This article touches on one of the real challenges in coaching. How can coaches demand respect and accountability, when that environment is not mirrored in the world around the athletes? How does a coach establish reality, without damaging feelings? Here are some interesting numbers from the article.
“According to a 2016 NCAA survey, 76 percent of all Division I female athletes said they would like to go home to their moms and dads more often, and 64 percent said they communicate with their parents at least once a day, a number that rises to 73 percent among women’s basketball players. And nearly a third reported feeling overwhelmed.”
“At the same time, accompanying this anxiety, iGens have unrealistic expectations and exaggerated opinions of themselves. Nearly 60 percent of high school students say they expect to get a graduate degree — when just 9 to 10 percent actually will. And 47 percent of Division I women’s basketball players think it’s at least “somewhat likely” they will play professional or Olympic ball, but the reality? The WNBA drafts just 36 players, 0.9 percent.”
This is a fantastic article, which references this Geno Auriemma video, and also how Pat Summit would fit into modern day coaching.
CLICK HERE for the full article
You Might also like
By dynamiccoachingtools — 1 month ago
We are launching a new series that we are calling TELLING vs TEACHING. This is motivated by a recent video that was posted by Brian Kight. Check out the video below, to learn about the most under-coached profession.
How is it possible that coaching is the most under-coached profession? The answer is very simple. There are no clearly defined requirements to get into coaching. To take that a step further, we are seeing more coaches TELLING players what to do, as opposed to TEACHING players how to play the game. Below are some of the examples that you might hear in a gym:
“You’ve got to finish that!”
“Talk on defense!”
“Take care of the ball!”
These are all examples of TELLING, when experienced coaches understand that the key is to spend your time TEACHING your players. Here are some “teaching” examples, which align with the same “telling” statements from above.
“Keep your eyes and chin on the rim!”
“Talk it, touch it, switch it on the ball screen!”
“Get to two feet in the paint and throw to what you see!”
While these are general examples, it is most important that coaches recognize the value of TEACHING players how to play the game. TELLING players what to do is counter productive for an experienced coach, because the goal is to create an environment that is conducive to learning and improving.
The topic of the first blog post is to discuss communication. One common misconception is that players do not want to talk. In most cases, the problem is actually that players do not know what to say. Most coaches have been around teams that talk, laugh, make jokes, and are loud off the floor. As soon as players get into a practice, they stop talking. It is not an unwillingness to talk. The problem is that no one has taught players what to say. How much would your team improve if all of your players communicated like PJ Tucker in the video below?
Before we can teach our players how to communicate effectively, we must equip our coaches with a process to break it down with their teams. If we don’t coach the coaches, then we will be back in the habit of telling our players, instead of teaching them. Here is a great way to break down communication into three phases for your team.
PHASE ONE: What are you doing?
In Phase One, players are encouraged to simply talk through what they are doing individually. This might sound like, “I’m in help. I’ve got the ball. Jump to the ball. I’m in a gap.” This is the starting point for players. The key is to correct terminology, but never tell a player that they are wrong. We want to build confidence!
PHASE TWO: What do you see happening?
In Phase Two, players are talking about what they are doing, but also what they see happening. This is where the communication starts to involve their teammates. This might sound like, “I’m in help. Cutter coming through. Ball screen right. Ball screen right. I’m hedging. You’re back. I’m here.” It is being able to communicate what is happening in that particular moment. Once again, as a coach, we want to hold players accountable to communicating with our terminology, but we do not want players to ever feel like they are wrong. Furthermore, this is where you will see breakdowns in communication between teammates. It is essential that you encourage players to work through it. Coaches should take the role of mediator, to keep communication productive, but should not shut down the back and forth between players.
PHASE THREE: What is going to happen next?
In Phase Three, players reach an elite level of communication. This involves being able to recognize and call out actions before they happen. It is unlikely that you will get your entire team to this level, but the best teams have a couple of these types of communicators on the floor at all times. Phase Three communication might sound like, “Ball screen coming. Ball screen coming. Be ready to switch it. I’ve got help on the slip. I’ve got help on the slip.” In this example, it is recognizing an action early, communicating the plan to teammates, and also acknowledging coverage for a potential counter from the offense.
As you look to create better communication with your team, the key is to TEACH players how to talk. If you find yourself saying, “we need to talk,” then you should consider stopping and going one layer deeper to discover why your players are not talking. A mediocre coach tells the players what to do. A great coach teaches the players how to learn what needs to happen. If you take ownership for becoming a better teacher, your teams will improve, and your program will be on the path to sustainable success.
Do you have thoughts on TEACHING vs TELLING? You can share them by connecting with us on social media (@DynamicCoaches). You can also e-mail us at: INFO@dynamiccoachingtools.com
By dynamiccoachingtools — 1 year ago
Episode 1 of the Dynamic Coaching Tools Podcast is an introduction to what listeners can expect from future episodes.
If you have any questions, or suggestions, please contact us at:
By dynamiccoachingtools — 2 years ago
In the NBA, teams are embracing the analytics, which encourages teams to shoot lay-ups and threes. According to the data, mid-range jump shots are inefficient and do not lead to success. Like most things in basketball, the NBA is the trendsetter, so now college basketball coaches are doing the same thing, and even high school coaches are preaching that lay-ups and threes are the key to building a successful team. High School basketball is where the debate heats up, as a lot of long time successful coaches are not interested in adapting to this new strategy. After reading a recent debate on Twitter, I decided to dive into the numbers. Below is the process that was used for this project.
- Use MaxPreps to gather three-point shooting statistics
- Find the three-point attempts per game numbers for all of the 200 teams that qualified.
- Separate the teams who shot the most three point shots per game (30+ attempts per game), from the teams who shot the fewest three pointers per game (under 20 attempts per game).
- Look up the WIN/LOSS RECORD of all of these teams, to find out if increased three point attempts per game correlate to a higher winning percentage.
- Gather the POINTS PER GAME for each team, to find out if increased three point attempts results in a higher points per game average.
Here is the table that I created:
DOES INCREASED THREE POINT ATTEMPTS RESULT IN MORE SCORING?
After diving into the data, it supports the belief that shooting more three pointers will result in scoring more points offensively. In fairness, this study does not include pace of play, or any metric to judge the caliber of opponents. It simply shows that high school boys teams who shoot 30+ three pointers per game, score significantly more points than teams who attempt less than 20 three point attempts per game. This remains true, despite the fact that the teams shooting more three pointers, shot a much lower percentage from deep.
- Teams shooting 30+ three pointers shoot at an average percentage of 31% and score 76.9 points per game.
- Teams shooting under 20 three pointers make 37% of their attempts, but only score 63.7 points per game.
DOES INCREASED THREE POINT ATTEMPTS RESULT IN WINNING MORE GAMES?
The results here actually show the exact opposite. Shooting more three pointers, at the High School level, does not correlate to winning more games. In fact, teams shooting under 20 three point attempts per game won 73% of their games, while the teams shooting over 30 three point attempts per game won only 67% of their games. As one can see, this study only involved the 200 teams that MaxPreps listed. The requirements to be listed are that a team must have played at least 18 games, and attempted a minimum of 226 three pointers on the season.
- Teams shooting 30+ three pointers won 67% of their games.
- Teams shooting under 20 three pointers won 73% of their games.
In conclusion, this project is far from perfect, but it supports something that most experienced coaches already know. There are a lot of different ways to win high school basketball games. If your philosophy is to score more points, then attempting more three point shots should help your team accomplish this goal. It is just important to note that shooting more three point shots does NOT guarantee that your team will be more successful. If you want your team to maximize their ability, then you must find the balance between what your players do well, and how that can be incorporated into your system.
To further the discussion, you can contact Coach Doug Brotherton via Twitter: @CoachBrotherton
Or you can reach him via e-mail at: CoachBrotherton@gmail.com
You can also reach us via Twitter at: @DynamicCoaches