characters or less. Many championed Brennan’s article and Coach K’s thoughts, believing that USA Basketball can solve the issues at the elite high school level.

Can USA Basketball make such an impact? The answer is difficult.

U.S. Soccer appears to realize that waiting to give proper training and instruction to players until they are 16-years-old is too late. From a basketball perspective, many of the skills (shooting, passing, screens, cuts, etc) undeveloped according to the tweets should have been developed before the players started elite (varsity) high school basketball. Attempting to re-teach these skills to players who are nearly fully formed is a far more arduous process than teaching the right skills from the beginning. (not to mention, what have players been doing for 10 years if they are unskilled at 17-year-olds, yet engaged in year-round basketball for multiple years?)

The problems described by the scouts and coaches watching the tournaments this summer are not borne of their experiences this summer, but result from an over-coached and under-taught system that starts when players are seven and eight-years old.

Trying to change the system at 16-years-old is too late: the changes need to start at the very bottom with players as they play on structured teams for the first time. At this age, players do not need to travel across the country to play in front of scouts, nor do they need win-now environments. Honestly, I do not believe that they even need 5v5 play. Instead, these players need an introduction to the game centered on skill building and learning that uses game play to enhance the development, not to determine rankings or champions.

USA Basketball can enact change at the upper levels. The Elite Development League is one example of a possible shift away from the current coupling of high school and club basketball into a developmental system more like the soccer development programs in Europe. USA Basketball would identify the best players, and these players would be eligible to join the elite academies to train and play against the other elite players. By asserting its power, in conjunction with the NCAA and NBA, USA Basketball potentially would root out many of the problems inherent with the youth game today: agents; runners; marketing employees acting as coaches; recruiting; transferring high school; changing club teams; under the table payments; coaches using players to get jobs; too many games; uncompetitive games; unbalanced teams, etc.

However, to see on-court changes in terms of the fundamental skills and game awareness of players, changes need to start at earlier ages when players initially join teams.

Don Mattingly: Managerial Excellence and Experience

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Bill Plaschke criticizes the potential hire of Don Mattingly as the Los Angeles Dodgers’ manager. I do not follow baseball or the Dodgers closely, so I do not know whether Mattingly would be the best choice to succeed Joe Torre. However, Plaschke’s arguments fail.

Plaschke argues that because Mattingly made an error in Tuesday’s game which eventually led to a loss (as well as a mistake in spring training when he did not check the line-up card that another coach filled out), he is unqualified to manage and needs more experience. Plaschke argues for Triple-A manager Tim Wallach as a better choice, simply because he has been a Triple-A manager.

Experience does not equal success. Excluding a potentially great managerial candidate because he has not mastered small, mundane details of the job is poor decision-making. Mattingly can learn the details of the job – does anyone think he will make the same mistake again as a manager next year? No. Therefore, lesson learned.

However, finding a coach who excels in his relationships with players, communicates well with players, gains players’ trust, empowers and inspires players, shares his expansive knowledge with players and more is far more difficult.

There is always a learning experience when one takes on more responsibility, whether a Triple-A manager moving to the Major Leagues or an assistant coach moving over one seat to become the Manager. No hire comes without risk.

If Mattingly has the passion for the game, the leadership skills and the respect of the players, excluding him because of one simple error is simple-minded thinking and the type of knee-jerk reaction one would expect from a lousy columnist like Plaschke (especially since the headline under Plaschke’s column reads: “Baseball Says Ruling Was Wrong.” If the umpires made the mistake, so Mattingly did not error, does Plaschke’s argument have any legs?

When hiring a manager, the General Manager must think about the present and future of the club, not one incident. If Mattingly has the energy, work ethic, knowledge and communication skills to motivate, inspire, lead and teach, he is the best choice. If Wallach exemplifies these characteristics at the Triple-A level, then he is the best choice. I do not know. However, I know that judging a manager on one instance is a poor basis for a decision, and a line of thinking that would lead to poor results.

Recruiting, College Basketball & Professional Talent Development

This afternoon, I read through several articles about various soccer federations and their impact on World Cup successes and failures. As I bantered with a coach about recruiting this evening, one comment from the articles ran through my mind over and over:

Whilst the brain is almost completely developed by the end of high school, the body can continue to mature until 22 (or even older). Oftentimes skilful players dismissed for their stature at 17 and 18 will strengthen sufficiently in the following years to a level where they can compete with the earlier developers and even with the bigger, tougher professionals.

In fact these players will frequently have developed excellent ball control, balance and poise as coping mechanisms for playing with the stronger players around them. When they catch up physically they can be much more effective than the players who have always been able to bully their way around the football pitch.

Unfortunately an under-developed 18 year old has very few options at the end of his youth career.

This appeared in an article by Paul Williams about changes being made to the English football development system. However, what does the comment say about recruiting, college basketball and professional development?

Look at NBA Summer League sensation Jeremy Lin. At 18-years-old, he was deemed to small, too skinny, too Asian to be a BCS-level player. However, after four years, he is poised to make an NBA roster after his sterling summer league performance highlighted by his battles with #1 pick John Wall.

Because of college basketball’s win-now environment, the top programs recruit the players who dominate, often due to their size, explosiveness and strength. These are the players who “bully their way around the football pitch.”

However, while the mind is developed at this age, many bodies have not matured fully. Coaches recruit the bodies and feel that they can develop the minds – the work ethic, desire, competitiveness, basketball I.Q., awareness, feel – but the reality is just the opposite.

The NCAA legislates off-season workout hours, so most of a player’s development occurs without the presence of a basketball coach. However, players work out with strength & conditioning professionals. Therefore, much of a player’s development at the college level occurs through improved strength, quickness, explosiveness, muscle mass, movement technique and coordination – not through on-court, skill-specific improvements.

Therefore, the irony of recruiting is that coaches recruit for the traits that are most likely to develop at the college level, while often overlooking players who possess the qualities which are most difficult to develop.

I made the same argument in regards to youth basketball and tryouts in my point guard trilogy.

Next, we often cut players with the right personality because youth coaches favor the stronger, faster, more aggressive scorers. Dominant, aggressive personalities capture a coach’s attention, not the point guard who involves everyone.

I saw this yesterday as I watched a girls’ basketball tournament. I watched two games. The first game featured two teams littered with highly ranked, future Division I players. To me, the one top-20 ranked player was the 8th or 9th best player on the court. Now, it is obvious why she is rated highly: size, athleticism, shooting technique, etc. However, with all these strengths, she hardly did anything. Will that change at the college level? Will she develop the mind and the psychological skills that she did not display?

My favorite player in the first half was a guard who one low-major head coach did not think was good enough for her program. I felt she was good enough for any program in the country. However, she does not look the part. She is not long; she is a little stocky; she does not play fast. However, she runs the pick-and-roll; she attacks bigger players without fear; she hits open three-pointers with great technique; she handled full-court pressure by quicker players; she directed her teammates: in short, she did everything that a coach wants from a guard.

The prevailing wisdom is that it is easier to teach the talented player to compete harder and play smarter than it is to make the second player slightly quicker or stronger or lighter on her feet. However, is that an accurate assumption? At the college level, with practice restrictions, is the first player likely to develop her basketball I.Q.? Is she likely to develop a mean streak and toughness around the rim? On the other hand, will the guard be able to tone her body, add explosiveness and develop more quickness? Based on the Paul Williams’ excerpt above, the smarter decision would be to recruit the guard who possesses the mental skills and develop the physical qualities to complement those tools than to recruit the more physically gifted player and hope to add the mental skills. But, that is the antithesis of what is done.

U.S. Soccer Post-2010 FIFA World Cup

After so many years without media coverage, everyone, it seems, is a soccer expert in the United States media. However, in all the angst over the U.S.’s loss to Ghana, several things have been forgotten or ignored:

1) Ghana is a very good team with championship experience. Several players played on Ghana’s 2009 u20 World Championship team that defeated Brazil in the finals. While these players are young, and an u20 championship is not a World Cup championship, they had experience winning at a high level that cannot be discounted.

2) Ignore the ridiculous FIFA rankings for a second; Ghana defeating the U.S. is not an upset. When the draw was decided, Alexi Lalas called the U.S. the underdog. Then, the U.S. loses and suddenly it was a disappointment. Ghana and the U.S. are fairly even in talent. However, the U.S. struggles with speedy teams because overall, the team lacks great team speed, especially on the back-line.

3) As in any high-level tournament in any sport, there is a measure of luck. Sure, you create your own luck, but the difference between the U.S. advancing and going home was very small. First, the goal against Slovenia. If that goal counts, the U.S. is not in a panic to get a win against Algeria and Algeria is already eliminated. Who knows what happens? The U.S. may capture a boring tie and advanced without expending so much emotional energy. Second, the goals against Ghana. In any game, a team gets a couple chances. To win, a keeper usually needs to make 1-2 great saves. Against Ghana, Tim Howard, arguably the U.S.’s best player and one of the world’s top goalies, needed to make one great save on either of Ghana’s chances and he didn’t. Similarly, Jozy Altidore had a chance that was similar to Ghana’s game-winning goal and Miroslav Klose’s opener for Germany. However, while Ayan and Klose finished their chances while shrugging off defenders, Altidore’s chance went just wide. In added time, Bradley and Feilhaber sent rockets into the middle that deflected off defenders. Feilhaber’s deflected off the inside of a defender’s leg and could have bounced anywhere. In other games, those deflections resulted in goals. For the U.S., the bounce was unlucky. How would everyone’s impressions differ if Altidore’s chance went into the back of the net or if Howard pushed the first Ghana goal wide of the net or if Feilhaber’s goal took a wild bounce into the goal? Really, the U.S. was that close to winning its group and going to the Quarterfinals which would have exceeded almost anyone’s expectations for this World Cup.

3) Of course, as close as the U.S. was to advancing, it was also close to going down to defeat in all three games. The U.S. has a small margin for error because (1) it has a lack of speed on the back line; (2) it has no dynamic playmaker; (3) it lacks a traditional winger; and (4) there is no proven world class goal scorer.

What does it all mean going forward?

Some TV personalities have remarked that the problem is development, especially with regards to a striker. They pointed at Bradley. I don’t see how that is Bradley’s fault. If Team USA lost at the FIBA World Championships because it had no shooters, would the experts blame Coach K for not developing better shooters?

The problem starts long before the World Cup. Also, Bradley did unearth a striker: Charlie Davies. He also, over the last four years, gave chances to a number of players. He had the resolve to choose surprising strikers like Edson Buddle and Herculez Gomez. I do not think that the lack of a world class goal scorer falls at Bradley’s feet.

As many have written, while the development of U.S. players is improving, it also has not matured fully. While some want to see the U.S. Soccer Academy at IMG to grow, the problem with only one academy is the lack of competition. Also, what happens when players do not develop as expected or suffer injuries? Putting all the hopes into 20-40 players over 2-3 age groups when the country has a soccer playing population in the millions seems short-sighted.

Fortunately, U.S. Soccer has talken measures to improve youth development – however, the changes are recent and the players were too young to impact this World Cup.

According to an old L.A. Times article, U.S. Soccer has implemented an Academy plan similar to my Elite Development League outlined in Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development.

The Development Academy is a super league of 64 of the best-known youth soccer clubs from across the nation and it kicks off a finals tournament today at the Home Depot Center in Carson to close out its inaugural season…The tournament is split up into two groups, Under-15/16 and Under-17/18, both playing in a round-robin format. The groups are made up by the eight conference champions that survived a 10-month regular season…The U-17/18 championship is Friday at 8 p.m. and will be broadcast live on ESPN2. The U-15/16 championship game is a week from today at 8 p.m, to be broadcast on ESPNU.

Structure and competition are a start. For example, I discussed the difference between an u18 Spanish league team and a typical high school player in the United States, and the Spanish structure emphasizes player development more than the U.S. structure.

However, structure and competition only matter if there are the right people in place. The problem with sports in the United States is that we de-value youth coaches and their importance in the overall development scheme. We think that college coaches will develop future stars in their limited time with the players, along with winning games. Our salary structure for coaches undermines talent development.

NBA coaches and NCAA coaches are full-time coaches with six or seven-figure salaries, benefits and more. High school and youth coaches are basically part-time, volunteer coaches. Some part-time, volunteer coaches are exceptional; in other situations, you get what you pay for. However, even the best youth coaches do not have the time to devote to a number of young athletes because they have to work other jobs to live (not to mention other duties like raising their own families).

In Game On: A Look at the Lengths to which Parents Go to Produce an Athletic Superstar, (my thoughts appear here and here) Tom Farrey writes that USA Basketball spent more on insurance premiums for NBA players in the 2004 Olympics (or 2006 World Championships) than they did on youth basketball for the entire year!

USA Basketball, the United States NGO (National Governing Organization) for basketball, which works under the auspices of the United States Olympic Committee, spent more money insuring NBA millionaires for participation in one tournament than on developing the next generation of players, educating coaches, improving opportunities for youth, etc.

Farrey writes that USA Basketball spends approximately $150,000 a year on youth basketball, which is 3-5% of its operating budget.

I do not have the numbers for soccer, and its economics surely differ, but how can an organization expect athletes to develop their talent when its resources are spent elsewhere?

When reading one of the many articles this week about the failures of U.S. Soccer and the MLS, the answer was to throw money at professional players to raise the competitive level of the MLS. However, this is a short-term fix (and its the model used for basketball in China, which is one reason that a country of billions with numerous seven-footers has produced 1.5 elite basketball players in the last decade).

The English Premier League and Serie A are two of the top three professional leagues in the world (along with La Liga), yet Italy failed to get out of the group stage and England lost in the Round of 16 and finished second to the U.S. in the group stage. One issue, I imagine, is that Inter Milan, Seria A’s best team, did not have an Italian on its roster. One of the richest clubs in the world, yet it spent millions to acquire players like Brazil’s Maicon and Netherlands Wesley Sneijder to win the league and the Champions League. Once teams ascend to that level, the temptation is to look outwards for new and better players, spending to remain at the top, rather than looking to its own system for new talent. If Inter Milan is not developing new talent for the Italian National Team, who is? Similarly, in the EPL, Arsenal has a reputation for acquiring and nurturing young players, but few are English (Walcott). Instead, current or former Arsenal players stared for France (Clichy, Diaby), Cote d’Ivore (Eboue), Spain (Fabegras), Netherlands (Van Persie), Mexico (Vela), Denmark (Bendtner) and more.

Let’s say that the U.S generated enough revenue, sponsors, etc. to spend an extra $100-million dollars over the next couple years. Should that money be spent on signing a couple more David Beckham-like figures? Should the extra money be spent on Thierry Henry, Deco, Raul? Maybe add one superstar to each MLS team? Would an extra “star” on each team raise the competitive level of the league enough to notice an immediate difference in quality of play and competitiveness?

Should the money be spent on the top U.S. performers in MLS, increasing the salary of players like Landon Donovan, Edson Buddle, Kasey Keller and others? Should the MLS use the money to acquire U.S. stars playing on foreign soil like Feilhaber, Davies, Goodson, Bocanegra, Holden, Edu and others?

Should U.S. Soccer set up an academy for the top u20 players and use the resources to hire better coaches, improve facilities and travel to play better competition? Is it too late to concentrate on 18 and 19-year-old players? Is it enough to develop one team’s worth of players with expert training, facilities and competition?

Should the U.S. export development? Could the U.S. spend some of the money to support top youth players and their families going abroad to train with clubs like Ajax in Amsterdam or F.C. Barcelona?

Is there a better way to invest the money spent on sports in the United States?

What about using the money to invest in the 64 clubs in the Academy and insure top-level coaches in each club (maybe they have that already)?

What about re-organizing the other minor league soccer organizations into a true 2nd Division with promotion and relegation to MLS and encouraging the 2nd Division teams to sign young, talented players and give them opportunities at a professional level?

What about hiring the best developmental coaches away from college programs and encouraging them (with comparable pay and benefits) to direct and coach the top youth club programs?

As we look toward 2014, there is a nice pool of young players to complement returners like Michael Bradley, Landon Donovan, Tim Howard, Maurice Edu, Charlie Davies, Bennie Feilhaber, Stuart Holden and Jozy Altidore. However, Mexico has the core of its 2005 u17 World Championship maturing into their primes and Ghana will field a team full of 2009 u20 World Champions and Brazil, Argentina and others will re-load from a country full of talented youth and professional players.

To breakthrough and ascend from a top-20 country with the ability to get through the group stage to one who is a threat to reach the semi-finals, the U.S. needs more depth of talent.

Rather than find ways to exclude players through the talent identification process, U.S. Soccer needs to find ways to include additional players. Youth clubs need to look at more than results when identifying potential players at an early age. In Michael Sokolove’s New York Times piece about Ajax titled “How a Soccer Star is Made,” he interviews an Ajax scout who says:

“I am never looking for a result — for example, which boy is scoring the most goals or even who is running the fastest. That may be because of their size and stage of development. I want to notice how a boy runs. Is he on his forefeet, running lightly? Does he have creativity with the ball? Does he seem that he is really loving the game? I think these things are good at predicting how he’ll be when he is older.”

Identifying talent and narrowing the competitive stream at earlier ages through exclusive (20-30 players) academies is not the answer, as there are no guarantees. The United States’ advantage is a large, diverse and healthy population. The need is to capitalize on that advantage and give as many players who show the potential for soccer success and interest in maximizing their talent the resources to pursue their goals.

The answer is a more sustainable development system that involves the best coaches directly or indirectly (managing and nurturing coaches) with players at younger and younger ages and creates more and better training environments for young players to develop their talent followed by more competitive opportunities for players as they reach their mid to late teens and illustrate talent beyond an average high school or college player.

Hassan Whiteside, ADD & Basketball Performance

In the 2010 NBA Draft, Sacramento selected Marshall’s Hassan Whiteside in the second round with the 33rd pick. Early in the draft process, many pegged Whiteside as a borderline lottery pick, with one rumor suggesting that the Kings would select Whiteside with its first round pick, #5 overall.

Whiteside is 7’0 tall with a ridiculous 7’7 wingspan. He only played one year at Marshall, not a major conference program, and averaged an NCAA-best 5.4 blocks per game. He is a typical potential and upside pick, as opposed to a polished player.

However, according to many reports, he fell to the second round because he reportedly has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). While I do not know Whiteside or his history, this seems to be a poor reason to pass on a player.

Many athletes are kinesthetic learners – they learn by doing, and sports rewards this type of learning. However, kinesthetic learners often struggle in a classroom setting because they do not learn as well by reading or listening. When their fidgeting starts to interfere with a classroom environment, many of these children are labeled ADD. Rather than diversify our instructional methods, it is easier to sedate these children and attempt to maintain the status quo classroom environment.

Sports provide an outlet for kinesthetic learners and those with ADD. I can pick out the players who tend to get in trouble in the classroom when I coach them because their fidgeting or constant motion is seen by most teachers as troublesome behavior.

On the court, however, ADD should not be an impediment to one’s athletic development. A coach simply needs to be aware of the athlete’s instructional needs. Rather than verbal instructions, he needs more time to walk-through a play or do a new move actively several times rather than translating verbal instructions immediately to performance.

I would be shocked if Whiteside was the only player with ADD drafted last night. He may be an extreme case, and he may need some added patience or assistance from the coaching staff, but ADD should not stand in his way of developing into an NBA player.

I know a player who transferred because his college coach did not know how to work with a player with fairly severe ADD. I think the player is great. He is emotional and loses his head sometimes, but he plays hard at all times, competes relentlessly and cares more than any of his teammates. He is not the easiest player to coach, but his production and dedication certainly justify the extra attention and patience that he requires. When his coach takes a positive approach and understands his needs, he maintains concentration, works hard, learns and improves. It is only when he had a coach who lacked patience and who could not vary his instructional style that he struggled on the court. It is easy for the old coach to blame the player and his mental issues, but I see a failure by a coach to adapt to his players’ needs, especially at the college level where the coach knew who he was recruiting.

The Kings’ staff knows who it drafted and I assume that they have the coaches prepared to show extra patience and give the needed attention to help Whiteside maximize his talent and become a good NBA player.

2010 NBA Mock Draft

Before I begin, my explanation. This is not my guess as to what these general managers will do, but what I would do in their situations based on the information that I have. I highly value the personal interviews, and I am not there for those meetings, so I may miss on a player based on his exceptional or non-existent work ethic. Otherwise, here’s what I would do if I ran each of these teams.

1. Washington: G John Wall, Kentucky

I said last year that I would take him #1 in the 2009 NBA Draft and nothing changed my opinion. I don’t agree with Chad Ford’s comparison to Jason Kidd, but I believe that he will be a better NBA player than Rajon Rondo or Derrick Rose, to other frequent comparisons.

2. Philadelphia: C DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky

Worst case scenario, I feel that he is a Kendrick Perkins with more touch around the basket. Best case scenario, he is a beast and a multi-year all-star.

3. New Jersey: G Evan Turner, Ohio State

Potential to be a star or near-star like Brandon Roy, to whom he is compared frequently. I had Roy as the #1 pick in his draft class. For some reason, I never liked Turner quite as much though he could be a very special NBA player.

4. Minnesota: F Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech

I honestly have not seen him play very much, so I am not sure. However, he has the size and athleticism to be a very good player. The TWolves need talent and cannot worry about positions.

5. Sacramento: SF Wesley Johnson, Syracuse

With Cousins and Favors gone, I would trade the pick. However, since that has yet to happen, I would take Johnson. The Kings need a post and a point guard, but mostly they need talent. Johnson, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson and Carl Landry create a decent front-court to pair with Tyreke Evans.

6. Golden State: SF Luke Babbitt, Nevada

Everyone has GSW drafting a big, but Nelson does not play young posts (see Randolph and Wright). GSW has Biedrinis, Turiaf, Hunter and Gadzuric at center on a team that rarely plays a center and Randolph and Wright at PF. The only question is whether to take Al-Farouq Aminu here as an undersized PF or Babbitt, the shooter. I would take the shooter to pair with Curry.

7. Detroit: F Epke Udoh, Baylor

Everyone has Greg Monroe here if he falls past Sacramento, but Udoh feels more like a Detroit player. Truthfully, I would give Minnesota the #7 pick and Tayshaun Prince for Al Jefferson, if that is really a rumored deal. Jefferson is better than anyone available at this point. If Minnesota picked here, I would draft Paul George to provide some perimeter shooting and athleticism.

8. Los Angeles Clippers: G/F Xavier Henry, Kansas

Aminu is the popular pick, and he fits a need, but the Clippers need another shooter to open the floor for Baron Davis, Blake Griffin and Chris Kaman more than they need another slasher/rebounder. Henry can add size as a SG off the bench or slide to SF with Davis and Gordon in the backcourt. LAC has Travis Outlaw as a serviceable SF to rotate with Henry.

9. Utah: F Greg Monroe, Georgetown

The Jazz need some added length inside. The Jazz is always a great passing team and Monroe fits. However, he needs to play tougher to fit with the Jazz physical style of play.

10. Indiana: PG Avery Bradley, Texas

The Pacers need a PG and may trade this pick. However, if they remain here, I would take Avery Bradley. Teams were not sure if Russell Westbrook was a PG or SG, and he has managed to be a player. Bradley has talent and will be an NBA-level defender in the backcourt.

11. New Orleans: F Al-Farouq Aminu, Wake Forest

When you have Chris Paul, you need players who can finish and make shots. Aminu should be able to finish. He’s not necessarily the perfect fit, but at #11, he should add athleticism to the front court and be able to play at two positions.

12. Memphis: F Patrick Patterson, Kentucky

Memphis has Zach Randolph’s expiring deal, so this gives Patterson one year to grow into his minutes. He may be undersized, but he showed that he could shoot the ball and rebound while in college and was always productive.

13. Toronto: C Kevin Seraphin, Cholet

Toronto is likely to lose Chris Bosh and may be looking to deal forward Hedo Turkoglu. They need a center to move Bargnani to power forward, a quicker point guard and potentially another wing to go with Derozan. Seraphin provides a big, young, athletic C/PF to team with Bargnani up front.

14. Houston: F Ed Davis, Carolina

By most estimations, Davis is the best player available and Houston needs an inside player. He has an NBA pedigree and likely would be more in-demand if he had played with a better point guard this season. However, the jury is out on Carolina’s big men translating into NBA performers over the last couple seasons. Aldrich makes sense as Yao Ming insurance, but Davis has far more potential.

15. Milwaukee: PF Craig Brackins, Iowa State

The Bucks have acquired a couple wings in the last two days with Chris Douglas-Roberts and Corey Maggette, so I would take Brackins as a multi-skilled power forward. He was a hot name last season who cooled this year, but has been creeping up the draft boards lately.

16. Minnesota: F Paul George, Fresno State

With Favors in the fold, George becomes an easy selection as the TWolves need more athleticism and shooting on the wings.

17. Chicago: SG James Anderson, Oklahoma State

Chicago needs an outside shooter and Anderson is a great shooter. He led the Big-12 in scoring and adds a little more size to the shooting guard position in Chicago.

18. Oklahoma City: C Cole Aldrich, Kansas

The buzz is that OKC acquired this pick to draft Larry Sanders, but Aldrich fits their needs even better as a very good post defender. Aldrich fits as another piece who improves their team defense on the interior as he should be able to play together with Serge Ibaka against bigger teams (Lakers).

19. Boston: F Larry Sanders, VCU

Boston needs someone to replace Rasheed Wallace and provide depth behind KG and Perkins with Big Baby. Of course, they also could use a player like Jordan Crawford if Ray Allen bolts.

20. San Antonio: F Quincy Pondexter, Washington

This is an aging team with many holes. Tiago Splitter is supposed to fill one hole inside allowing the Spurs to draft Pondexter who feels like a Spurs-type player.

21. Oklahoma City: F Gordon Hayward, Butler

The Thunder are in the enviable position of drafting for best available player, which happens to be the NCAA Tournament darling Hayward. He probably will not see many minutes behind Durant, but he adds depth and some shooting (potentially) to the roster.

22. Portland: SG Jordan Crawford, Xavier

The rumors have Rudy Fernandez leaving Portland. Portland has young depth everywhere on the court, but adding an athletic shooter always helps.

23. Minnesota: C Solomon Alabi, Florida State

With its third pick of the 1st Rd, Minnesota can gamble on a 7’1 center who can protect the basket. When in doubt, go big, right?

24. Atlanta: PG Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky

This is too low for Bledsoe. He’s probably better than 24. But, he duplicates players on other teams like Bayless, Flynn, Westbrook, Hill. If he lasts until 20, someone makes a trade to get him. But, if he falls to 24, Atlanta gets the perfect replacement for Mike Bibby.

25. Memphis: F Damion James, Texas

I have Memphis grabbing an undersized PF with its first pick, so I like James here because he’s just a player. Not sure where he fits, but he can play and will find minutes and be productive.

26. Oklahoma City: C Daniel Orton, Kentucky

With a center and small forward taken already, OKC takes a foreign player to stash, like Tibor Pleiss or Ryan Richards, or grabs a big man with potential in Orton, a one-time fringe-lottery pick.

27. New Jersey: Latavious Williams, Tulsa 66ers

Williams can rebound and is ready to play after a year in the D-League. NJ wants to compete right away.

28. Memphis: G Dominique Jones, South Florida

With two front-court players selected already, Memphis grabs a scorer from the perimeter to add to its mix of back-court players.

29. Orlando: F Lazar Hayward, Marquette

Matt Barnes is likely gone, so Hayward fits as a player who may not have a true position, but can play and play right away, which is important for a contender.

30. Washington: F Gani Lawal, Georgia Tech

The Wizards need a post who can bang and rebound to complement the longer, skinnier McGee and Blatche.

Making the Most of NCAA Sanctions

Today, Bob Knight said that the NCAA will not clean up its organization and prevent future abuses until the coaches are punished for their actions. Jay Bilas criticized the administrators and believes that university presidents and athletic directors deserve the blame. While every case differs, I disagree.

Now, I have not read the 67-page document about USC’s infractions and have looked into recent cases about Derrick Rose and Eric Bledsoe very superficially. However, in most instances, it appears that the student-athlete was at fault and the indiscretions occurred before matriculation. If that is true, and if the college coach had no hand in enabling the infractions, why punish the coach, the university, the athletic director or the future players? Why not punish the person who committed the violation – the player?

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over Reggie Bush. It cannot make him ineligible. He did not graduate, so USC cannot withhold his degree. However, Bush committed fraud. Why can’t he be charged with fraud and prosecuted?

During the recruiting process, an athlete signs a document as part of the NCAA Clearinghouse that states that he is a recruitable athlete. However, if the athlete has taken extra benefits because of his athletic prowess, he is not a recruitable athlete. Therefore, he lied on the legal document and de-frauded the university.

If the NCAA wants to eliminate these under-the-table illegal benefits that are so difficult to police, it must use the government to prosecute those who commit the fraud. If current high school athletes saw Bush sentenced to jail for his improper benefits, they would think twice before accepting anything from anyone. However, if they see Bush dating a Kardashian, starring on reality television, playing in the Super Bowl and living the good life – all while current USC players are sidelined – it is hard for an immature brain to see the negative in accepting an improper benefit, especially when the agent/runner mentions how much money USC made from selling Bush jerseys and going to bowl games with Bush as a star.

Now, if as reported, Tim Floyd was told by a compliance officer not to recruit O.J. Mayo, and he proceeded to recruit and sign him, then the head coach should be held accountable. The compliance department’s job is to determine eligibility. If they determine that a player is not eligible or may be ineligible due to extra benefits, and the coach ignores them, then the coach is fully accountable. The university should not be punished because the university attempted to remedy the situation. The coach should be punished, regardless of where he is, and the athletic director should be held responsible for not managing his department and allowing his coach to ignore the compliance officials. That is negligence.

As for the Bledsoe and Rose cases, they allegedly committed academic fraud. What happens to someone who commits academic fraud by falsifying test scores or grades? Adam Wheeler was charged with 20 counts of fraud for faking an Ivy League degree and goes to court on June 9. Guerdwich Montimere, the 22-year-old Texan accused of spending the year as a 16-year-old high school player, could face up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

If Bledsoe was looking at six months in jail rather than the NBA Draft or if Rose was staring at jail time rather than a future that includes LeBron James, would others be so quick to falsify their grades or test scores?

Now, personally I do not see a huge difference between Bledsoe’s case and that of national hero Michael Oher, the former Ole Miss offensive lineman now playing with the Baltimore Ravens and the person behind The Blind Side.

I also find it difficult to prosecute Bush for accepting money without punishing USC who profited immensely from his presence on campus.

However, if the NCAA seriously wants to crack down on these types of infractions, punishing the immediate culprits is the best course of action, even if it may seem unfair to punish a guy who slept in his car and just needed to find a way to play one year of college basketball to live his NBA dream. After all, Bledsoe’s presence at Kentucky did not hurt anyone, did it? Should he be prevented from living his dream, and creating an income source for his family, because he came from a tough background?

This is the problem with the NCAA rules: there is plenty of ambiguity. There is a chasm between what seems right as a society (giving a guy like Bledsoe a chance to make something of his talent, much like with Oher) and what is wrong from an NCAA rule standpoint (allegedly falsifying grades and accepting some money to pay rent on his family’s apartment).

Do I see a great need to investigate and charge Bledsoe or Kentucky? No. However, as soon as an institution ignores one potential violation, how can it rule against another institution? If nothing happens to Bledsoe and he achieves his goal of playing in the NBA and making millions, didn’t the ends justify the means for him personally? From a selfish perspective, even if Kentucky or Calipari is punished, it would be hard for him to see his decision as a negative because it gave him the opportunity to maximize his talent that he may not have had if he was playing at a junior college or in a parks & recreation league this season.

However, punishing Bledsoe, Rose, Mayo, Bush, etc. sends a message to the high school athletes that they will be held responsible for their actions whether they remain in the NCAA or not.

From a legal perspective, I think the NCAA has to go after the culprits in each case, not the future players who are affected. However, from a moral perspective, I think the NCAA and NFHS need to find ways to assist these athletes when they need help rather than ignoring their needs and creating a void for the unscrupulous to fill.

Note: I use the names more as examples of general issues, not individual and specific cases. I am not an expert on any of these players or their stories and have nothing against any of them. I am commenting based on hearsay, as I am not an NCAA investigator or lawyer.

College Expansion Done Correctly

If NCAA university presidents and athletic directors in conferences like the Big 10 and Pac-10 want to expand to generate more revenue for their universities, these forward-thinking, profit-seeking presidents should go all in. Rather than mess around with realignment and some basic addition, subtraction and expansion, they should blow up the NCAA altogether and go big.

Imagine if the Big 10, Pac-10, Texas and Notre Dame – the major players right now – took the lead and formed the (NARGUAD) National Association of Revenue-Generating University Athletic Departments or some other acronym. The NARGUAD could invite 40 to 50 national university athletic programs to join its organization. Why generate all the revenue that gets split with the mid-majors and non-factors? Keep all the cash.

The NARGUAD could ensure its domination, and independence, by creating legislation more in line with the realities of intercollegiate athletics. Rather than pretend that all athletes are student-athletes there for the education and playing sports as a hobby while working to go professional in something other than sports, the NARGUAD would be for profit-generating universities willing to pay its student-athletes part of the enormous revenue it would generate (and I’m not talking about scholarship money).

I think that a fair way for a university to pay student-athletes is to pay each athlete a percentage of the average coach’s salary in your sport. So, if the average NARGUAD football coach’s salary is $2-million per year, football players, for instance, receive $20,000. If the average men’s lacrosse coach’s salary is $100,000, the players get a grand per year. Sure, it’s not fair. But, this is an organization moving beyond perceptions of fairness and running itself like a business. If lacrosse (or volleyball or water polo, etc) players want more money, they need to work to get more bodies in the stands and eyes on the TV commercials.

With the top 40-50 athletic programs, the NARGUAD could rid itself of niche networks like the Big-10 channel and ignore ESPN, Fox Sports and the others and create its own NARGUAD network. Would college sports fans rather purchase a package with ESPN – and its 24 hours of talking about sports (seriously, a radio program televised is not televising sports) – or NARGUADTV, which would feature 20 NARGUAD football games spread over Thursday, Friday and Saturday plus all the other sports?

Further, NARGUAD would demand that all universities played the same sports. If it is popular enough, some west coast schools might have to add lacrosse or hockey, while some east coast schools might have to add men’s volleyball (since Ohio St. and Penn St. are already two nationally competitive teams). Personally, I would like to see the NARGUAD sponsor Olympic sports and develop the next generation of Olympians in sports like Wrestling and Swimming & Diving.

Imagine if these universities gathered together and schools like Florida, Georgia, Alabama, USC, UCLA, Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Florida St, North Carolina, Duke, etc. joined forced to create one organization and television network. Forget the BCS Championship Game and the silly bowls, the NARGUAD play-offs would be a cash cow.