Expand your knowledge, expand your game!
A lot of my time in coaching, especially during the winter months, has been coaching at the youth level. I have coached 8th grade boys for the past five winters. During that time, there have been many tough decisions that are made each practice, game, and throughout the year. I thought I would write a short blog on a couple of those things that may serve as a thought-provoking read for coaches and a different perspective for parents.
One decision that always weighs on my mind as well as every youth coach (and probably all coaches) is playing time. Should youth players get equal playing time? If so, when should equal playing time stop? This is always a constant struggle for me. On one side of the argument is the notion that youth basketball is for long-term development. We never know what kid is going to continue playing the game, who is going to physically mature, or even what a simple change in roles can have on a player’s performance. On the other side, is it really fair to just award equal playing time? What message does that send to kids who put in additional work, practice harder, or simply perform better? What does automatically granting equal playing time tell the kids who don’t practice as hard and don’t perform to a high standard, but yet get rewarded with the same playing time as other kids?
Overall, I think at younger ages (3-4-5-maybe 6th grade) playing time should be pretty close to equal, but some separation should start to occur as kids get older. How much separation is the million dollar question. Throughout my time in 8th grade basketball, I have always played every kid in every half of every game. While in most games there are players who receive more playing time than others, there are other games where I make a conscious effort to spread playing time around and get other kids more opportunity in other roles.
What remains a constant and will always remain a constant is equal opportunity in practice. Never have we maximized touches or opportunities for a set group of kids. There is always an equal amount of repetition and opportunity for instruction. In games, every kid is encouraged to take open shots and in practice every kid is not only encouraged, but begged to try new things and take a step out of what is considered comfortable for them. Each practice we switch up teams, lineups, and players in drills to allow each player to not only have opportunity to play with other people, but compete against every person on the team as well.
Is that THE answer and the perfect solution? I have no idea. What I am confident in, however, is that most players over the years would tell you that they never felt that they were given up on, they all felt as if they were an important part of the team, but they also knew that playing time would be earned, which in several cases was an ongoing motivation to compete harder in drills, commit to the weight room and put in extra time refining skills outside of practice.
Another decision that is always tough for me is how much room to give young players with mistakes. Many parents frequently complain about coaches who remove players after one mistake. I find that many don’t see it from a broader perspective in this scenario, but at times, I do think the hook can be too quick for youth coaches.
From a coaches’ perspective, questions to consider are: Do we remove a player from a game after one mistake? Two? Three? Does it depend on the trust that the player has earned? Do we factor in the type of mistake they make? My overarching philosophy is to coach players through situations and let them learn through mistakes as opposed to giving a quick hook, but again, many factors go into determining this decision. If a player isn’t performing up to a standard that has been clearly established within a team (effort, energy, being a great teammate), then a quicker substitution may be warranted. If it was a poor decision made in a game, regardless of the player, I believe in letting a young player (think this changes as kids get older) play and learn through it. If it was a mistake they commonly have made- and as a coach you have addressed it with a clear (visual and oral) solution offered- then you may need to think about using a quicker substitution to relay a message.
All in all, no matter what anyone will tell you, kids, adults, and coaches all care about the present game. Striking a balance between competing in the present game yet always keeping in mind the long-term process is one of the most difficult things to do as a youth coach. Here are a few thoughts to work on striking that balance as a coach and keeping perspective of the whole picture for parents:
Coaches: Develop connections with every player. Establish non-negotiable standards of expectation as it pertains to player effort, leadership, and attitude. Consider other people’s vantage point. Love and care about the kids regardless of their performance. Make sure every player feels important and provide everyone equal opportunity to coaching and practice repetitions.
Parents: Enjoy your child and their time in athletics. Consider how much time your kid’s youth coach is putting in on what is likely a volunteer basis. Try to see the coaches’ vantage point and how many decisions go into a season and how many things there are to consider not only today, but also for the long term development of EVERY kid. Find lessons regardless of the situation that you can relay to your child. Support your child and if you have frustrations- take a deep breath and a few hours. If they’re still there, then address them if you need to. Consider the practice environment that your child’s coach creates; do they have opportunities in practice to improve? And maybe above all, do an honest, mindful (not right after a bad game) assessment if your kid is having fun.
What is “skilled”?
We accept “skilled” as having perfect form on a jump-shot, dribbling through cones like a wizard, and flawlessly being able to execute a wide array of finishes after a perfectly executed sweep below the knees.
Believe me, this is exactly how I looked at skill as a player, and for a couple years when I first started working with other players. I was always advocating “go game speed”, “practice with more intensity”, and “do more repetitions”. Through time and anecdotal experience, I began to realize that there is a lot more to developing a skill than thousands of game speed reps everyday. While I believe it’s important for players to practice hard and practice on their own, being “skilled” has to be re-defined and thought about differently.
Skill is the application of technique. It’s the coupling of action and perception. So many young players are proficient in an action in an isolated environment, but struggle tremendously in a game. Coaches often connect that struggle to toughness and aggressiveness. Trainers blame the coaches’ system, in which the parents immediately jump on board with, they often think, “My son makes all his layups in layup lines and made 5 shots in a row in the driveway, there has to be something wrong with the coach!” While I absolutely acknowledge that in some instances these things may have a factor, I can also assure you there’s more to it. Expecting to automatically translate practice from 1 v 0 to a live 5 v 5 game is crazy. It’s like a kid driving a car for the first time in an empty corn field and then assuming they’ll be able to safely drive in Los Angeles rush hour traffic. There are too many variables and too many decisions for a seamless transition between the two environments.
Often discussed in basketball communities is that kids play too many games, which is the reason they need more skill work. It’s believed that skill work will allow players more repetitions with the ball, which allows them more opportunity to improve during an actual game. The problem for me isn’t the fact that I disagree with how much structured 5 v 5 our youth plays, the problem for me is that many view isolated skill work as the answer. Everyone would likely agree that that more games isn’t the right solution, but I also don’t believe more drills in isolation is either. Does isolated skill work serve a purpose? Yes (introducing technique, building confidence in an action). Do kids need to play 5 v 5 games? Absolutely.
In my opinion, the “most bang for our buck” as it relates to player development is in the middle of isolated practice and 5 v 5 games. Players need to receive opportunities and repetitions to build the action of a skill, but in an environment that is conducive to the interactions and decisions that they are faced with in a game. This is not done through isolated practice. We need to keep challenging conventional wisdom and thinking. Creating more drills without defense and decision-making isn’t the answer. As I mentioned, there is a time and a place for nearly everything, but as a basketball community, I think we need to better analyze how we are designing practices and what we hope to obtain from the drills we are creating and repeating.
I was recently listening to a podcast, The Physical Preparation, with Mike Robertson and Brett Bartholomew. During the podcast, both guys discussed experiences related to coaching & talked about some things that I thought were important to write about and reiterate for myself and any coaches who read this blog.
Passion is contagious. People follow passion and presence (good and bad).
I remember back when I first started out as a coach; I had some knowledge, but nothing in comparison to what I’ve learned through time and the philosophy I’ve developed today. Early on, players improved and teams achieved good results. In terms of my role as a leader and coach, I have little doubt that passion was the leading force behind positive outcomes. Basic knowledge helped, but passion carried me through holes in my knowledge, and to a degree, I’m sure it still does to this day.
Athletes don’t start by following the knowledge of a coach, they follow the person. As I’ve mentioned, knowledge is important and takes people to new heights, but passion, presence, and genuine concern are the prerequisites. When they feel these qualities from you as a coach, they’ll do just about anything you ask, and as many of you know, getting people moving in the same direction is a big part of team success. I find this especially true when coaching at the middle school and high school levels; having the attention & respect of those you lead, coupled with basic knowledge, will lead to some form of results. When you put passion, love, presence, and a quality philosophy together, amazing things become possible.
From my earliest ages, I can always remember my grandpa and my dad talking about the key to business isn’t strategy or sales pitches, it’s people; human connection and understanding. Again, it’s not that they didn’t have good strategy or weren’t intelligent, they knew what came first was a genuine relationship. They knew understanding the person was more important than the product or service itself, which leads me to my next point that was discussed in the podcast.
We have to understand who we are coaching.
Some need an authoritative approach, while there are others who don’t respond well to that. Different situations and days may call for different things. Humans don’t fit into a box. Understanding a players’ personality can help a coach determine the best way to guide their improvement. Personally, I try to be constantly aware of this from an individual as well as a team perspective within the ebs and flows of a season. I frequently ask myself questions such as these:
How can I reach this person? What does my team need from me today? What is their body language telling me? Do they need a kick in the pants or a calming presence? Who am I coaching? Does the person respond to a louder tone or do they prefer individual conversation? What’s their perspective, have I put myself in their shoes?
Just being aware of these questions will help make us better coaches and leaders. I know I don’t always get it right, and neither will you, but putting a concerted effort on connection is as crucial as any strategy you will have. I love talking X’s & O’s, player development, practice plans, strength, and movement patterns, but it’s all secondary to the connection we make with the individuals we are coaching.
If you can’t reach em, you can’t truly teach em!!
This weekend I was watching a men’s collegiate basketball game between Marquette and Lindenwood. Lindenwood is a NCAA Division II University located in Missouri. Without knowing what happened or checking a score, I would guess that many would assume that Marquette probably handled them by 30+ points.
What actually happened?
Marquette won 81-79 with Lindenwood having a decent look from three to win the game as time expired. Would Marquette win by a larger margin if they played again? Probably. What Marquette fans and players found out was that Lindenwood is a really good basketball team, and there is really good basketball played at other levels.
In other action over the weekend, my alma mater, Carroll University, a NCAA Division 3 school, fell to Division I opponent, IUPUI, by 9 and were in a position to win the entire game. Auburn and Toledo, both Division 1 schools, were beat by Division 2 opponents. Within the state of Wisconsin, UW-Eau Claire & UW-River Falls, both Division 3 schools, knocked off Division 2 opponents. Furthermore, if you look around the country at other exhibition scores, you’d see other close margins as well as other lower division schools knocking off higher division schools.
Before I go any further, I am not here to say that NCAA Division 1 basketball is not the highest collegiate level & doesn’t feature the most talent night in and night out. If you looked at those same exhibition scores across the country, you would find that many Division I schools also won by large margins over Division II & III schools. Generally speaking, the best players and teams reside at the Division 1 level, but there are so many that write-off and disregard basketball at the lower levels because of a number. Many don’t grasp how many good players and teams there are outside of the Division 1 level.
I could point to several instances where the only separation between a player at a higher level and a lower level is a few inches of height and measurable athletic qualities. There are also multiple teams at the Division 1 level who would be exponentially better if they played with the same type of ball and player movement as some teams do at the Division 3 level. In many instances, schools at higher levels are more focused on recruiting talent as opposed to developing & coaching it. Over an extended period of time, this can catch up to programs; very few kids are finished products when they reach the collegiate level- they all need continued development. When considering these things, it doesn’t come as a surprise that every year a few Division 1 teams are given all they can handle by high quality Division 2 and 3 teams.
Why am I writing this?
Being heavily involved in player development and collegiate recruiting, the majority of high school players and parents have little idea of what it takes to excel at the collegiate level, let alone at a scholarship level. I truly believe it would be an eye-opening, humbling experience for all players and parents to go watch a game or practice at every collegiate level. I’m all for people setting their sights high, but I also think it’s crucial to understand that there is high quality basketball teams and players at all levels. Such quality that when the ball is tipped, often times teams at lower levels are able to hang around and at times knock off teams that many would think they don’t belong in the same gym with.
I couldn’t quite wrap my head around a statement I recently heard, so I decided rather than be angry about it, I would attempt to make sense of it or hopefully share helpful knowledge to others regarding it.
An 8th grade kid recently told a fellow 8th grade kid that he would never play for a certain AAU program because “they don’t get enough D1 looks”. (Quick side note: the aforementioned program has played a role in helping seven kids in their program the last two seasons receive full scholarship offers to play at the NCAA Division I & II levels).
Where is this information coming from? How are kids this age that focused on “D1 looks” already? It makes me sick to my stomach to know that there are numerous adults feeding kids information like this. I’m not sure if it’s coming from a blatant lack of knowledge or if it is a ploy for personal interests. My guess is that it’s probably a combination of both.
We’ve created a basketball culture in which many players and parents place exposure at the forefront of their priorities as opposed to holistic development. That exposure, as opposed to relationships and development, is believed to be the key to unlocking the coveted D1 dream. The fallacy in which this is has become more widely-accepted by parents and players trickling all the way down to the youngest levels. I always tell parents to caution highly against those who make guarantees of scholarships and starting positions, and who talk more about jerseys and exposure as opposed to the building of a relationship with their child or the structure of their practice plan.
Some reading this may think this is about sponsored vs. non-sponsored AAU basketball- it’s not. I firmly believe there are programs across the country both sponsored and non-sponsored who do a terrific job and equally who do a poor job. What I will say, however, is that many sponsored shoe circuit programs sell exposure in a way that parents and players believe (see example mentioned above) that there is only one route to the coveted end goal. I could give you numerous examples and stories to illustrate that this is simply not at all true.
For those reading this thinking that I’m saying that “exposure” isn’t important- I’d say that’s partially correct and partially incorrect. What I’m ultimately saying is that it is way overvalued. The number one pre-requisite to play at any level is you have to be good enough; that’s surely the case when we talk about collegiate basketball. Players and parents need to worry way less about whether or not they’re being seen and worry way more about if they’re ability aligns with the level they desire to play at. Exposure should never ever be the number one priority for players and parents. This ESPECIALLY is true when we are talking about kids who haven’t even finished puberty yet!!!
The bottom line is that playing athletics at the collegiate level is hard. Earning a scholarship to play athletics at that level is even harder. What will allow a player to be in position to get to that level isn’t exposure, it’s ability, which I think we could all agree is built through work, coaching, competition, and genetics. Depending on where you are as a player will help you determine what you need from a program, but once again, at the forefront of EVERY players’ list should be development & relationships, not exposure! When your priorities are aligned, then and only then will you give yourself the best opportunity to take advantage of whatever else may come next.
As I was scrolling through my podcasts the other night, I ran across one that focused on competition as a pitfall to the talent development process. I dove into the podcast with an open mind and found the perspective interesting & reflective. There were some parts I agreed with and some I understood, but agreed to disagree. I decided to write my own short piece on the topic.
One of the things mentioned in the podcast was the idea that highly competitive environments promote behavior changes from coaches. They cause coaches to shift to a restrictive, tactical approach that will often limit a player’s options in hopes of eliminating mistakes and winning more games. You see this all the time across all levels- coaches tell players things they can’t do or tactically design strategies that will maximize their team’s win total. In doing so, a coach often feeds their own ego with the belief that their team is “well coached” due to a strategy they implemented to get their team a win. Is a team only “well coached” if they follow a set of rules and patterns? Or if they win the majority of their games? At younger levels, will those same strategies lead to the same results in the future? Or will a team and a group of players that only know how to follow commands or is constrained under a series of rules made by an adult fall short over time in reaching their true capabilities? I would argue the latter.
When we see coaches using the “joystick” approach (meaning they control all movements of each player like a video game) at young levels to win games, many times the argument is that “we have to start teaching kids to win and be competitive”. Is teaching winning in this manner at young ages more important than developing skills, confidence, and the ability to identify & solve problems on their own? The argument of teaching players to win could be made at a certain age, but I think more and more people are taking a win at all costs approach way too early in a child’s athletic career.
I don’t have it nailed down to a science, but when I coach youth sports, I would lean more toward the side of development, which often times ends up leading to more wins as a season progresses anyway. I coach 8th grade basketball in the winter and my assistant and I have always believed in each kid playing in every half, to limit set plays, and to call timeouts only when necessary. We encourage the kids to communicate and solve their own problems at practice & put every kid in different roles to hopefully advance their skill set and understanding of the game. Are we always perfect in our quest? No, we fall short sometimes, but for the most part our teams take more ownership in themselves by the end of the year & they usually need us less & less as the season goes on. We always have players run parts of or whole practices by the end of the year. We are only there to solve disputes or help guide a drill if need be. To me, that’s a well-coached team- when your players DON’T need you and don’t rely on you to give them all the answers and solve all their problems, but have learned to do these things on their own.
Another point brought up during the podcast was the idea of playing time. This is another thing that poses an interesting debate. Should kids be on a team and not play in youth sports? On one side, some would argue that if they don’t play they will become more motivated to advance their skills and get better. The other side, however is that they become unmotivated and quit the sport. To me, especially at young ages, it’s important to try and develop as many players who enjoy the game and the process of improving as possible. You never know what’s going to happen as kids get older as it pertains to physical maturation, new interests, or injuries. It’s not to say that I believe that equal playing time should be given to every kid on every team, but I absolutely do believe that practice opportunities should be equal at young ages, and I certainly don’t believe in completely cutting out a kid’s game opportunities at the youth level, which I so frequently see.
Without extending this article too long, ultimately, I think at times the overly-competitive nature of youth sports has promoted a dangerous “win at all costs” mentality from parents and coaches stemming from the need to validate their own egos. It’s imperative at the youth levels that players understand the value of competition but it’s not at the expense of environments where they have room to be creative, solve problems, and DEVELOP. It doesn’t mean that every kid gets a trophy, it doesn’t mean that we just roll the ball out and let kids do whatever they want, and it doesn’t mean that every youth team consists of equal playing time, but it does mean that coaches and parents become more aware the dangerous win at all costs mentality & understand the importance of what it means to foster true long-term development.
Thanks for reading!
After four years coaching the class of 2018 WI Shooters AAU basketball team, our journey as a group came to an end last weekend. A flurry of emotions came through me as I addressed the group as a whole for the last time. Special kids, special parents, and a lot of memories that will never be replaced. In the days that followed, I have reflected a great deal on all the things we were able to experience. The road wasn’t always smooth, but even through the rocky points, I can say with certainty that we all grew. We became better individually as well as collectively. From a personal standpoint, I learned a great deal about the developmental process, coaching, players, parents, and about myself as an individual. Naturally, I wrote some of it down and have decided to share it here. I hope you can find something that resonates with you in my reflections.
Not everyone is going to buy into what you’re doing as a leader; keep sharing your message and loving people anyway. As a coach, I had parents who disapproved of what I did and the decisions I made within our team- sometimes they made it personal, sometimes they just strongly disagreed with philosophy, but I always did my best to never let it affect how I shared my message and how I loved and coached their kid. It wasn’t always easy, but I always tried to stay true to myself and give people the love and respect they deserved regardless if someone disagreed or agreed with what I was doing.
Surround yourself with great people. We hear it all the time- but it’s absolutely true. I was incredibly fortunate to have directors, fellow coaches, and friends whom I could trust. Having a strong support system can keep belief when there is doubt and hold people together in times of uncertainty. Being surrounded by great people also makes us stronger- we benefit by having their strengths and abilities to add to or supplement what we’re already doing! Whether it’s an idea, a nod of approval, or something they’re seeing that we’re not, being surrounded by great people will always elevate us as individuals in any endeavor in our lives.
Confidence fluctuates. That makes us human. There were times I went into a game with a bad feeling, there were other times I was just really nervous about a particular game. I used to get the same feelings as a player. THIS IS NORMAL. I used to think that there was something wrong with me if I didn’t feel confident all the time. Social media always tells us that, “Preparation leads to confidence.” So I’ve always taken that as “if I feel nervous, I’m obviously not prepared”, but I’ve learned that’s not the truth. We are all human beings and we all naturally go through ebbs and flows with how confident we feel in the moment. Sometimes we are going to be nervous and uptight no matter how much we prepare or how hard we’ve worked. I can remember my first ever speaking engagement to 200 corporate executives who flew in for a conference from across the country. I prepared for months. I gave the speech to a wall over well over 100 times. When the day came to give the speech- I was as nervous as you could possibly imagine. I played out everything that could go wrong, my palms were sweaty, heart was racing, and my arms were shaking grabbing the microphone- what did I do to combat this? Absolutely nothing. I just went on stage and started the speech and by the time I was two minutes in- the nerves were gone and I felt a wave of extreme confidence. No matter how much you prepare, your confidence will fluctuate- that’s completely normal. The solution isn’t to lie to yourself or fight that emotion- the solution is do nothing. Just keep going. Stay in the game. Those nerves will be gone before you know it!
Building great relationships gives you room to make mistakes as a leader. I messed up a lot as a coach and I probably will mess up more times in the future. Like players and officials, coaches are imperfect too. You hope that you make all the right decisions and press all the right buttons- but the truth is often times you don’t. When you have built relationships and when your players know you care and love them unconditionally, it comes back to you as a coach. When you’re off as a coach or when you don’t have your best performance, your players will still trust you and do their best for you, which is one of the strongest testaments to a coach. It all starts with the relationships you foster with your players. When you treat your players with love and respect and care for them as people, not just players, they know, and trust me- they will do just about anything in return to show that they love you right back- even on your worst days.
Mastering self-awareness. How well do we know ourselves? What are the driving forces behind our actions? In order to improve at anything in our lives, it’s important to unbiasedly observe and be completely transparent with ourselves. The more we are aware of our own tendencies, actions, and motivations (good & bad), the more likely we are to respond intentionally and conscientiously to an event or circumstance.
Emotional Intelligence. How well do we understand the people around us? As a coach, parent, teacher, manager, or anyone in a leadership position, self-awareness coupled with emotional intelligence is crucial. Different situations and different people call for different tactics. For me, I always try to have a handle on my players when they walk into practice. Are they upbeat and talkative? What does their body language look like? Are they going to need a “kick in the butt” type of a message or a little extra love and support that day? When we are in touch with and can relate to those in which we lead, we are more likely to deliver beneficial instruction and feedback.
Be patiently impatient. I heard this the other day listening to a podcast and really liked it. It’s another way of saying “trust the process”, but it means that while we trust that the end result will work out the way it’s supposed to- each and every day we are still immersing ourselves in the actions it takes to reach our desired destination. I’m a big believer that things play out the way they are supposed to- but too many times it’s taken as “just be patient and everything will work out”- that’s only true to a point. While we’re waiting and being patient, we better be controlling the things we can or we will just be waiting on a dream or a goal that will never come to fruition.
Enjoy the ride. Such a cliche’ statement, but couldn’t be more true. I feel badly for parents who are constantly caught up in social media, comparing their kid to other kids, questioning every decision a coach makes, or feeling the need to lecture their kid after EVERY game on what he or she did wrong. Not only does it make the parents’ life miserable and stressful, it adds a ton of external pressure to their kid. As hard as it may be, let kids have joy in playing the game and competing. If they really love it- they’ll put extra work into it. When they really have a problem (not just being a little upset after a bad game)- they will come to you. Until then, support your kid, find joy in watching them play, and cheer for their teammates’ success just as much as your own kid. Enjoy the ride, because it will be over before you know it.
Thank you for reading!
Position-less basketball is a term being used more frequently. I have always been a believer that the more skills a player has, the better. The two biggest guys that I have coached in the past few years (6’8”) both received Division 1 scholarship opportunities not purely because of size, but because they both have the ability to not only score inside, but also have the ability to pass, shoot, and make plays off the bounce. Regardless of size, we should be teaching and developing all players to handle, pass, shoot, post, and guard both post and perimeter. The more versatility a player has, the more options we have amongst our teams as a coach. It takes more patience to develop and teach this way- but it’s certainly worth it in the end.
Film is an incredible teacher. One thing that really caught my attention this summer was the disconnect that there often is between what a coach sees a player doing and what the player thinks they are doing. Many times a player will nod their head, “yes” when we ask if they understand the coaching we are giving them, but I’m not sure how many truly can see and visual what’s going on or what we may be talking about as a coach. Giving players visual understanding of what you’re seeing as a coach can help build trust and connection, as well as enhance your ability to relay messages. The unawareness isn’t just with players either, for coaches, often times we think we are seeing one thing, but another thing is actually happening. Film is a great way to build self-awareness within all members of your team.
Defense isn’t just heart. I get why coaches (myself included) talk to their players about defense being “all heart”- limited athletic ability can be somewhat neutralized by putting forth maximum effort. However, in saying that, to truly be an elite defender you better be able to move laterally, anticipate, and understand team principles. Defensive players certainly can make their mark by outworking people, but to truly excel takes much more than just heart.
An underrated offensive skill is the ability to get open. In watching a lot of games, I see teams who apply great defensive pressure which often leads to turnovers and easy baskets. Give the defense some of the credit, but I also see teams and players who don’t understand timing of their cuts, how to use their feet, their body, or a screen to get themselves open. Too many times offensive teams settle for catching further away from the basket and playing into the defensive team’s hands.
Transition basketball. A lot of teams want to play transition basketball, but not many players want to sprint the floor every possession and pass the basketball ahead every opportunity they get. Playing fast is fun, but in order to play fast, offensive teams need to SPRINT the floor and they have to be willing to throw the ball ahead to an open teammate with as little dribbles as possible. Without this mentality, your transition game will likely be average or below.
I think players need to be able to pass with both one hand and two hands. I think many will disagree with me on this, but being able to pass with one hand off the dribble is quicker & can allow more angles to throw a pass. It’s certainly a skill that needs to be practiced to be effective, but I think it’s a skill that again can give players more options in certain situations.
Functional movement needs to be focused on just as much as any skill or offensive and defensive philosophy. I am still working on getting better in this area myself and I know many coaches have a limited amount of time, but players can’t reach their full potential on the basketball court without taking care of, building, and maintaining their bodies off the court. Poor movement mechanics and dysfunctional strength can greatly inhibit a player’s ability to perform at their best & in many cases over time will catch up to a player resulting in an injury. It’s okay to have light practices, it’s alright to give players days off or an extra day of recovery after an injury, and it’s crucial that coaches learn basic movement fundamentals or hire someone who can help your team with them! I’ve learned that the best player is an available player.
I had a professor in college who said you can almost always answer any question with “it depends”; the more and more I come across conversations on anything- that’s usually what my conclusion ends up being. Are there some statements that I believe to be true more often than not? Yes, but I’m also not numb to the fact that in many situations, the answer isn’t cut and dry and might simply be dependent on a person’s individual situation. Everyone has a different perspective and there isn’t anyone on this planet with all the answers. My goal in writing these articles is to offer a perspective that is different than the commonly accepted narrative; it’s not always necessarily my opinion, the writing isn’t designed to push anyone in a certain direction, but to help invoke critical thinking.
If kids want to play multiple sports at any age, they should. At young ages in particular, I think it’s very healthy for kids to try numerous sports and figure out what they enjoy the most. Playing multiple sports helps increase motor development/ coordination at young ages. Among other benefits that I believe to be true are less emotional burnout, and exposure to different roles. I played basketball year-round in high school and I loved every single second of it. I wouldn’t have traded it for anything. I also ran cross country two years in high school after a good friend convinced me to, and I also have zero regret on that; I had a great experience. Generally speaking, I would lean towards being an advocate for multiple-sports (absolutely before high school) and I think there are positive benefits, but I also believe, like with anything, it’s not always cut and dry. I think this underlying, commonly accepted narrative that all kids should automatically play multiple sports has more to it. If kids don’t want to play multiple sports, should they have to? Who’s to say it’s the best thing for every kid?
According to a recent NCAA study on specialization, 68 percent of Division I male soccer players and 66 percent of tennis players specialized by the age of 12. 32 percent of baseball players, 33 percent of football players and 49 percent of basketball players said they were specializing at the same age. 67 percent of Division 2 soccer players and 59 percent of Division 3 soccer were also specializing by age 12. For females, the study showed similar numbers across the same sports, with a slightly higher specialization number than men. The one sport where there was a big difference was in gymnastics. 87 percent of female Division I, II and III gymnasts said they were specializing by the age of 12.
Every year after the NFL Draft, the high amount of 1st round draft prospects that were multiple-sport athletes is publicized all over social media. Not pointed out, however, is data from other sports. If we are going to talk about professional athletes (which I’m not saying everyone is going to become or that should even be 99% of people’s goal), would gymnastics have the same numbers? Soccer? Basketball? Tennis? You can take almost any data and skew it in the direction you want. There are very few club/ year-round options for football, so it’s pretty easy to point out that data and use it to push kids toward multiple sports.
The question to ask is, why are kids specializing? There are many potential theories to this, but forthcoming are some scenarios to consider.
One of the top basketball players in the state of Wisconsin committed to a Division 1 school (he’s not a freak athlete and he’s under 6’0’ tall) said this about specialization, “This isn’t a hobby for me. There is this small town mindset of overvaluing the 3 sport athlete who is good at all 3 instead of great at one.” As I stated before, the goal of high school athletics for most shouldn’t be to go pro and such a small amount of kids play collegiately, that obtaining the opportunity to play at any level in college is going to be a difficult quest. Does that mean that we should automatically tell a player that they should then participate in multiple sports? The part of this situation that I can respect and understand is that the game of basketball is his deepest passion. He found something he loves and he’s pursuing it. Numerous adults are constantly preaching to “find something you love to do everyday” or to “follow your passion and go all-in on it”. Every coach tells their kids that they should have big dreams and strive to be their best- isn’t that what this young man has done? Is he in the wrong because he decided not to play multiple sports? Are the people in his life wrong for supporting his dream in the game of basketball? Should they have forced him to play more sports?
The other side of the argument would be, would this athlete be significantly worse off in basketball if he played another sport? I don’t think so. Some would say that he’d even be better at basketball if he played other sports. How do we know that? How do we just automatically accept that notion? Is playing shortstop for his baseball team really going to make him a better shooter in basketball? That’s a really hard argument to make in my opinion.
This past winter I had a young man on my basketball team who played soccer during basketball season. Soccer is this kids’ favorite sport (his words) but does enjoy basketball and is good at it. There were about 3-4 instances (full tournaments and practices) during the season where he missed because of his traveling soccer schedule. As a team, we had policies in place for any unexcused absences. Him, myself, and my assistant coach had an open conversation about it before the season started. The player would serve the consequences for any misses outside of the allotted number- no further punishment would be made outside of the team policy. Further punishment would have potentially made this young kid have to decide whether he wanted to play basketball or choose soccer; we didn’t want him to have to make that decision.
However, was it fair to the other players who were at all practices that this kid missed practices for a sport that is technically considered “out of season”? A part of me questions who determines what is in-season. Just because the high school plays at a certain time of the year, does that automatically mean that’s the sport that’s in-season? Virtually every sport has become year-round in the activities that they offer.
Hypothetically speaking, if he would’ve gotten injured playing the other sport that would’ve had a very negative effect on our team seeing that he was one of our best players. As a basketball coach, should I have put my foot down and told him that basketball will always have to come first until the season is done? Should I have asked him to give up club soccer? The same situation has occurred multiple times in teams that I have coached in youth, high school, as well as club seasons. For me, I’d rather have the athlete playing my sport as a secondary sport than having them quit anything they enjoy- especially before high school. Some coaches, however, think it is a slap in the face to the other kids on the team and to them if a player participates in numerous other activities for another sport during “their season”. Can you blame those coaches? Shouldn’t you want full commitment from every team member- isn’t that something we always preach to our kids? If that’s the case, aren’t we putting that kid in a decision where they have to pick one sport over another?
A couple other scenarios to think about:
You’re a third stringer in one sport and a top player in another sport. You don’t feel valued in the sport you’re a third stringer in or you don’t enjoy the sport for whatever reason. On top of that, consider the fact that there were opportunities in the other sport that you were better at during the season where you were competing as a third stringer. Would you turn down other opportunities in the sport you were good at to play third string in another sport? Some might say, “Well they aren’t going pro anyway, they should embrace just being a good teammate.” On the flip side, what about the message we send to kids about “being a competitor”? Could that be considered settling? Again, I don’t know the right answer here, I just believe that there are a lot of mixed messages that we send to young people.
As I mentioned previously, among the benefits talked about frequently in playing multiple sports is a new role within a team and a different coach giving a young person a different message. Isn’t it possible that a kid can get this same benefit from playing the same sport within a different team? They could have a different coach with a different style, they could have a new role (either increased or decreased) as well.
Overall, the point I’m trying to make here is that there are many things to consider when it pertains to anything, which includes multiple sport athletes. I do believe there is benefit- especially before kids get to high school- they should be trying multiple things and figuring out what they enjoy. I think as time continues, however, there is room and reason for an expanded conversation on an individual’s situation. It’s not always cut and dry, and in many cases, we can always come back to “it depends”.
There are many commonly accepted narratives regarding AAU basketball. From parents, players, coaches, former players, or anyone else involved in the game, there is usually a strong opinion regarding AAU. Among those narratives are people who believe AAU is “good” and those believe AAU is flat out killing the game. I see perspective from both sides, but I definitely believe that a large majority of people are outspoken critics before they take a real look at the whole picture. This article isn’t meant to convince you one way or the other on AAU, but to provoke critical thinking and hopefully shed light that, as with anything, there are multiple viewpoints and multiple sides to each story.
It seems everyone has an opinion on if AAU basketball or high school basketball is “better”. Do we really have to decide which one is better? Can’t we all work together to try to make both of them as good as possible? As with anything, there is really good AAU basketball, there is really good high school basketball, and there is really bad of both. I have seen some terrific high school coaches, but I’ve seen plenty of really poor ones as well. On the AAU circuit, I have seen some coaches who do a tremendous job of interacting with players and making in-game adjustments and I have seen some where I question if they’ve ever had any connection to the game of basketball in their entire life. There is good and bad in both environments- generally speaking to say that one environment is better than the other or all high school coaches are good and all AAU coaches are bad (or vice versa) is absolutely ridiculous. Each individual situation needs to be looked at. I’m sick and tired of both sides constantly criticizing the other- each side could use a drop in their own egos and remember why they coach and who they are coaching for. It has nothing to do with high school and AAU- it has everything to do with the quality of situation for both.
One thing I read a decent amount is that the developmental systems overseas are developing more fundamentally sound, skilled players than we are in the United States. Within those articles people criticize the lack of fundamental teaching in AAU, and how AAU is the supposed reason why the game in the US has “dwindled” (I don’t see it that way- IMO the game has advanced in many ways). There is now an influx of “fundamentally sound” international players playing in the NBA due to the “focus on fundamentals” in Europe. To that point, have people never seen Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, Karl-Anthony Towns, LaMarcus Aldridge, Paul Millsap, Al Horford (to name a few) play? All those guys are 6’9 and above- I would say each is incredibly skilled and pretty fundamentally sound. Was that just pure luck that each of them developed in the American developmental system and played AAU? What about guys like LeBron James, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, and Paul George? You could argue that all the guys I listed are just elite athletes, but you and I both know it takes a little more than just being an elite athlete to play at the level they’re playing at. On top of it all, if that’s the argument what would the narrative be on guys like Steph Curry, Kyrie Irving, or CJ McCollum? Furthermore, and lastly, kids are WAY further advanced today in basic fundamentals than I ever was at the same age.
Generally speaking, we take for granted how good and how special some of the people we develop through our system are and end up putting such an extreme emphasis on the select international players who come over and make an impact in the NBA. Are there more international players than ever? Yes. Are some of them very good players? No doubt. The game has also grown in popularity across the world, and it will continue to as more foreign players make it to the NBA. More popularity equals more numbers, more ignition; a further drive to become better at the game in other parts of the world. It’s also important to realize that more US coaches are traveling across the country teaching the game and helping expand it on an international level than ever before. To say that our system as a whole is failing and that AAU is the reason that international programs are catching up is ridiculous. The world is catching up, and it will continue to, but I’d say the US is still producing some pretty quality “fundamentally sound” talent themselves, and not to mention remaining dominant at all levels across the world in international play.
AAU used to be reserved for only “elite” basketball players. There’d be ten teams maximum per age level across a state such as Wisconsin, so you had to be among the better players in the state to land on a team. It has certainly grown and now my guess is there is probably closer to 60-80 teams per age level in WI. Due to what AAU was formerly known as (elite), some parents and kids have adopted this mindset that because they play AAU, they are automatically good. That’s not the case. There are numerous kids playing AAU that aren’t among the top ten or even twenty in their high school programs. Anyone can play on an AAU team now. The idea that some parents and kids have, that because they play on an “AAU” team they are an elite kid is a big part of the reason why AAU at times gets a bad rap with school programs. Not every AAU team is good and in some cases, they aren’t any better than a local school team. However, hasn’t the majority of our population agreed that kids should be playing multiple sports? I know players who were cut from their school teams who go play and practice with an AAU team. Isn’t that a positive thing? In some people’s eyes, AAU is watered down (which I do agree- I think there needs to be a separation in levels in the summer even more than already is), but some of those same people are the ones who are advocating that kids play as many sports as they can. For many, AAU gives kids a different opportunity, different role, and could supply them with a positive experience that may keep them playing the game, which is what is frequently believed are a few benefits of competing in multiple sports.
Many organizations and tournaments have started to create tournaments and platforms that require an invite for teams to compete in (I really like this). The idea is to get all of the best players and teams under one roof to mutually benefit players and college coaches. For players, you get the opportunity to play against high-level competition, and for college coaches, you can evaluate numerous kids at one time in a live-game setting, which can be more difficult to do at the high school level for various reasons. I have seen kids have their dreams come true because of the platform that AAU has given them. On the other side of the fence, there will be people who immediately point out the platform that AAU creates leads to flawed and unrealistic thinking from parents and players. Does that only come from the AAU platform itself or is that due to parents and players not having a clear view on what they are? Isn’t that a result of a bigger problem in our sports culture in this day and age or is that only tied to AAU basketball? I see people across multiple sports who have frequent problems with their role or how their high school careers ended because of a false sense of perception on what their abilities are. Maybe the AAU platform causes some of this, I can’t say for certain one way or the other, but my intuition tells me the unrealistic quest for a scholarship is a problem across all sports, not just because of AAU.
One of the writers in Wisconsin who covers high school basketball did a great article that outlined the small number of players who move on to NCAA Division 1 universities to play basketball from WI. In the comments section, a man wrote, “I wonder how much money AAU programs rake in from parents chasing those elusive scholarships?” First off, I get his point. Parents are often times the ones on the biggest quest to be validated through their kids scholarships. I also know there are some people who have made a business out of AAU basketball- no arguments there, but the number of people doing it for the right reasons for very little or no money, outweighs the bad. Most people who coach in AAU give up their weekends in the spring and summer and travel around to events to coach kids while receiving no compensation outside of basic expenses. The notion that all AAU is just a money-grab frustrates me and takes away from people who volunteer a ton of time to make a positive difference for kids. Again, are there people who may have ulterior motives? Yes. Are there people who rip people off? Yes, but there are also a large majority of people who do it for the right reasons. Not all AAU programs and coaches are out to take money, the ones who do have ruined the reputation for those who do it right.
To conclude, not all AAU is good, not all AAU is bad. Some critiques and points people make frequently probably have a certain degree of truth to it, but I also want to know what system doesn’t have flaws? What actions are being taken by those who are loud in their complaints to help clean those things up? I believe that certain criticisms often spoken are due to having a narrow scope of perspective and those same criticisms could be made with anything. As usual, there isn’t just a simple answer or fix to it all- there are many points to consider. I hope this article at least helped bring light to other sides of commonly accepted narratives.