BLOG.COACHBOBWALSH.COM

Dynamic Leadership Academy at RIC June 10th-11th

BW — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:57:30 GMT

Please get in touch with me at rwalsh@ric.edu f you are interested. Spots are filling up quickly and it is shaping up to be a great event.

http://coachbobwalsh.com/Academy.html

Graduation Speech

BW — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:14 GMT

This is part of a graduation speech that David Foster Wallace gave at Kenyon College in 2005. A very cool, smart message. Video takes about 10 minutes but when you have some time to think, play it.

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/09/this-is-water-glossary/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffereb3d7

"The freedom of real education is you get to constantly decide what has meaning and what doesn't. That is real freedom. That is being educated."

What Is Coaching?

BW — Thu, 16 May 2013 18:26:20 GMT

"Coaching is not what you know. It's what you can get your players to do on the court."

- Stan Van Gundy

Individual Meetings

BW — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:01:54 GMT

It's always amazing how much I learn when I hold individual meetings with my players. I learn more about how to coach my team during one on one conversations than I do in any practice, game or by watching film.

This year in our post-season meetings I had one player who really hasn't played as much as he wants to thank me for the way we hold our guys accountable. He said that even though they don't always appreciate it right away, he realizes what it does for them long-term and it means a lot to him. It meant a lot to hear that, especially from someone who hasn't gotten the court time he wants. I had no idea he felt that way or was that bought in to our program. Another player told me when I took him out of the line-up this year that he felt like I was blaming him for the way our team was practicing at that point. Even though we spoke about it directly when I made the move and I explained to him clearly why I was doing it - we just needed to shake things up and get more energy in the starting line-up. And we made two changes, not just one. But he still felt like he was being blamed, and it affected the way he played for a few weeks. I've had other kids tell me that they really felt more confident when they were given a chance to start, and that made a big difference for them. I had one kid tell me he wasn't sure what position he was supposed to play, even though we never even talk about positions or roles on the court. I had no idea he was thinking that. I learned a great deal just by talking to my players.

Phil Jackson used to occasionally meet the Lakers at the door to the arena before a practice or a shoot around to get a feel for how they were doing mentally that day. Once they got into the locker room, changed, and got out on the practice floor they were supposed to block out any issues and be ready to play, even though that's not always easy. Any issues that are affecting them are likely left in the locker room, but it doesn't mean they aren't real. Jackson wanted to know what might be going on in their real life that could affect the way they played or practice, so he met them at the door just to get a read for the pulse of his team. What was going on in his players heads was important to him.

Having individual conversations with your guys isn't always easy. If you allow them to speak their minds, you may learn some things that aren't comfortable. You bring up situations that you may have to address, whether they are right or wrong about how they feel. Once you ask them you can no longer act like the issue isn't there. You have to deal with it, and that's not always easy.

But it's important. The longer I coach, the more I realize how much I learn from my players. Knowing what is going on in their minds is important to me and to our team, and the best way to get that is to listen to them. I learn more about how to coach my team from my individual meetings than I do from any other aspect of my program.

Hot Hands

BW — Wed, 15 May 2013 16:42:54 GMT

Interesting stuff from Gretchen Reynolds in her New York Times blog on different studies done on the hot hand in sports.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/are-hot-hands-in-sports-for-real/?smid=tw-share

Game 7

BW — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:21:12 GMT

I was watching the Rangers-Capitals game 7 last night and they interviewed Rangers coach John Tortorella on the bench. His teams have had some success in game 7s and the question was about his "magic" in game 7s. His answer was simple. "There is no magic. We know how to play. We just let our guys play."

In college basketball we don't have game 7s, but the approach to a big game is really interesting to think about. We do play games with our season on the line. In that scenario the urge to "overcoach" is a real one. You want to make absolutely sure everything is covered, every angle has been thought about and your team is prepared for every situation. The other side is the approach John Tortorella spoke about. To keep them relaxed and just let them play. Most coaches probably wrestle with both sides before a big game - how to make sure they are prepared to win and relaxed and comfortable to "just play" at the same time.

We have played in 7 straight Little East Championship Games. To be fair, probably only 3 of them were with our season on the line. In 4 of the 7 (including the last 2 years) we had done enough to get into the NCAA Tournament regardless of whether we won or lost (which brings up another coaching challenge - the championship game that isn't a must win for your team, when you've already had a great year). But regardless of whether it is win or go home, a championship game or just a huge regular season game, a big game is a big game. What is the best way to approach it?

The conference title game is an interesting scenario for us as it is for many leagues in college basketball because it's played in a back-to-back scenario. We play our conference semi-finals on a Friday night and our championship game on a Saturday afternoon. Usually the only time all year, until we get to the NCAA Tournament, that we play on back-to-back nights. So the internal battle for a coach is at full tilt - you are anxious to make sure you cover everything you can about your opponent, yet there is so little time that you can't really do much more to get ready. This is a team you've played twice already so you obviously know what they are about. But that also creates scenarios that you have handled well against them and some that you haven't handled very well. It gives you plenty of stuff to think about. The battle between keeping your guys from thinking too much and how you are going to handle a double-high ball screen in a late-clock situation is always running through your head on championship Saturday.

One of the keys is to be yourself. If you are a team that really grinds out what your opponent does and makes specific adjustments based on that, you should continue with that approach. If your team is used to knowing what your opponent calls their baseline out of bounds plays, they are going to expect you to give them the calls. If you normally just have a brief walk-through and don't get too specific on your opponent, you should stick with that. If you change things on the day of the game, your kids will pick it up immediately. If you try and act too relaxed or take too casual of an approach to keep your kids loose, they'll know it's fake. Stay with the approach that got you to the game in the first place.

A second key is to read the pulse of your team. Most big games are played late in the year and you've been through a long season together. If you are invested in your guys and trust has been built up, you should have a really good feel for what buttons to push. But this isn't always easy. In my second year we played Keene State in the LEC Title game at our place after Keene had beaten us twice during the regular season. It was the first time RIC had ever appeared in the LEC Title game. We had played a really tough semi-final the night before against UMass-Dartmouth. I felt a ton of pressure for that team to finish it off and win a championship because it would have been really disappointing to lose on our home floor and get beat by the same team 3 times. We also felt like we needed to win (even though we probably didn't) to get into the NCAA Tournament. My sense of the pulse of our team from that day was there was too much pressure on us. So the first thing I said to them before the game was "We are in the NCAA Tournament. That's done. We don't have to worry about that." I was hoping to loosen them up to just play. But I didn't sense a lot of energy in the room. I remembered thinking when we took the floor that we were out of gas. We warmed up without a lot of energy and just didn't seem to have enough left in the tank. But we came out and played great, and won going away. The pulse of your team can be hard to read. It's possible that I had correctly read and then mis-read the pulse of my team at the same time.

Another thing to think about is who your team is - have they lived up to expectations? Are they the favorite or the underdog? It's important to know not only who they are, but who they think they are. In what scenarios have they played their best? I've had teams that were clearly the most talented team in our league and had won the league but lost some games we shouldn't have along the way. We didn't bring it every night and sometimes lacked focus. We were in a position where we needed to win the championship game to keep playing. Those teams I felt needed to be challenged the day of the championship game. The approach was more like "We think we are the best team? We carry ourselves like we are. Well we have to go and prove it. If they beat us today, we can't say that." I wanted those teams to feel the pressure of a championship game because I felt they responded better to that scenario. Knowing who your team is and what they think about themselves is very important to handling a big game.

Preparing for a huge game is such an exciting challenge, but there isn't one right way to go about it. There are many different approaches you can take. You have to be yourself, you have to read the pulse of your team at that time, and you have to know who they really are and what is going on in their head. That will give you the best feel for how to approach your game 7.

Pop And The Spurs

BW — Mon, 13 May 2013 13:01:41 GMT

Some great stuff from a recent Jack McCallum article on Gregg Popovich and the Spurs in Sports Illustrated.

"Okay, watch what they do here on defense against Oklahoma City," says Kings assistant Jim Eyen. "It's simple, but they do it every time. You can see how much Parker is shading Westbrook to the sideline. That's where there defense starts. They take you where they want you to go so they can load up. And once the ball is on the sideline they don't make it easy for you to reverse it. You almost never go one-on-one against them. You're going one-on-five."

"And look at the other defenders. Their eyes are on that ball."

It's not that the Spurs do anything magical. It's just that they do whatever they do consistently, from game to game, year to year, decade to decade. "The first thing you think about with them is that they're well-drilled," says Eyen. "You know you have college teams, Kansas and Duke, that play a certain way? The NBA versions is the Spurs. They are as close to a program as you have in the league."

By all accounts the coach revels in an environment of swirling opinions. "The one way you will not make it here," says top assistant Mike Budenholzer, "is to be a yes man."

Tony Parker says "You can talk to Pop. A lot of coaches you can't."

"Yes, we're disciplined with what we do," says Pop. "But that's not enough. Relationships with people are what it's all about. You have to make players realize you care about them. And they have to care about each other and be interested in each other. They start to feel a responsibility to each other. Then they want to do for each other."

When asked about innovation Pop cut McCallum off.

"Oh, hell, I don't know anything about innovation. Here is my innovation. I drafted Tim Duncan. Okay? End of story."

Dynamic Leadership Academy - June 10th-11th

BW — Fri, 10 May 2013 18:14:26 GMT

Very excited about the feedback we have gotten so far. Spots are starting to fill up faster than we anticipated. A great opportunity for coaches to develop and refine their own leadership style.

http://coachbobwalsh.com/Academy.html

Can't Win With Him

BW — Fri, 10 May 2013 17:50:37 GMT

Be careful of labeling guys as "hard to win with" or guys you "can't win with." We do it all of the time with professional athletes, but as coaches you can fall into that trap when you are recruiting or evaluating your own players. It's a defense mechanism for coaches. If you have a player on your team who you "can't win with," it takes the responsibility off the coach. There is nothing more I could have done, he's just a guy you can't win with. It's not my fault.

Think about the number of professional athletes who had some type of "never going to win with him" label at one point. Phil Mickelson was never going to win a major. Alex Rodriguez would never be on a World Series winner. Lebron. Remember what everyone was saying about Lebron? How dumb is that going to look in 10 years? In Cleveland Lebron was never going to get his team over the hump because he didn't have what it takes, the right mentality, the clutch gene, whatever garbage we could come up with. Now that Lebron has won, the narrative of those Cleveland teams is how awful the supporting cast around Lebron was and how impressive it was that he even got them to the Finals.

But Lebron only won after he surrounded himself with great players! Yes, I realize that, and that is my point. Winning and losing is much more of a team thing than it is an individual thing - unless you're talking tennis or golf - but we associate winning or losing with individual players in all sports. We label players as winners and losers based on the results of their team even though winning and losing is really about the team. There are so many factors that go into winning and losing but we are quick to put most of the focus on one or two individuals. And we say those guys aren't winners, or we can't win with them. Until they do win. And then we move on to someone else.

What type of player comes to mind when you think about a winner? Is it Dennis Rodman? Ron Artest?  Or is it a guy like Karl Malone, or maybe John Stockton? Look only at the individual and pick the guys you would consider winners based on how they play, how they act, and the type of teammate they are.  Rodman and Artest would fit a lot of people's definitions of "hard to win with" wouldn't they? Except they won.  "Hard to win with" is generally reserved for the guy who is considered selfish, a little bit out of control, not team-oriented. But then you look at championship teams and you can find a lot of those guys on them. Think about Rajon Rondo if he played for the Bobcats. Wouldn't he be hard to win with? Kevin Garnett got killed in Minnesota for never winning in the playoffs, and then he got traded to the Celtics. Did he learn how to be a winner, or did he just join a better team?  And think about a guy like Nate Robinson. Doesn't he fit the mold of the talented, wild, hard-to-control selfish hard to win with guy? But then you look at the Bulls, and they are winning more than anyone expected them to, and Nate Robinson is a huge part of it.

You hear that narrative a lot with Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith of the Knicks. That you can't win with them. Their playoff track record is cited. J.R. Smith has been on 7 straight playoff teams and been on 5 teams that have won 50 games in his 9 years in the league. He's been on a team that went to the Western Conference Finals, and his teams have won 55% of their games in his career, despite being drafted by one of the worst teams in NBA history. You may not like the way he plays, but it's tough to say he's "hard to win with."  The teams that he's on always seem to win at a pretty good clip. Is it possible that his teams lost in the playoffs - kind of like Garnett's T'Wolves teams - because they weren't as good as the other teams?

I'm not a fan at all of the winner, loser or "hard to win with" labels. I think it is something we assign to players that we don't like. If you don't like a kid because of how he plays and he won't fit in to what you are trying to do, by all means stay away from him. But that doesn't mean he is hard to win with. You don't like him, he doesn't fit your program, and that is fine. But we label guys as losers to fit our own narrative - even guys who are on teams that actually win.

We've had a lot of success with kids at RIC that other coaches told me they wouldn't touch because they were hard to win with. You give them a chance to be themselves and see how they fit in with what you want to do. You may not like them or they may not fit in, and that's fine. But if you label them as a guy who you can't win with, you won't give him a chance to show you what he can do.

Think closely about it the next time you hear someone talk about a player in terms of winning and losing. Take a look at whether or not their teams actually win or lose. I think you'll be surprised how much some of these guys you can't win with can help you win.

Goodman On Sideline Behavior

BW — Fri, 10 May 2013 17:11:40 GMT

From Jeff Goodman's recent column about potential NCAA rule changes:

"I'm not sure if this issue has or will be discussed, but after covering more than 100 college games this season and then watching the NBA playoffs over the last few weeks, the NCAA needs to crack down on coaches who are constantly yapping at officials. Most NBA coaches aren't standing the entire game, and if they have to make a point to the officials, they make it and then sit back down. Many college coaches, largely because they are the face of the sport, talk incessantly to the referees. Hit these guys with technicals early in the game and in the season, and it'll change quickly. Trust me."

Split On The Road

BW — Thu, 09 May 2013 14:45:14 GMT

The common mentality in the NBA playoffs is that the road team just wants to get a split. Win one of the first two on the road. After Golden State blew a huge lead late and lost their first game in San Antonio, one of the things Mark Jackson said after the game was "Our goal was to come in here and win one game. We can still do that." You might look at that as he was trying to stay positive and keep his team up after a devastating loss, and there is something to that. He didn't want a young team to get buried by a tough loss. He has to feel pretty good about the way his team bounced back in game 2.

But the other side of that is sending the message that losing is okay. If your goal is to win one of two games, your mentality is that losing one of two is fine. I don't like that. Being able to handle losing is a big part of a championship mentality. Always expect to win, and always handle losing.

The Heat bounced back and hammered the Bulls Wednesday night to the surprise of no one. As the game was winding down I figured I'd hear the Bulls players say "we got what we came here for" after the game, meaning they got a split. But I was hoping to hear Tom Thibodeau say something after the game like "we didn't get what we wanted. We wanted to win tonight. We came in tonight to win game two, and we didn't do it. That's disappointing." I didn't see anything like that, although I didn't really expect to. But it would have been great to hear him send that message to his team - that we came here to win again, that we aren't happy with a split.

Don't ever accept losing, no matter what position your in. Don't ever let your mentality change. Show up to every game expecting to win. The circumstances around you should never affect that approach - at home, on the road, guys injured, tough travel. Expecting to win needs to be an all-the-time thing. It never goes away, every time you take the floor.

I understand playing for the split is a commonly accepted approach across all sports. I just don't like the mentality.

Culture Wins

BW — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:50:54 GMT

Sometimes the wins that feel the best are "culture wins." Culture wins are wins where your team isn't at full-strength, or maybe just doesn't play very well. Things seem to be going against you, and the other team is having a great night. You get off to a horrendous start and get down big early in the game, only to fight back and find a way. There are all different kinds of culture wins. But they are the wins where you rely on what you do every day. The way you practice, the way you hold your guys accountable, the way you demand greatness every day. Despite anything that happens to you before or during a game, your guys really believe you will find a way to win, and you do. They have so much confidence based on what you do every day, despite things going against you they feel you'll win anyway. Those are culture wins.

The Bulls got a culture win against Miami on Monday. Half of their team was in street clothes or in the hospital. They were playing with essentially their 3rd string backcourt. Jimmy Butler would play every minute for the 3rd straight game because of how thin they were. Jimmy Butler. Their All-Star center is playing through a painful foot injury. The former MVP is in a suit. They were playing at Miami two days after winning a game 7 on the road in Brooklyn. Miami, coming off 66 wins and a first round sweep had 8 days of rest. Everything was going against the Bulls.

Everything except for their belief in each other, their coach, and their culture. Granted I'm taking a leap here. I don't know the Bulls, I don't watch them practice, I don't know their coach. But didn't you keep getting the feeling, every time they went down 5 in the 4th quarter and came back to tie it, that they really believed they were going to win? When I see Joakim Noah go the length of the floor off of a steal for a left handed lay-up, or Jimmy Butler bury a quick release 3 to tie the game late in the fourth, or Taj Gibson drill a 20-footer in Lebron's face, I see guys that have a ton of confidence in each other and their coach. They played loose, freee on instinct. Because the coach has a ton of confidence in them. Remember his "We have plenty enough to win with" quotes during the Nets game 7? Man that team comes off like they really believe in what they do every day, and that belief and commitment leads to great confidence.

I'm not one to attribute success to intangible things, but culture is not intangible. It's what you do every day. It's the way you work, the way you compete, the way you carry yourself, what you demand out of your teammates on and off the court. It's how you go about things. It's the long-term preparation that you put in well before the games are being played. It creates a belief in each other, a belief in what you are doing. And in tight, pressure situations you rely on your instinct. What you are used to, what you do every day. That belief is pretty powerful.

That's the feeling I got watching the Bulls last night. Culture win. Great belief in the long-term approach paying off in a tough spot. Fun to watch.

Switching Screens Late

BW — Tue, 07 May 2013 15:03:39 GMT

"It was a miscommunication. We were supposed to switch the screen. But they never set the screen. Two guys went with one guy and we left Ginobli wide open."

- Mark Jackson describing what happened on Manu Ginobli's game-winning 3 last night.

Mark Jackson was honest and accurate about what happened on the Spurs final basket, and it brings up a really interesting point about time-and-score defensive strategy. If you remember the end of the Arizona-Ohio State NCAA Tournament game this year, something similar happened. Ohio State ran a pick-and-pop set, and both Arizona defenders stayed with the ball, leaving the screener wide open for the game-winning 3. Sean Miller said after the game they had switched every screen the entire game, but failed to switch that one. The problem was the screen was never set. It was supposed to be set, but the ball-handler never got close to the screen, so the defender likely never knew there was even a screen to switch. But the defender on the screen saw what they were trying to do, and he switched. Arizona went home.

It's very popular to "switch everything" late in games, especially in clock situations where a team is holding for one shot. I've never been a big fan of it for one simple reason: I don't want to do anything different on the biggest possession of the game. I want our guys to be comfortable. Late and close pressure is enough for guys to deal with, and it can make smart people do stupid things. The last thing I want is our guys thinking on the floor in those situations. I want them to play on instinct, to be comfortable.

If you like switching screens late in games, and it's not something you normally do, you are making your guys think. Almost all of the defensive stuff you do in practice involves getting through screens, how to help on screens, recovering and rotating. Now you are asking your guys to switch. You are also probably telling them something about what to expect - "Watch Ginobli off a flair here." More stuff to make them think. Even if you practice switching in your time and score package, it's still different than what your guys are used to. It's going to make them think.

Another thing about switching screens is it creates grey area. Even teams that switch screens all of the time get caught in situations where they don't read the screen right in the course of a game and both guys end up on the same player. It's not that easy to figure out in the heat of the action. What do we do on a slip? What if he refuses the screen? Say the screen is set but the person using it doesn't really get close enough to the screen to use it (which happens a lot on ball screens)? Are we switching that? You can tell your kids to switch everything, but there is still grey area. What happens if a shooter runs through along the baseline and runs past some teammates but there aren't really any screens set? How close is close enough to switch? 3 feet? 6 feet?

I assume coaches that switch everything late in games feel there is a real benefit to it. But I can't see how that benefit outweighs the fact that you are asking your guys to do something they aren't used to doing. There is a confidence factor on the defensive side of the ball as well. Players who know exactly what to expect are quicker, more alert, and more confident. Asking your guys to play differently on the last possession of the game has to create some doubt, and that will make them tentative.

If we are up 1 on the last possession, we need a stop. We are going to put our best defense out there and play defense the way we always do. We believe in what we do defensively and we expect to get stops. That's what I want on the last possession of a close game.

Switching screens late may seem like a great idea, but you just might screw your own team up more than you do the other team. Mark Jackson's Warriors are the latest example.

Changing Defenses

BW — Tue, 07 May 2013 02:32:27 GMT

Some interesting thoughts here from Fran Fraschilla and Coach Hurley on changing defenses. Regardless of how committed you are to playing one type of defense, or how good you are at it, you always need something to change the rhythm of your opponent when they get really comfortable. Even the best defenses are going to have stretches where they give up points. When to change, and when to change back, is always a tough call as a coach. But you should definitely have something different to mix it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OED4gSn95uE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Lebron

BW — Mon, 06 May 2013 13:50:00 GMT

Dan Le Batard with a great take on Lebron James and how much things have changed. We are going to look back on the way we looked at him after he left Cleveland and feel really dumb about it, if we don't already.

"All that howling from three years ago — about James ruining his legacy, taking shortcuts and settling for becoming Scottie Pippen — is either laughable, forgotten or wrong now. But that’s not even the most recent bout of dumb criticism when it comes to James. It was less than one year ago — and this seems remarkable in retrospect — that the guy who will hold up his fourth MVP trophy Monday in sunny Miami was loudly being labeled as a frail choker who wasn’t tough enough to get all the things he desired."

href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/05/v-fullstory/3380999/dan-le-batard-no-royal-proclamation.html">
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/05/v-fullstory/3380999/dan-le-batard-no-royal-proclamation.html

Dynamic Leadership Academy - June 10th and 11th

BW — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:41:01 GMT

We've gotten a lot of positive feedback after launching our Dynamic Leadership Academy this week. Really has the potential to be great.

http://coachbobwalsh.com/Academy.html

"We Have More Than Enough To Win With"

BW — Fri, 03 May 2013 14:02:23 GMT

One thing you hear in coaching a lot that I believe to be true: A team will take on the personality of their head coach. I really believe it. If you watch a team play enough, the adjectives you use to describe the way they play can usually be used to describe the head coach. If they are organized, disciplined and prepared than chances are the coach is the same. If they play soft, they probably play for a soft coach. It's hard to separate the personality of a team from the personality of the head coach.

You can just tell by the way the Bulls play that they are bought in to Tom Thibodeau and what he believes in. I don't know him, but I'd be willing to bet he's smart, disciplined and tough, a no-nonsense guy. Because that's exactly what you see in his team. And I love the way he has approached this playoff series against the Nets. Twice tonight in interviews when asked about his personnel he responded with "We have more than enough to win with." You can tell he's not making any excuses with his team, and he won't let them make any excuses. And he has the ultimate excuse - he's got the former NBA MVP sitting on his bench with a knee injury even though he's been cleared to play. He could use that as an excuse and it would be legitimate. But he's not interested in talking about Rose, and only does so when he's asked. The team he has is good enough to win, and he's making sure his team knows that.

So many coaches are insecure and want to make sure their excuses are known. They talk about all of the things they have to overcome and make sure everyone is aware of them. It's a defense mechanism to make sure that if you lose, everyone knows why. The problem is your players hear it as well, and it has to in some small way become a part of their mentality. The insecurity of the head coach can have a significant effect on the mentality of his team. Thibodeau just refuses to let his players think about an excuse.

We define our no excuses mentality with the phrase win anyway. Regardless of what happens, win anyway. No one ever looks back at your schedule when its time to determine who the league champion is or who gets into the NCAA Tournament and gives you extra points because someone was hurt, guys were too sick to practice, or you had a tough bus trip. You have to win anyway. Stuff happens to every team throughout a long season, and the teams that fight through that stuff usually end up playing for championships. Soft teams let the little things effect them, and they usually take that lead from their head coach. If you take a win anyway approach, your team will follow you.

It's clear Tom Thibodeau won't accept any excuses from his team. Regardless of what happens to his team he expects them to win. You just know they believe they have enough to win, because their coach believes it. And he says it. That mentality, that belief is really powerful.

Coach Hurley - P.R.I.D.E.

BW — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:39:23 GMT

Some notes from a clinic Coach Bob Hurley gave, thanks to askbasketballcoach.org. I like the idea from Parcells, that the assistant coaches have to say something positive to every player in the first 15 minutes of practice. I also find it interesting that he makes his players friend his wife on facebook to monitor their social media activity.

http://www.askbasketballcoach.org/media/Coach_Hurley_BCCA-BCWA_Coaches_Symposium_3-27-12.pdf

After The Game

BW — Wed, 01 May 2013 15:06:18 GMT

I rarely say anything to my team of any substance after a game. The emotion of the game is too fresh, I haven't been able to properly evaluate it, and the kids are emotional right after a game as well. If you are trying to deliver a message I'm not sure it's getting sent or received the right way right after a game. I don't spend a lot of time with the opposing coach, now matter how good of friends we are, other than to say "good game, good luck," and keep on walking. In my post-game interview I try and be honest but I don't make any declarative statements. In fact, I try not to say anything of substance to anyone immediately after a game.

I was really interested in the post-game situation between Denver and Golden State last night. The narrative from the media was that Denver played really physical with Golden State and specifically Steph Curry. Mark Jackson was upset about it and made some pretty pointed comments afterward, calling the plays "dirty." Steph Curry got into it with a fan walking off the floor and probably had his worst game of the playoffs. Did the way Denver played rattle Golden State? It's probably a big leap for me to say yes, I wasn't there, I don't really know. But that is certainly the way it appeared and no doubt the way it was presented by the media.

I love to think about the mental side of the game which is why I'm so intrigued by this. If I was Mark Jackson (who's done a great job with Golden State by the way) I would have grabbed my team right after the game, calmed them down, and told them not to say anything at all in the post-game comments about the physical nature of the game. If you are asked about it, just say "this is the playoffs, everyone plays hard and tough, they just beat us." Don't acknowledge that anything they did even registered with you. It was a playoff game, we lost, and we are going back home to try and wrap this thing up in game 6. I would have made sure that no one gave even a hint that the way Denver played had any affect on us.

It appeared like Jackson and the Golden State players got caught saying some things based on emotion right after the game. Is that a huge factor? Probably not. But whether or not Golden State really was affected by the way Denver played, now Denver thinks they got to them. Now Sportscenter is running 15 minute segments with Bruce Bowen going over every common foul that was committed against Steph Curry and asking him if it was a dirty play or not. For the next couple of days the articles and the press conferences are going to be about style of play and whether or not Denver got Golden State off their game. If it's true or not at this point is almost irrelevant. Some people think it's true, and more importantly Denver may feel like they found the way to get to Golden State. Belief is a powerful thing.

I'm not making the leap that this is going to have a huge affect on game 6, as many will. If Denver does beat Golden State it's still not proof that Golden State was rattled. They might just get beat by a better team. But it really made me think about how you handle yourself and the emotions you feel right after a game. Perhaps Mark Jackson was calculated and sending a message to the refs for game 6. No one will ever really know. But the things you say and the way you react after a game carry a lot of weight. Denver probably thinks they got to Golden State, whether it's true or not, based on how they reacted after the game.

The natural emotion of the moment on both sides of the message increases the level of impact. Whether your intention is to send a strong message right after a game or not, you probably are. It's always something to try and keep control of as a head coach.

College Athletics Leadership

BW — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:31:59 GMT

Jason Belzer with some great stuff on the leadership of ADs and the dynamics of college athletics. Really well done.

"While generating revenue is not the primary goal of an athletics department, the fact that so much of the organizations ability to operate depends on the output of so few people causes a paradigm shift when it comes to accountability."

"While the ability to hold people accountable is one of the most important skills an athletic director can have, it by itself is not enough if it does not perfectly align with their overall leadership behaviors and messaging."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2013/04/30/college-athletics-leadership-and-the-rigor-to-succeed-2/