Tennessee goes down to unranked Virginia in OT 69-64

[Phil]

Phil, let me expand on the coaching staff. I think it is vital that a team have at least one or two younger assistants on their coaching staff. At TN, Nikki was an assistant that could relate to 18 to 22 year old girls on the level of a big sister. I don't think it is any coincidence that her departure after the Parker years can't be linked to the past three years of underachievement on the NCAA Tourney stage. Everyone on the present staff is near 50 or over 50, including the trainer.

When Tanya and Jamelle left, Geno replaced them with two younger assistants, Shea and Marisa. Pat replaced Al Brown with another old guy, Dean Lockwood, and then brought back a relic in Mickie DeMoss. There is also no black female presence on the TN staff.

All of the Tennessee coaches are obviously good, but there is no youth to bridge the gap between the players and staff. I am sure that Shea and Marisa probably share Geno jokes with the current players. I don't see that happening with Dean, Holly and Mickie and the current Vol roster.

You bring up an interesting point about the coaching demographics. In the same way I've argued that scheduling is tougher than some realize, I think the same thought could be applied to selecting assistants.

You need a variety of strengths, in terms of x's and o's, typically with a guard coach and a post coach. You want lots of experience, for obvious reasons, and you want youth, so there is an age connection. You need someone who can lay down the law and be tough when needed, and you need a shoulder to cry on. You may need gender and ethnic diversity. What about religious diversity? You need the ability to connect with teenagers when it comes to recruiting and you need the ability to connect with parents. The list can go on and on, but you have to do all of this with four people, who also buy into a shared philosophy. Not an easy task.

My abrupt answer wasn't espousing the opposite extreme, I agree that there are questions to be posed to the coaching staff, and I agree you raise an interesting point about the lack of age diversity. I was simply responding to your over-reaching statement that "There is one reason and one reason only". This is almost never the case, and I don't think it is the case here.

 

[Phil]

So it's all on the players then? The coaches bear no responsibility for choosing them, losing them (Avant, Brewer, etc.) developing them, preparing them for games, game tactics, etc.?

I was challenging the notion that the answer was 100% on coaches. Rejecting 100% is not the same as espousing zero.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

This is what Jay Bilas wrote about Mike Krzyzewski when Coach K notched win #903:

I don't know that Coach K is the best X's and O's coach in the game. He is good at it, but that is not why his teams win. Coach K's greatest strength is getting five to play as one and instilling a collective toughness and will into his team. He gets his players to play harder than they believed they could ever play and gets them to make sacrifices they didn't think they could ever make. He is always thinking about how to be better and how to make his players better. He has tremendous feel for the game and for players. When things are really crazy and intense late in a close game, he is incredibly calm. When the team is too calm and lacks the requisite intensity, he goes crazy.

Perhaps his greatest strength is making the complicated seem simple. While prepared down to the last detail, he does not overburden his players with too many details. He wants his players reacting instead of thinking. He is great with concepts and communicating those concepts in a way that players can internalize and embrace.

Is Pat the best Xs and Os coach currently in the game? Probably not. Her more recent teams won because of four things:
1) Primary superstar (e.g., Holdsclaw, Parker)
2) Secondary superstars (Catchings and Randall, Anosike and Hornbuckle)
3) Key roleplayers and shooters (Conklin and Jolly, Spencer and Bobbitt)
4) A tenaciousness and relentlessness that was infused from Pat Summitt to her players (evident in things like rebounding, loose balls, etc.).

This last point brings me to what Jay Bilas said about Coach K. Teaching chemistry and getting five to play as one are just as much part of coaching as Xs and Os. A tactician can design great plays; but a great coach is able to have five think (and play) as one.

 

[Icebear]

This is what Jay Bilas wrote about Mike Krzyzewski when Coach K notched win #903:

Is Pat the best Xs and Os coach currently in the game? Probably not. Her more recent teams won because of four things:
1) Primary superstar (e.g., Holdsclaw, Parker)
2) Secondary superstars (Catchings and Randall, Anosike and Hornbuckle)
3) Key roleplayers and shooters (Conklin and Jolly, Spencer and Bobbitt)
4) A tenaciousness and relentlessness that was infused from Pat Summitt to her players (evident in things like rebounding, loose balls, etc.).

This last point brings me to what Jay Bilas said about Coach K. Teaching chemistry and getting five to play as one are just as much part of coaching as Xs and Os. A tactician can design great plays; but a great coach is able to have five think (and play) as one.

Well said, Cam.

 

[Ruffian75]

I was challenging the notion that the answer was 100% on coaches. Rejecting 100% is not the same as espousing zero.

Of course it is not 100%. Let's quote Yogi...."Baseball is half hitting and 90% pitching." In the case of WCB it is half recruiting and 90% teaching them to play as a team. The coaches are responsible for only 90%

 

[Zorro]

This is what Jay Bilas wrote about Mike Krzyzewski when Coach K notched win #903:

Is Pat the best Xs and Os coach currently in the game? Probably not. Her more recent teams won because of four things:
1) Primary superstar (e.g., Holdsclaw, Parker)
2) Secondary superstars (Catchings and Randall, Anosike and Hornbuckle)
3) Key roleplayers and shooters (Conklin and Jolly, Spencer and Bobbitt)
4) A tenaciousness and relentlessness that was infused from Pat Summitt to her players (evident in things like rebounding, loose balls, etc.).

This last point brings me to what Jay Bilas said about Coach K. Teaching chemistry and getting five to play as one are just as much part of coaching as Xs and Os. A tactician can design great plays; but a great coach is able to have five think (and play) as one.

With you all the way here, Cam, except for the "more recent" part. When in the past was it otherwise?

 

[Kibitzer]

Two enriching and enlightening threads today. One about leadership (starting with Caroline) and this one that gravitated to successful coaching technique.

As for the first, I think the comparisons (e.g., Caroline vs. Maya) were unfortunate because each of the many fine players mentioned led in their own way and were/are followed by other players in their own way. I think the operable word is "different," not "better" (or "not as good as. . .") when making comparisons.

Two coaches who stood out were surely Vince Lombardi and Red Auerbach and they were totally different personalities who had in common the capacity for winning championships.

Jerry Kramer summed up one feature of Lombardi's coaching: "Coach Lombardi treated all his players the same -- like dogs!" (We know that wasn't completely true, but it still says something about the coach-player relationship that existed).

As for Auerbach, he was renowned for never EVER verbally abusing either Bob Cousy or Bill Russell. They were beyond his reproach, his "fair-haired boys." Everyone knew it and not only accepted it but they (especially the perennial scapegoats like Heinsohn and Luscotoff) even chuckled about it.

This "effective leadership" topic is an elusive quality indeed. What works for someone (fill in a name) who is highly successful probably won't work for (fill in another name).

To me, it's a fascinating topic.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

With you all the way here, Cam, except for the "more recent" part. When in the past was it otherwise?

I was going based on the five recent national title teams. To be honest, I was too lazy to go back and look up Bridgette Gordon's statistics and figure out who were the secondary supersatsr and complementary players on the 1987, 1989, and 1991 teams. The 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007, and 2008 teams I could do from memory.