BLOG POSTING #32, February 18, 2009

CREATING A FORUM FOR IDEAS
CATEGORY: TEACHING

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to speak with Gary Cunningham. Coach Cunningham played varsity for John Wooden, at UCLA from 1960 to 1962. He was an assistant coach while I played there and later became UCLA’s head coach with a winning percentage of .862. But it was not his playing or head coaching I was interested in; I wanted to know the inside scoop on how the UCLA coaching staff planned practice. Each weekday morning, they spent at least two hours planning the practice for that afternoon. I was particularly interested in how detailed and researched the practices were, but I learned something valuable I wasn’t expecting.

During the interview, the subject of “new ideas” came up. Coach Cunningham explained, Coach Wooden welcomed any coach to come up with drill revisions, new drills (that would replace existing drills), and even suggestions on strategy for an upcoming opponent. But, he said, when a coach presented an idea that was not fully researched, he learned a hard lesson; Wooden would challenge his idea and, if the coach could not convince him it was valid, Coach Wooden would tell him to come back when he could back it up. 

The freedom to come up with new ideas was not limited to the coaching staff; players were given liberty to be resourceful, but the same rules applied. You had better be able to back it up or you ended up looking like a fool.

TWO EXAMPLES
Most coaches are familiar with the “UCLA cut” in the High-Post Offense. With the ball at the wing, the guard uses the high-post player as a screen to get free for a layup. Up to that point, all screens were set with the screener facing the cutter. However, when coaching high school, during a game, his center, for no apparent reason, began to screen with his back to the cutter. Coach Wooden saw the change but didn’t bother to ask his player about it until after the game. When he did, the player responded, “Coach, I had two fouls, both for moving while setting a screen. I figured, if I turned my back, I would not be tempted to lean to the side or forward.”

Coach thought a minute and told the player he had come up with a great idea. After further thought, Coach Wooden came up with a second reason this type of screening was an improvement; it also placed the responsibility to get open, completely on the cutter. Not only did this change result in less fouls on the center but, magically, the cutters became better at getting open.

During my college days, the player with the most ideas was, guess who? Yes, Bill Walton. He came up with new things off and on the court. Off the court, he visited Coach in his office. (I don’t even want to know what happened in there.) On the court, he demonstrated unusual ingenuity. For example, he came up with the idea for the center coming to the high post and reversing the forward. You see, we ran the same offense Coach had for Kareem. The center was supposed to stay close to the basket. In one practice, Bill noticed his teammate on the wing on his side, Larry Hollyfield, was being denied the pass from the guard. This was a problem as Larry was supposed to pass the ball into Bill. Instinctively, Bill cut to the high post, the guard threw him the ball, Hollyfield cut to the basket, and Bill gave him a backdoor pass for a layup. Coach didn’t look quite as delighted as Bill thought he would. But, because of Bill’s exceptional passing ability, that play became a pivotal part of our offensive attack.

Coach Wooden admits many of the idiosyncrasies and nuance of his system, year to year, were invented by his players. This is due to him creating a scientific atmosphere in the practice session. But, as you have already learned, it was not a roundtable for sharing ideas that had not been deeply thought through. On the contrary, it was like a university-type classroom where proof was needed.

FURTHER APPLICATION
We can’t leave this posting before addressing a point, perhaps even more important than improving play. Think beyond basketball (or sport for that matter). We were treated like men. No, we were treated like intelligent people. The result was, as ideas were presented, tried, and backed up, we were being trained for life, because in the corporate world, for example, if you can't prove your ideas work, you’ll go nowhere. 

RELATED POSTINGS:
Blog Posting #26, January 25, 2009, PLAYERS MAKE PLAYS
Blog Posting #14, September 8, 2008, THE COACH WITHIN YOU