Youth Basketball Coaching Association

The Youth Basketball Coaching Association is an effort to provide resources, assistance and credibility to the most important link in the basketball player development system: the youth coach (8-14 years old).

During these years, players learn the basic fundamentals of the game, but more importantly, they develop (or not) the passion for the game, the practice habits that carry them throughout their career, the basic understanding of how to play the game and so much more.

However, even though these represent the pivotal years for development, youth coaches are primarily volunteers, many of whom have no experience or training.

The YBCA plans to change this through partnering with the organizations who teach the game to so many of our youth. Through this partnership, the YBCA hopes to assist these organizations with their coach development efforts to help these new and volunteer coaches.

To learn more about the YBCA, please visit the web site.

180 Shooter: Deliberate Practice, Shooting and Individual Workouts

180 Shooter Shot Tracker Program: use an online program to improve your knowledge of your players' shooting and to teach players of the value of deliberate practice through tracking their practice.

The Cross Over Movement Manifesto

The Cross Over Movement Manifesto is 12 chapters comprised of the original chapters from the 1st Edition of Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development with updated information and opinions from three years of writing blogs.

When I published the 3rd Edition of Cross Over, I focused the book on coaching information and the long term athlete development philosophy.

Cross Over outlines the solutions that a coach or organization can make at the grassroots level to emphasize long term athlete development, the development of global players and an athlete-centered philosophy.

The Manifesto, the chapters which appear here, presents many of the problems plaguing youth basketball and outlines some structural changes like the Elite Development League.

The Manifesto

• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Current State of Youth Basketball
• Chapter 2: Early Specialization
• Chapter 3: Free Play
• Chapter 4: Talent Identification
• Chapter 5: Introduction to Long Term Athlete Development
• Chapter 6: Coach Education
• Chapter 7: Finding the Right Coaching Environment
• Chapter 8: The United States Basketball Development System
• Chapter 9: Worldwide Development Systems
• Chapter 10: Elite Development League
• Chapter 11: High Performance Centers
• Appendix: Parent's Guide to Development Talent

Re-thinking the Guaranteed NBA Salary

One of the better blog entries that I have read this summer is titled "The Kings Would Starve" by Tom Ziller at SacTown Royalty. Ziller's blog was based on an article written by Thomas Friedman for the New York Times.

Friedman compares basketball to golf and quips:

I wonder what the average N.B.A. player's free-throw shooting percentage would be if he had to make free throws to get paid the way golfers have to make three-foot putts?

On the day that I read Ziller's blog, I had spent the afternoon talking women's tennis and mixed martial arts with a friend. While the high money earners garner the publicity, the reality of a professional athlete at the bottom of the pay scale is a far different existence, and truthfully, a far more interesting story. However, in the major sports, this existence is less interesting as the 12th man on an NBA bench still makes nearly half-a-million dollars per year and his money is guaranteed. A golfer, tennis player or MMA athlete does not have the guaranteed salary - he or she has to perform to earn a living.

Today, I read about Michael Crabtree's insistence that he may sit out a year rather than play for whatever the San Francisco 49ers are offering. He wants something similar to the $38-million dollars that Oakland gave Darius Hayward-Bey who was drafted three spots earlier. His cousin/spokesman said that Crabtree just wants what he has earned, or something ridiculous.

Earned? He has yet to play a down in the NFL, yet somehow his brilliant college career means that he has earned 38-million dollars. This is the problem in professional sports - athletes are paid based on expectations and prior performance - often in inferior leagues against inferior competition (i.e., minor leagues or college athletics). Athletes are not paid for their performance.

This ends up working against the athlete too. Hedo Turkuglo earned a big payday with his performance in the play-offs this past season. However, if his performance dwindles near the end of his five-year contract, Toronto will be paying for Hedo's 2009 performance in Orlando, not his 2013 performance in Toronto.

Ziller proposes a solution to the NBA pay structure (fwiw, I prefer the NBA pay structure to MLB or NFL because it caps rookies' salaries - the most unproven - and prevents lengthy holdouts; however, the NBA scale works against superstars and good rookies who end up vastly underpaid).

The league took in $3.6 billion in basketball-related income last season, according to Larry Coon. The collective bargaining agreement has a rule in place to give players a max of 57% of BRI. This season, that was $2 billion. Basketball is a team sport, so let's assign each team's player salary by wins. There were 1,230 regular season wins this year. (Let's ignore the postseason, for the sake of simplicity. Let's imagine there is some extra pot of revenue which can reward players for making and doing well in the playoffs.)

That is one way to even the playing field between large and small markets: divide league revenue by wins. Penny-pinching owners like Donald Sterling would no longer profit from mediocrity because his franchise would lose income (potentially) to another franchise that won more games.

So the top team by regular season performance -- the Cavs -- would split $107.3 million, while the worst -- our KINGS! -- would split $27.6 million. Hmm.

How to divy it up? Win Shares, created for baseball by Bill James and calculated for basketball by Justin Kubatko of Basketball-Reference, would seem to do the trick. Win Shares is not a perfect system, but it's the best currently available, in my estimation.

It's not perfect, but what system is perfect? Is it fair that a player like Brandon Roy makes $4-million this season on the last year of his rookie contract while Tracy McGrady makes $23-million? By this system, LeBron James would not longer be underpaid - he would make $32.7 million in this pay structure.

Of course, to make $32.7-million next year, James would have to earn the money again. He could not put in one great season during a contract year and convince someone to give him a max salary and then coast. Each and every year, players would earn their salaries. Even better, the way to make more money would be to win more games, as the more games that a team wins, the more money the players on the team divide.

No longer would late season games be meaningless for teams knocked out of the play-offs - they would be fighting for their salary, literally. Teams like the Spurs and Lakers would not take mid-season games lightly to keep players fresh for the post-season, as every win would increase the players' salary.

Also, this would force fans, management and the media to create even better and more accurate ratings of a player's worth. No longer would a high scorer who does little else be rewarded with a maximum salary while important role players are ignored.

Of course, how would free agency work and the length of a player's salary? Those are questions that would need to be addressed. However, the NBA could adopt more of a European approach where teams could sell the rights to a player's contract to another franchise. Teams would no longer trade players to rid itself of a bad contract, but would make basketball decisions.

It definitely is an interesting proposition and one that brings the performance pressure of an individual sport to team sports, which could create a more interesting and exciting league.

NCAA, NBA and College Education

Rumors persist that the NBA would like to make potential players go to college for two years before entering the NBA Draft. NCAA coaches would prefer this as well, as many coaches, like Coach K, have criticized the "one-and-done" rule because it makes it harder to plan and recruit for their programs.

The basketball (and financial) reasons are obvious. When players go to college, NBA teams have a better opportunity to scout and evaluate, and players enter the NBA with more name recognition. At the college level, more stars mean more awareness and television viewers for games and potentially more merchandise sales.

For the athlete, however, the benefits are less obvious. In today's L.A. Times, "General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jeff Immelt lamented the state of education in the U.S., complaining that his company has to go outside the country for the best people."

Sure, the educational requirements for a future NBA player differ from those of a future engineer or manager. However, if the education system fails to do its prime job - educate the future work force - why burden it with educating future NBA millionaires? If the curriculum fails those who it is intended to reach, how is it supposed to improve the life of or educate those with only marginal interest?

A recent Washington Post article is even more damning:

"Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder."While more Americans are graduating from college, and more than ever are applying for admission, far fewer are leaving higher education with the skills needed to comprehend routine data, such as reading a table about the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity, according to the federal study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

If only 31% of graduates develop this skill, what are the chances that a player develops these skills in a 1 or 2-year stay?

I am not anti-education. However, I prefer that universities use their resources to educate students, not provide a minor league sports franchise for billionaire owners. I think it is disgraceful that many men's basketball and football coaches make more money than their university's president. I think is is shameful that a coach like Steve Sarkisian, an assistant coach, was the fourth highest paid employee of his university before departing for a head coaching job.

Parents, coaches and the media worry about young children and their misplaced values. However, if you see these things, are their values misplaced? If you want to make money, you're better off becoming a football coach than a university president! And, somehow we criticize children? What does this say about our values?

I understand that college sports help colleges market themselves and there is the "Doug Flutie Effect" and some (very few) college programs even make money. But, are any of these three the most important part of a university? Should marketing, increasing applicants and making money drive the university's decisions?

Evolution of the WNBA

One criticism of the WNBA since its inception is that team's favor athletic players who can defend, so few players possess the offensive skills to create their own shots.

As the W has evolved, more players have developed this skill or entered the league with the ability to create their own shot. Typically, these are the superstars or near superstars like Deanna Nolan, Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, Candace Parker, Seimone Augustus, Candice Wiggins and others.

Beyond these multi-dimensional players, several teams rely heavily on point guards (Sue Bird, Lyndsey Whalen) or post players (Lisa Leslie, Lauren Jackson, DeMya Walker) on the offensive end, as well as the team's structure and offensive sets.

The role players, it seems, are most frequently athletic defenders or fairly non-descript players. While nearly every NBA team has a "designated shooter" on its roster (Kyle Korver, Jason Kapono, JJ Reddick), it seems like few of these designated shooters stick in the NBA (although Kara Lawson turned herself into an Olympian in this role).

Also, it seems like fewer of the "designated defenders" develop into great spot-up shooters, as with the NBA (Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier, Raja Bell).

My first question, since I have caught only one game this season is: Is this an accurate assessment?

If so, would the next step in the evolution of the W be the development of the two-way role player, players like Battier or Bowen who lock down the opponent's top player while also spreading the floor on offense to give the team's superstar more room to operate?

In the NBA, players like Trevor Ariza, Battier and others command good salaries because of their ability to complement the superstars. Are there such players in the WNBA that go unnoticed because there are not thousands of stat geeks breaking down and publicizing their efforts?

Are there players who realize that they will not be the star of their team, so they create a role to earn playing time and a higher salary? Has someone like Marie Ferdinand-Harris or Noelle Quinn embraced that role with the Sparks? Has Chelsea Newton developed her three-point shot enough to qualify in Sacramento? Does Katie Geralds play defense well enough to qualify? Has Alexis Hornbuckle adopted the role in Detroit? Could she be the prototype for the next generation of complimentary players?

These are honest questions. Is the WNBA more of a team game so specified roles, like in the NBA, are not as pronounced? Are there college players thinking that they might not be stars, but they can earn a rotation spot if they prove their defensive abilities and make open jump shots?

2009 NBA Mock Draft

Finally, I decided to do my own mock draft. As always, I do my mock draft based on who I would pick in each position. I do not try to guess what each NBA General Manager will do. So, here are my picks:

1. L.A. Clippers: Blake Griffin, Oklahoma. Earlier in the year, I wrote that I would take Tyreke Evans. However, after hearing about Blake Griffin's work ethic, you would be crazy not to pick him.

2. Memphis: Tyreke Evans, Memphis. He's not a point guard, and he's not a shooter, but neither is O.J. Mayo. For some reason, an Evans/Mayo back court intrigues me. Also, I believe in drafting for talent, not position, and I like Evans' talent.

3. Oklahoma City: Hasheem Thabeet, UConn. To be a great defensive team, you have to have an inside presence. Thabeet is an inside presence. He won't be the best player in the draft and won't put up huge numbers, but he will make OKC better defensively.

4. Sacramento: James Harden, Arizona State. A productive shooting guard who can spread the court and get to the foul line.

5. Washington: Ty Lawson, UNC. He was the best point guard in college basketball last season.Not sure how six or seven guys are suddenly better than him. He improved between last season and this season. He is not Raymond Felton.

6. Minnesota: Ricky Rubio, DKV Joventut. He has been a star in Europe for years. Minnesota needs a star and a point guard.

7. Golden State: Brandon Jennings, Lottomattica Roma. He has as much talent as anyone in the draft if he puts it all together. GSW needs a PG to move Ellis to SG. An athletic big like Jordan Hill makes sense, but Nelson plays four guards anyway.

8. New York: Stephon Curry, Davidson. Many saw Steve Nash as a non-defense playing shooting guard as well. D'Antoni needs a PG who can shoot to run the pick-and-roll effectively.

9. Toronto: Jordan Hill, Arizona. He is athletic and improved tremendously at Arizona. Toronto has many needs, but another big to complement Bosh and Bargnani adds depth in an area where it is hard to find.

10. Milwaukee: Jrue Holiday, UCLA. At one time, I thought he had the talent to be the #1 pick, but he never seemed to break through at UCLA. He's younger than some incoming freshman and has great instincts with the ball. When he puts it together, he'll fit well with Scott Skiles' defensive mentality.

11. New Jersey: Demar Derozan, USC: Another athletic freshman with plenty of potential. Some believe that he could be the best player in the draft. Time will tell.

12. Charlotte: Terrence Williams, Louisville: He reminds me of Brandon Roy in that he can play two or three positions, handle the ball, set up the offense and score.

13. Indiana: Gerald Henderson, Duke. An athletic, aggressive wing to pair with Danny Granger in Jim O'Brien's up-tempo offense.

14. Phoenix: Earl Clark, Louisville. If they stay with an up-tempo style, they miss Shawn Marion's ability to play power forward. Clark can fill that role.

15. Detroit: B.J. Mullens, Ohio State. He's a young, skilled center, which is hard to find.

16. Chicago: Tyler Hansborough, Carolina. They need a post player who can score inside to complement their athletic, more defensive posts like Noah and Thomas.

17. Philadelphia: Johnny Flynn, Syracuse. They need shooters and they need a point guard if they allow Andre Miller to leave.

18. Minnesota: Austin Daye, Gonzaga. Last year, he was expected a top five pick because of his talent. His finesse and shooting can open the court for Al Jefferson.

19. Atlanta: Jeff Teague, Wake Forest. If they lose Bibby, Teague could be Bibby, Junior. He can definitely score; it remains to be seen if he can really be a PG.

20. Utah: Dejuan Blair, Pittsburgh. A perfect replacement for Boozer if he leaves, Blair is an aggressive, physical player in the Sloan mold.

21. New Orleans: Jodie Meeks, Kentucky. The Hornets need more scoring and Meeks can add scoring and defense at shooting guard.

22. Dallas: Nick Calathes, Florida. A good value pick here and a point guard to eventually replace Jason Kidd.

23. Sacramento: Eric Maynor, VCU. With Harden already selected, grabbing a point guard is essential and they have a choice between Maynor and Darren Collison.

24. Portland: James Johnson, Wake Forest. The Blazers have few needs, but Johnson could add athleticism at forward and add a different dimension.

25. Oklahoma City: Jonas Jerekbo, Angelica Biella. From the Greg Popovich book, taking a player and letting him develop overseas. OKC already has lots of youth. Jerkbo could be another combo to throw into the mix with Jeff Green and Kevin Durant.

26. Chicago: Marcus Thornton, LSU. Assuming Ben Gordon leaves, they need another guard who can shoot and complement Rose, Hinrich and Salmons.

27. Memphis: Sam Young, Pittsburgh. A combo forward with toughness.

28. Minnesota: Wayne Ellington, Carolina. Another shooter to add to the mix.

29. Los Angeles: Tony Douglas, Florida State. If they re-sign Lamar Odom, they have few needs and few roster spots. However, they could use some better point guard defense, and a combo guard like Douglas fits in the triangle.

30. Boston: Taj Gibson, USC. They suffered in the play-offs with a lack of post-depth. Last season, they grabbed two wings. Darren Collison as a back-up to Rondo would work too.