Developing Basketball Intelligence Clinic in Boulder, CO

What: Developing Basketball Intelligence Clinic

When: January 15, 2011 (5th – 8th graders)

Where: YMCA – Mapleton Branch Boulder, CO

Boys: 10:00AM – Noon
Girls: 1 – 3:00PM

Register Here!

Professional basketball coach and clinician Brian McCormick will lead players through drills designed to develop tactical skills and game awareness that fit into any coach’s system. Using various games, the clinic will keep the players active and learning by doing the skills in game-like environments.

What is Wrong with Girls’ Basketball?

I picked up the following on another web site that covers primarily southern California prep players and teams. However, it closely mirrors many points made on this site previously (I deleted the player’s name and school):

As the negative stories started filtering out of the HAX tourney, perhaps the most significant was the oft-repeated observation that [D1] recruit K.S. has no desire.  She’s a player with all the gifts to be a collegiate AA, yet, she plays as if she’d rather be anywhere other than the basketball court.  If this were a reality show, a judge would have already put the question to her, “Do you really want to be here?”  My belief is that she wants to come to [college] and if she has to play basketball in order to do it, so be it.  During the tournament, numerous observers felt that she was content to let others do the dirty work and if the ball got in her hands, then the magic happened.  Unfortunately, she was not the only player at the tournament who had that attitude.

Have we burned out these girls?  Playing every day, every month of the year.  Even though this is the first big high school tournament in the Southland [technically it is before the official start date of high school basketball practice], scores and scores of concerned fans were noticing that the girls were disinterested and unenthusiastic.  Also, the girls were better athletes, but not better basketball players.  Playing all those games hasn’t translated into higher skills because there’s no teaching or coaching. Watching player after player incorrectly perform a basic skill like a bounce pass or totally ignoring others like a close out,  and you can only start wondering what these parents are paying the big bucks for.  Oh, I know, it’s for the college scholie, and a lot of girls at the tournament have gotten that.  Good for them.  But have we lost a generation of players because of that single-minded goal?  Watching some of the ghastly games that WBB put on during their first week, I’d say the prognosis is not encouraging.

Developing Basketball Intelligence – Amazing Book!

I received the following email this morning:

Coach B.

I have to say that DBI is the best book I have ever read about coaching basketball.  As a result of your book I have focused on teaching a few things such as ball handling, layups, spacing and defensive principals.  My team has taken off.  In the past our schools kids have been knocked around, but this year they are playing with more intelligence and savvy.

Dave

After a reply in which I thanked Dave and asked if I could share his email, he replied:

Sure thing.  You can definitely use me as a testimonial.  My name is David Lerch. Just so you know, our team over the last two years is 2-25.  This year 4 games in we are 3-1 and our 5th and 6th graders who feed into the 7th and 8th grade team are 2-2 and playing really hard.  Teams don’t want to play us this year.  We have had two drops for next year.

Developing Basketball Intelligence is available as a paperback through lulu.com or an an e-book through 180shooter.com.

Also, for coaches looking to put Developing Basketball Intelligence into action, Playmakers Basketball Development Leagues feature a six-week, 12-session curriculum based on the concepts in DBI, and each participant receives a copy of Playmakers: The Player’s Guide to Developing Basketball Intelligence which is the player’s version of DBI.

Lengthening the High School Basketball Season

High school sports seasons are set in stone. However, times change. Is it time to examine the high school sports season?

Assumption 1: Most high school programs are now year-round programs playing in fall, spring and summer tournaments.

Assumption 2: Most high school basketball players specialize in one sport before playing varsity basketball.

Using Jean Cote’s three periods of sports development, the Sampling Period covers ages 6-12 and encourages children to participate in as many activities as possible. The Specializing Period (13-15) sees teenagers eliminate some activities and concentrate on a few activities. The Investment Period (16-18) sees athletes choose their sport of choice and invest fully in their development in that sport. If we match these periods to the high school system, the Investment Period most closely overlaps with varsity sports.

Not every teenager transitions to the Investment Period. Some maintain a more recreational approach to sports and remain in the Sampling or Specializing Periods, playing multiple sports and not dedicating oneself to the full development of their skills in an effort to maximize their potential in that sport. In some areas, this is the purpose of J.V. teams: some high schools sponsor Freshman, Frosh-Soph and J.V. teams, and the competitive progression is Freshmen to Varsity, Frosh-Soph to Varsity or Freshmen to Frosh-Soph to Varsity. The J.V. team often includes juniors and seniors who likely will never play varsity, but who want to continue playing (some areas have a different progression).

Based on the above assumptions, why not lengthen the high school season?

Currently, official practices start around November 15 and state champions are crowned around the first week of March. That leaves 3.5 months (roughly 14 weeks) to play between 25 and 40 games, depending on the team’s success. Therefore, teams average 2+ games per week, which usually leaves 3 days for practice. In the off-season, teams practice less and play more; a team might practice once per week and play in a weekend tournament with four games or a twice-per-week league.

Lengthening the high school season would create a more appropriate practice to game ratio. Let’s say teams play 32-42 games depending on success in a lengthened season that starts October 1 and ends April 1. That gives six months or approximately 24 weeks to play the 32-42 games. That creates an average of less than 1.5 games per week, which translates to one game per week with more games in less time during play-offs or at the end of the season when the season is more focused on performance and less on development.

One objection would be gym time. However, high school programs and club teams manage to find gym time for practices and games, so it seems possible. After all, the first assumption is that most teams play year-round already.

I would keep the current sports seasons for the frosh, frosh-soph and junior varsity level, since these players are not in the Investment Period and therefore should be encouraged to participate in multiple sports. I would play fewer games at this level to create a better practice:game ratio, limiting teams to 20-25 games rather than the current varsity range of 25-40.

Of course, many basketball players do play varsity basketball and another sport, especially at smaller schools, so decisions would have to be made. However, decisions always have to be made. Nothing is perfect.

A lengthened high-school season could give more control back to the high school season and limit the time in out-of-season competition. A lengthened high-school season would give college coaches more opportunities to recruit, visit high schools, etc. High School federations could sponsor a summer basketball period in July to provide additional recruiting opportunities for college coaches.

Eventually, I imagine that basketball will move more like soccer, where many top players opt out of the high school season to concentrate on the club season. In basketball, this change will take the form of a year-round club season, like my proposed Elite Development League, or possibly a lengthened high-school season that creates a more development-oriented season, more in line with a European model.

As a society, we have to define the purpose of our sports activities. Do high school sports exist to support the academic mission and provide recreational and fitness opportunities for students? Do they exist to help students maximize their athletic potential? Do they exist to provide competitive environments between schools?

Once we define the purpose of high school sports, we will have a better idea of the changes to be made in the future. If high sports exist to help students maximize their athletic potential, we should lengthen the high school season to create a more development-oriented schedule coupled with more competitive opportunities. However, if school sports exist to provide recreational and fitness opportunities to complement the academic setting, the club-based EDL would create the more developmental and competitive opportunities for those students looking for more from their athletic participation.

Real Change through USA Basketball or ihoops

For the better part of the last four years, I have read articles about how Sonny Vaccaro or David Stern or Myles Brand or someone else is going to save youth basketball in the United States. Brand and Stern created ihoops, which is essentially a Facebook-like site for basketball, but has no real impact on changing the culture of grassroots basketball or enhancing player development (in fact, some videos set back instruction).

Basketball is an entrepreneurial business in the Unites States. Furthermore, the majority of money in basketball stays at the top – very little money from NBA and NCAA television contracts and sponsorships ever trickles down to youth basketball. From that perspective, NCAA athletic departments and NBA owners benefit by eliminating research and development costs; they essentially get their product for free.

If ihoops or USA Basketball is intent on changing the youth culture, creating a trickle down effect from the professional ranks to the grassroots level is the best answer. Otherwise, youth teams rely heavily on the shoe companies and participation fees.

Since nobody has created a bold answer to create change, I have outlined one proposal that would alter grassroots basketball culture and create a hierarchical structure that would empower USA Basketball and/or ihoops to manage and oversee these changes.

Because sport is a business, the proposal starts with funding sources. If an NBA team drafts an International player, the team often pays a buyout to release the player from his contract. The current limit that NBA teams can spend is $500,000. For an example, when Ricky Rubio joins the NBA, Minnesota will pay his club in Spain $500,000. This money can be used to sign a replacement player or to fund programs to develop the next Ricky Rubio.

What if NBA teams paid a player’s university $500,000 for the right to sign him to a contract? The $500,000 could be used to sign additional players or to fund additional stipends for scholarship athletes. Would a monetary incentive change a college coach’s approach? Would coaches spend more time developing players’ skills and preparing them for the NBA if their program stood to benefit monetarily from a player’s draft selection?

Of course, why should NCAA programs reap all the benefits? After all, many top selections spend less than a year on a college campus, so coaches cannot take a lot of credit for the player’s development, skills or talent. Also, NCAA programs benefit from the same free development of its talent.

Therefore, when a player signs a college scholarship, what if the university’s athletic department paid the player’s developmental programs the same value as the scholarship?

In European leagues, teams will often loan a player to another club or sell the player’s contract, but retain some rights if the player’s contract is sold again to a bigger club. For instance, a small club might sell a player to a bigger club but add a clause that they receive a portion of the fee if the bigger club sells the player’s contract to another club. In addition to developmental programs benefitting from a player signing a college scholarship, the developmental programs should benefit from the eventual professional contract and split the money that the university receives.

For an example: Joe Future Pro plays with Westwood Recreation program for two years; then he moves to the HoopMasters AAU program for two more seasons; he plays for Santa Monica High School for four years and joins the L.A. Rockfish AAU program for two years and then the Pump-and-Run AAU program for two seasons. When he signs his scholarship to UCLA (let’s say that all scholarships are valued at $80,000), these five entities share the $80,000. How? Each gets a percentage equal to the number of years in its organization. Joe Future Pro played 12 seasons; each season is worth roughly $6600. Therefore, Westwood Recreation would receive $13,200 for its two seasons, while SaMo High School would receive $26,400 for its four seasons.

Let’s say that Joe Future Pro stays two years at UCLA before being a 1st Round NBA Draft Pick of the Los Angeles Clippers. The Clippers would pay $500,000 for the right to his contract; that $500,000 would be split between the youth programs and UCLA. Let’s say universities receive 15% per year; therefore, UCLA would receive 30% of the $500,000 or $150,000 while the developmental programs would split an additional $350,000.

Imagine what $100,000 would do for a large public high school like Santa Monica H.S.? Sure, it benefits largely based on dumb luck, as school choice is limited to geography and school districts in most cases. However, the school did spend four years enhancing the player’s development as an athlete and a person.

Imagine the changes to non-profit programs with the additional revenue generated through player development. Imagine the entrepreneurs who would design better facilities and academies to develop players because of the economic incentive. Right now, an entrepreneur makes money $20-$200/hour regardless of the player’s success, provided that the parent/player feels like the coach/trainer is enhancing the player’s development and experience. Now, entrepreneurs would be rewarded for results.

Of course, with so much money in play, how would it be regulated? How would we know who deserves what payout?

This is where ihoops or USA Basketball would have to instill its authority. I propose a registration process. Any organization who hopes to profit from a player’s development must register with the governing body. To play with a registered organization, players would have to register as well, much like with the current AAU set-up. When a player registers, he would register with a club or organization. That registration would tie him to the club for that season (we’ll use September 1 – July 31 as a “season”). If a player plays for a club and a school team, he can register with his high school and a club program.

Using algorithms and computer programs, the governing body would be able to monitor programs, players and coaches. If a player wants to change clubs within a season, he would have to apply for a transfer – this process would help to prevent clubs from pilfering talented players from other clubs. Transfers would be allowed only if players moved to a different area or if there was some sort of abusive situation. Transfers would be noted by the computer programs, and a secondary issue with the same coach or club would trigger an investigation to ensure that the program met the governing body’s standards. If the investigation found something, the governing body could suspend the club or the specific coach – the coach would not be allowed to move to a different area and register, because of the national registry. I know coaches accused of various things in one area who move to a new area and start coaching like nothing happened; a national registry would help to prevent these situations.

Is this more interference than we need from USA Basketball or the NBA? Maybe. However, most who have read Play Their Hearts Out might think otherwise. This would create three primary changes:

1. Regulate coaches and organizations to create safer environments for young athletes.
2. Finance better developmental programs in non-profits, schools and through entrepreneurial endeavors.
3. Empower a governing body to register coaches, players and clubs and create real philosophical changes with the authority to enforce the changes due to the potential financial compensation at stake.

The concept is not perfect, and may not even be practical. However, compared to the other proposals identified publicly, my proposal offers the possibility for real change through realistic measures due to the financial possibilities when money filters down from the professional ranks to amateur and grassroots’ levels.

Keys to the proposal:

1. NBA and NCAA franchises share revenue with developmental programs who produce the talent.
2. Governing body registers, tracks and manages players, coaches and programs.

What changes might we expect?

The obvious negative is that financial rewards may increase recruiting efforts by high schools and high school-age club programs. However, that already occurs. There may be ways to negate some of the recruiting through greater oversight and threat of suspension that would rob the organization of its potential financial rewards due to the player and program registration.

The greatest positive would be a reward for those youth programs who develop players and teach the basics. Such a proposal could encourage more development-oriented programs rather than the emphasis on exposure-oriented events. More emphasis on development would benefit future professionals who would possess more developed skills, but also those who do not make it, but would benefit from reduced prices for quality programs as well as a more positive experience.

Because the financial incentive is so great, and important to the entire system change, the governing body would have to create some rules to ensure that the financial incentives create the desired results. One rule would be to pay the money to the development programs over a series of years, as opposed to one lump payment, to ensure that the program continues.

One problem with the current set up is that there are many programs that come and go. If a father saw that his son had NBA potential, he could start his own team to showcase his son, and reap the financial benefits when his son signed a scholarship and was drafted to the NBA. At that point, he could collect his payday and stop his team/program.

The financial incentives should be used to create sustainable programs. A program with teams from 10-18 years old has a chance to invest in long term athlete development, while those who simply form a team for one group of 5-10 players generally exist for showcasing players or winning – the Peak by Friday mentality.

By spreading out payments over a series of years, and requiring the program to exist during those years, the money would be used at least partially to fund continuing programs, not just to pay a coach who no longer coaches. The goal with the financial contributions to developmental programs is to expand and improve programs while reducing costs. Spreading payments over a period of five years encourages this process of developing better programs as opposed to a quick profit scheme.

The registration process also could create limits for games and assist tournament directors. If a player registers for a club, and the club has to register with the governing body for its games, the governing body would know how many games each player plays. The governing body could set limits by age group to encourage more training, especially during the off-season.

Also, one major problem with youth tournaments is inequitable competition. By receiving data from each tournament, the governing body could create in-house ranking to assist tournament directors with the schedules. in fact, the governing body could create a tournament scheduling program and use its algorithm to schedule games automatically. As teams played more games, the algorithm would learn more and more about teams and create better and better schedules, matching similarly talented teams against each other more often, thus reducing the number of blowouts and creating more competitive playing environments. Tournament directors would be required to feed their results into the system and this information would be available for subsequent tournaments.

The registration process would generate millions of bits of data about players, programs, coaches, schools, player transfers, game results, games played, schedules, etc. All that information can be used to improve the system if it is analyzed, sorted and filtered correctly. There are thousands of ways to make the system more efficient, which ultimately creates better programs for players’ enjoyment and development, which should be the governing body’s ultimate purpose.

Can the Joe Keller-Narrative be a Disruptive Force that Brings Real Change to Youth Basketball?

Over the last two weeks, dozens of basketball blogs and writers have reviewed Play Their Hearts Out by George Dohrmann. By all accounts it is an excellent, provocative and disgusting look at youth basketball, with adidas phenom creator Joe Keller and former child prodigy Demetrius Walker as its central characters.

I have not read Dohrmann’s book, though I doubt the story is too unfamiliar to anyone who has followed prep basketball in southern California in the last decade. Keller’s antics and exploitation of Walker were notorious and well-chronicled on socalhoops, where many posted about the pariah of youth basketball.

I have written generally about the subject that Dohrmann covers far more specifically with a compelling narrative and in-depth details. My question, however, is: what’s next? Once everyone finishes with the basketball porn, as several have called it, what happens next? Will ihoops morph into something more than a basketball-Facebook that re-publishes often poorly written articles and videos from other internet sites? Will USA Basketball decide to wield its authority as the governing body of basketball in the United States, if not from a pragmatic view than from a moral obligation? Will adidas and Nike continue to pay high salaries (for youth basketball) to people who use children for personal profit rather than investing the money in true coaches or programs who can develop the person and the athlete while bathed in free gear?

I wrote previously that organizations demonstrate their values by where they invest or spend their money. adidas obviously cares little about the development of children into adults or the development of beginners into advanced players, as it enriched Keller in the process of exploiting the hopes and dreams of thousands of parents and players. However, when the NCAA and NBA decided to change youth basketball through ihoops, they brought adidas to the table. How is an organization ostensibly started to reform a system going to bring about reform by using the same people who developed and are entrenched in the old system? What do they say about those who do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?

Nothing changes because it sells. When I published Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development, I emailed hundreds of writers around the country hoping for one review. I sent dozens of copies to writers around the country. I replied to articles written about the subject and suggested Cross Over as an alternative view or follow-up. After the Sporting News‘ Mike Decourcy replied to an email, I sent him a book and followed up every two months for over a year before I gave up on his reading the book that I had sent.

Unfortunately, I wrote a book without a compelling narrative. I wrote a book to help coaches, not to become a best seller. While these writers cover the youth basketball scene and complain and criticize it, when asked about change, they throw up their arms in defeat. They are resigned to the status quo and cannot be bothered to discuss any alternatives.

Since Cross Over, I have had dozens if not hundreds of emails from coaches who have said that Cross Over totally changed the way that they approach coaching youth basketball, but most are resigned to the current way and know that an article about Joe Keller or Sonny Vaccaro will draw more hits than one about Cross Over and new ways to think about talent development within basketball.

Ihoops and USA Basketball have said that creating a coach education program is too hard. They are ensconced in 20th Century thinking where it takes years to develop a program. I put together a coach education web site in a month with a budget under $1000. What in the world is ihoops doing with its $10-million investment from the NBA and NCAA?

The Youth Basketball Coaching Association is not perfect. It is the 1.0 model. Hopefully after I finish the current semester where I am teaching a college basketball coaching course, I can create version 1.5, for use by an organization in Kenya, if nobody else.

The inertia of everyone involved with the current youth system is the most frustrating thing. Youth basketball is a billion-dollar business, yet nobody wants to look at different ways of doing things or try something new. I have spoken with dozens of facilities, from private basketball centers to Parks & Recreation to Parochial Athletic Leagues, and each one preferred doing nothing and accepting their current mediocrity to exploring new ideas.

If Dohrmann’s book does not generate enough outrage to force some organizations to re-examine their missions, philosophy and execution of services, what will it take? Will another book in another decade that follows up on Dan Wetzel’s Sole Influence and Dohrmann’s Play Their Hearts Out finally be the impetus for change?

Or, are we resigned to our current programs because they are good enough? When I wrote Cross Over in 2006, I wrote that my belief that changes were necessary had nothing to do with the overreaction to the losses by Team USA in 2002, 2004 and 2006. Instead, I believe that a country that invests so much financially, not to mention time and other less quantifiable resources, should not settle for programs that are good enough, but should develop the best possible programs for our youth to insure a fun, safe, development-oriented and reasonably-priced experience for all players, not just the elite or those with wealthy parents.

Health, Physical Activity and Insurance

This is off-topic. Aetna recently informed me that they plan to raise my rates by $17 or nearly 20%. In four years, my insurance rates have doubled, and I have worse insurance.

As I walked through Costco this morning, my raising rates angered me. As I buy fish oil for Omega 3′s (recommended by a doctor), chicken, salmon, blueberries, walnuts, carrot juice, watermelons, water and orange juice, people around me purchased processed chips, candy, cereal, sodas, etc.

While I work out 5-6 times per week (50-minute Pilates class on Mon/Wed, 50-minutes of free weights on Tues/Thurs and usually 90 minutes of hoops on Tues/Thurs), the general population is sedentary (before school started, I worked out more too, as I rode my bicycle most places and swam several days per week).

I weigh less than I did when I graduated from college a decade ago and wear a small waist size than when I graduated from high school 15 years ago. By most measures, I am physically fit for my age. I also do not smoke, do drugs or drink.

Despite this, my rates continue to rise and my insurance company treats me the same as anyone else my age. I am a number based on my sex and age and that number produces a price for a certain coverage.

Is there any wonder why most Americans are fat? Where is the financial incentive? I would pay the same insurance costs if I was overweight, smoked and indulged in processed foods, sweets and soda on a daily basis. Further, based on nearly every recent medical study, if I ate poorly and did not exercise, my chances for disease, health problems, diabetes, etc – actual medical care – would increase exponentially.

Instead, I essentially subsidize the slovenly people buying their daily 64 oz Big Gulp and super-sizing their Big Mac Extra Value Meal who require extensive medical care for years due to diabetes, heart issues and more.

Why shouldn’t my health insurance cover the expenses that I incur to prevent my need for medical care? Why shouldn’t I get a discount for eating vegetables rather than potato chips and salmon instead of Whoppers and taking vitamins rather than eating a Snickers? If I pay more money and time to maintain my health than an average person, why do I pay the same insurance prices as the average person?