Investing in Youth Athletics Can Be Costly

Parents: Are you helping your child reach their dreams or are you gambling with their future?

(photo credit: www.vegas.com)

As a result of my 10+ years of coaching youth basketball, and my time coaching at a nationally recognized college prep school, I became reflective about the sensibility of parents making a heavy investment in youth sports for their child. Recently, I came across this article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/opinion/all-played-out.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0  (thanks to my Dad for passing it along to me) which is written by a doctor who constantly encounters injuries as a result of youth sports. The issue is the response by the parents, worried about their child’s athletic career, in some cases as young as 13 years old. He solidifies his point by showing the amount of money a father invested into his daughter‘s softball career in hopes of getting a scholarship. That amount, if invested wisely, turned out to be about the same as tuition to the school she was hoping to get a scholarship to –before she blew out her knee. Now, there is no scholarship, and money that could have been spent on college instead was wasted on softball travel teams.

This got me thinking about how prevalent this practice actually is. It also brought up another thought, even though the parent is paying, are they really doing so for the benefit of their kids, or for themselves?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking the AAU system or parents who support their kids in sports that the kids truly love. I’m questioning the mindset of parents who see putting money into select and AAU sports as an investment towards getting their child a college scholarship. When one totals the amount it costs in travel, hotels, gear, gas to and from practice, club or select fees etc, that money if invested early on could develop a college fund that could help a student pay for school. Approximately 2% of all high school athletes earn college scholarships. Therefore, an investment towards your child becoming part of that 2% more closely resembles a game of roulette than making a wise investment.

As a first year coach at a college prep school, I got an opportunity to see the program director sell the idea of our prep school to families. Putting it into perspective, he would say that our school “was an investment. $15,000 for one year to get a scholarship saves you money in the long run as he’d be earning at least an $80,000 scholarship.” This made sense to me too, until one painful fact became clear. Just because their child attended our school, it did not mean that they would be earning a scholarship. Therefore, there was at least an equal chance that they’d spend $15,000 and still have to pay for college. Plus, a year was virtually wasted. This is not wise investing, this is gambling.

People wonder why there are such vocal parents hoping for their child to score 30 points per summer league game. I’ve seen parents ridiculing their children or their coach if their child doesn’t play enough, or play well enough. This is because they’re gambling on their kids. This is pressure that no kid needs. They try to please their parents, their coaches, the scouts, but eventually they don’t play the game for themselves anymore. It ceases to become fun.

Parents, it is okay if your child does not turn out to be a division one athlete. It does not make you look like any worse a parent. However, if you gamble with their future by placing possible college funds into sports, then you are failing them. I’ve seen it enough, if your kid is good enough, colleges will find them, club coaches that want to pick up the travel team costs will find them. Those are the kids that will get scholarships for the most part. Funding it yourself is your option, but doing so in hopes your child will get a college scholarship is not only a foolish investment, it’s gambling with your child’s future. Be rational, let your child enjoy his/her youth, don’t put unnecessary pressure on them by gambling with their future.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

New NCAA D1 Eligibility Rules

Did you know that for anyone who wants to be a D1 athlete enrolling after August first of 2016, that you'll have to meet new eligibility requirements? This will impact anyone in the class of 2016 or later. If this is you, it is time to familiarize yourself with the requirements that you will be responsible for meeting.

First of all, after 2016, there will be new terminology regarding eligibility. Those that meet all requirements will still be called full qualifiers. There will also be non-qualifiers. However, those formally known as partial qualifiers will now be called academic redshirts. Players will receive aid to go to school, and can practice during the semester or quarter. They cannot play.

Aside from the terminology, here are the major changes.
The minimum qualifying GPA has been raised to 2.3. So, regardless of how good your SAT or ACT score is, if you don't at least have a 2.3 in your core classes, you won't qualify.
The SAT/ACT sliding scale has changed as well. Make sure to check your CORE GPA and compare it to your test scores through the sliding scale.

Finally, you must have completed 10 core courses before beginning your senior year. This is to keep student-athletes from scrambling to complete most of their cores during their senior year. When this happens, often it occurs dishonestly. This rule is to prevent that. This means you can complete and count no more than 6 core courses in your senior year to still qualify. Also, 7 of those 10 cores must be in English Science or Math. Make sure to pay close attention to the classes you're taking. Once you begin your senior year, those courses get "locked in," which means that you cannot replace the core if you take it during your senior year or during a prep year. Remember that this is to become a full qualifier out of high school.

Academic redshirts have different requirements. To be an academic redshirt, you are not held to the 10 credits before your senior year rule. You also have a different sliding scale. However, you cannot play competitively during your first year or college. You can practice during your first term in school, however, you must meet college eligibility requirements to continue to practice during the second term. Here is a change though: Academic redshirts do not lose a year of eligibility. This was noted in an ESPN article I suggest you all familiarize yourself with http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Important_New_Rules/High_School_IE_Standards.pdf.

In both cases, you still are required to complete 16 core courses of at least:
4 years of English
3 years of Math (Alg 1 or higher)
2 years of science (natural or physical)
1 additional year of the 3 above cores
2 years of social studies
4 additional years of the above courses or, foreign language, philosophy or comparative religion.
*Source cited, NCAA.org.

The new sliding scales can be found here:  http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Important_New_Rules/High_School_IE_Standards.pdf

If you don't meet the requirements of a full-qualifier or an academic redshirt, then you're a non-qualifier and cannot receive academic aid from a university. You'll most likely need to go to a Juco to qualify.

As the ESPN article points out, nearly 40% of those that qualified to play division 1 sports this year would not be full qualifiers under the new rules. These would be academic redshirts. Also, this is a major hit to prep schools and those trying to reclassify. You've got to have those 10 core credits by the end of your junior year, or you're out of luck.
 If you don't want to be a part of the 40% that can't play their freshman year, I'd make sure to check my transcript closely, and make sure I'm on track to qualify.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

Sources
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Eligibility_Rules/High_School_IE_Standards.pdf
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7885522/new-incoming-eligibility-standards-create-term

The July Live Period

As we make our way into the heart of July, I'm often reminded of my time as a Prep school coach at the AAU tournaments. For two summers, we brought a club team made up of mostly players from our incoming prep school class, and for three summers, we followed incoming or prospective student-athletes that played for other club teams. Two summers in a row, we had Westwind players 'blow up', as word about them spread, more and more coaches came to check them out. One of those players is now in the NBA, the other plays at a prominent High Major School. At the same time, we had others who had the potential to 'blow up', end up fizzling out, and we watched as their recruitment struggled to take off throughout the school year as well. Some of those players are now at lower levels than they anticipated, are playing at junior colleges, or are out of basketball entirely. Thus proving, that the summer before your senior year is an important one if you choose for it to be. However, it may take swallowing your ego to ultimately get you the results you want. Based on my experience, I'm going to now contrast traits from the two who 'blew up' against the ones that didn't. I found that our players that did well did so because of a combination of their physical gifts and the way they carried themselves. The ones that didn't get the recruitment they wanted got their results because of a combination of a lack of physical gifts and the poor way they carried themselves.

The guys who saw their level of interest from schools rise during July:
1. Had standout physical appearances and above level individual skills for their sizes. One was a 6'8 g whose club team had him handling the ball at the point guard position. He could handle the ball extremely well for his size and had leadership and an ability to see the floor that was unmatched by others of his height. He was an available player that nobody else had. The other player was 6'11 and about 260lbs. A large human, yet was in very good shape. Compared to other players on the court, he clearly stood out. Again, he was somebody that nobody else had. However, I've seen players like them before and since, without the other pieces they brought to the court, they wouldn't have received the attention they did.
2. Played to win - They didn't see their role as only being a scorer, or weren't focused on how many points they got. Instead, they did everything necessary to win games. They ran their offenses, they rebounded, defended, and played the role they were asked to extremely well. It wasn't about the points, it was about winning games.
3. Were visibly coachable - These guys would listen intently whenever a coach spoke to them. They would execute what they were asked to, and they never complained. They bought in to the team they were playing for, and it showed on the court.
4. Did not show negative emotion on the court - They were steady. Regardless of whether all was going well or not, they continued to play their game and their role. They didn't get better when their team was on a run and worse when the other one was. They played hard every possession and tried to win that possession.
5. Had the ability to make the right play when the game was on the line - One player would do what he was asked and take the winning shot out of the set that was drawn up for him. The other had to defend and secure the winning rebound. Regardless, the big moment didn't faze them, they didn't get "hero syndrome". They did what they were asked to do and helped their team win (see #2).

The guys who didn't see their level of interest from school rise during July:
1. Did not have standout physical traits for the position they play: Maybe one was 6'9 and could jump out of the gym. However, if he's too skinny and is going to be pushed around, that's a red flag for a lot of schools. Couple that with the inability to play any position outside of power forward and you have a player that is unable to help a college team win games. Players blow up in July for a reason, and that's often because of the work that was put in prior to the July AAU period.
2. Cared about stats more than wins - One former college coach said it best when he said he would't recruit anyone that scored 30 points per game for a 10-10 team. The points you score don't matter if you're unwilling to do the little things that help teams win. Good coaches and recruiters notice these things, and they trust their eyes. If you're scoring 30, but you can't guard, then you're not getting an offer.
3. Argued with their coaches - I'm talking about the guys that whine when they're pulled out of a game and instead of staying invested on the bench, slouch in their chair until their coach puts them back in. College coaches want guys that want to win as bad as they do. If your stats are your #1 priority, you won't be their #1 priority.
4. Pouted visibly - This is the player who yells at their teammate when they don't get the ball. This is the player that whines at the refs after they don't get a foul call. This is the player that jogs back on defense because they miss a shot. This is a player that won't get recruited at the level they want.
5. Made sure they had the ball in their hands at the end of the game, regardless of whether or not it was what the coach wanted - We once had a right handed player shoot the ball left handed instead of pass it off at the end of a summer league game because he was so focused on being the hero. You don't have to take the final shot to make a winning play, sometimes its a screen, a rebound, a smart pass, the right movement. Coaches will notice, because if they're at your game to see you, they're watching YOU in that situation.

Overall, it shouldn't be a shock as to which players get noticed on the July club scene and which don't. If one is realistic about what they're looking at, the distinction is clear. Remember, college coaches don't want to get fired, so they recruit players that can be the difference between winning and losing. They're not going to spend time dealing with a 12th man who is pouting. If you want to increase your chances to be successful this July, you'll demonstrate some of the positive, winning attributes mentioned above. Obviously, it's too late to do much about your size and skill before the live period, but that doesn't change how you can play the role asked of you. Play to win, and you will increase your chances. It not a solution that covers all issues, but playing to win never hurts you.

Good luck this month.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

The Fine Line Between Confidence and Self Perception

During my time as a Prep School coach, I came to an important realization a few times a year. As I spent hour upon hour working to place good players in college programs, I found that often the players themselves became their own worst enemy. Usually, that was my primary obstacle. Recently, it has been the transfer list too. Instead of simply needing to convince players that the offer in front of them is a good one, that they'd be crazy to pass up despite the fact it is not the level they want, high school coaches are now dealing with a smaller window for true freshmen due to unhappy transfers leaving their current situations. I came to the conclusion that the issues that I faced with my own players are the same as many of those transfers are facing. The problem is self perception and an inability to see reality. The problems that come of this are two fold. First, it has created a log jam at the low major level as transfers who realistically realized they can't play where they were try to drop to a smaller school, and as a result, are taking spots from those that are waiting until the spring to sign because they believe they are Division 1 players, and just need a shot at a small school. The low major schools now have many more choices.

The problem has led me to this conclusion: Unrealistic self perception is an epidemic, a disease, a major problem in amateur basketball. It also is a result of human nature; it is natural to think that we are better than we actually are. Its natural to think that those who give us their honest opinion or evaluation, if its not what we want to hear, are 'haters' or don't believe in us. But what if they're right?

In working at a prominent prep school, I came to work with players who are "D1 focused." They're at prep school because they're "D1 Focused" and they "Just need to be seen," just lacking "exposure." My natural response is, 'That's probably not going to happen,' which is also why I was never the best prep school recruiter. I believe that more players are flocking to Juco's and Prep Schools for one main reason. They "know" they're good, they just haven't found the right person to agree with them. Parents can be biased in this way too, and shell out thousands of dollars to prep schools because they can't believe no one has 'discovered' how good their son is. Eventually, they find their way to a prep school (that has a good recruiter, unlike me), who tells them that their son is the greatest player they've ever seen, and is going to 'blow up' this year and get a D1 scholarship........ if you pay $15-25,000 dollars for one year of 'prep school.' What ends up happening is the schools that didn't recruit the 'hidden gem' are ultimately right, and that player finds themselves in the same position they were in before their family shelled out all that money for prep school. That prep school recruiter? He or his school pocketed the money and played the guys that already have D1 offers. The paying player sat on the bench all year, again ending up with maybe a D2 or NAIA scholarship that they stick their noses up at because its 'not D1.' Thus, the player who refuses to look at themselves realistically completes the cycle and again, ends up with nothing.

Sound familiar? It happens all the time. This is because many prep schools make money based on the fact that you believe you are better than you actually are. My advice? Look at what you have in front of you. If you are a senior or a post grad and you have a scholarship offer, then be as grateful as is humanly possible and sign that letter of intent before someone else at your position does. You are getting a college education, for FREE. Take that, because it means you've used basketball the right way and will graduate with no debt. Not a bad deal. Otherwise, if you pass it up and pay for a 25k/yr prep school then you are letting adults who know better use basketball to use you for your parents' money.

Now think about what happens if you actually are right, and everyone has misjudged you? This does occasionally happen. If you're at a small school and develop into a pro-caliber player, do you know what happens? The pros still find you. Look no further than examples like Damian Lillard (Weber State), Scottie Pippen (Central Arkansas), and Ben Wallace (D2's Virginia Union). These players took advantage of what was presented to them, put in the work necessary to improve and succeed, and the pros took notice. This proves that it ultimately doesn't matter where you play, as much as what you do with the opportunity you're given. So don't stick your nose up at the small schools, look at your current situation realistically, and move forward with the options in front of you.

Now, on to the transfers. If you do wait on a few smaller school offers and a big school offer comes in very late, then know this, you were not their first choice. They are taking a gamble on you, and if you don't work out, its not a big deal to them. Instead of playing right away at a smaller school, you will be sitting all year, using up eligibility as it becomes obvious you can't play at that level. Maybe you just needed to try, and using a year was worth that gamble. That's OK. I understand that. But if you're frustrated by the situation and believe that your coach doesn't believe in you, then you're starting the same cycle all over again. Please learn and go to the level you can play at. I recently had a former player transfer from a D2 and ask me to get him some D1 looks. If you're not a D2 starter, averaging 20 points/gm, and you don't have D1's knocking down your door the second your transfer paperwork is in, then you can't transfer up. Generally, the rule is unless you are the league POY, then you transfer down, to where your real level is. And if you play marginal minutes as a freshman, perhaps your real level is right where you are.

As you can see, an unrealistic self perception can be a dangerous thing. Take a look in the mirror and realize that it is OK that your level isn't where you always hoped it would be. A college scholarship is a terrible thing to waste... take it from someone who is still paying his college off. Thinking you are better than you actually are, and being too stubborn to admit your level could end up costing you and your parents a lot of time, money, and positive memories. It could leave you bitter, and upset. Please be realistic, embrace what you have, and do your best to be the best wherever you are.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

Reclassifying FAQ's

Over the past couple of years, I've received numerous questions about reclassifying. Here are some that may answer some of your questions. If you need me to clarify or follow up, send an email to (adamdesautels@gmail.com), or message me on twitter @coachdesautels.

Q: I'm a 9th grader + want to reclassify, how do I start? A: Once you begin HS, you must graduate w/ your original class to be NCAA Eligible. In other words, once you begin HS, you don't reclassify unless you graduate on time and spend a post-grad year at a Prep School.

Q: How can you reclassify athletically but not academically? A: Go to a prep or take a year after HS. Still must graduate on time. But athletic only 'reclassifying' should only be done after graduating HS. Otherwise, its an easy to spot ploy to mask one's age.

Q: I'm young for my grade, can I just reclassify to the grade I should be in? A: No, not after you begin 9th grade. To be academically eligible through the NCAA, you must graduate on time with your original high school class.

Q: Where can I find all this information in one place? A: Here's a quick reference guide from the NCAA: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf. 

Q: I play U17, and some of my opponents are 20. How are they eligible?

A: They're not. If they're playing AAU at 20, its JUCO or bust.

Q: My coach or parent wants me to reclassify, should I?

A: I wouldn't. Focus on graduating on time. Often, these suggestions are uninformed or fueled by alternative motives. Check why they are suggesting you reclassify. Often coaches promote programs through rankings. If you're highly ranked in a lower class, they can use that to recruit future players. If you're paying to be on the team, your parents have to cut that coach a check for another year. Parents can (occasionally) get caught up in the rankings hype as well. Reclassifying can mask your age, which may result in a higher ranking, more publicity for you, your club, etc... but it comes at a price: your eligibility. 

Q: If I graduate on time, should I do prep school or JUCO? A: Depends on 2 factors - $ + time of eligibility. Prep is expensive, Juco isn't. While cheaper (or free), JUCO also counts against NCAA eligibility clock. One year at a Prep doesn't.

Q: Do prep schools offer scholarships? A: Depends on the school. Most players on scholarship already have HM offers but need a PG year. I wouldn't bank on earning a prep school scholarship, if you need one, you should be looking at JUCOs.

Q: How do prep school classes help you qualify in that extra year? A: D1 players can take up to one extra core. D2 players can take unlimited.

Q: What are the benefits to JUCO over prep school?

A: Many. JUCO is cheaper or free, you can gain eligibility if not eligible after HS, Juco is highly competitive still, and you could see playing time when otherwise you would be on the bench in college, among many more reasons. There is no shame in going to a JUCO. 

Q: How can I make sure to make a good decision about reclassifying?

A: Check with people who know the system, and make sure to graduate on time, all else is futile without that piece.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

What's Wrong With College Athletes Transferring Schools?

On ESPN, Jeff Goodman has reported over 525 transfers from Division 1 alone in 2014. Many see this as an epidemic, a problem with the culture of youth basketball, a problem with society, a problem with parents, coaches, or the kids themselves. However, here are the questions that should really be posed: is the high number of transfers actually a problem? Is the high number of transfers out of line with other issues of workplace loyalty seen in the United States?

In actuality, any one of the problems mentioned above may be true based on the case of a specific student-athlete. However, based on circumstance, the player transferring is doing what they perceive to be in their best interest. Fans get angry because they may be losing a player from their favorite program, but again, that fan is angry because the kid is not doing what is in the fan's best interest.

Let's get one important thing straight. College basketball players are not the only ones who 'transfer.' The average American (for this argument, we will use those who entered the workforce around the year 2000) changes jobs every 4.4 years. That averages out to 15-20 job changes over the course of a career according to Forbes Magazine. So instead of asking why players transfer, the real question should be: why do people transfer?

Think now about why we change jobs:

Lack of appreciation
Mistreatment by supervisors
Chance at a promotion
Higher Salary Elsewhere
Fired due to lack of satisfactory performance
Desire for a better schedule
A need for a change...

Why college players transfer:

Not getting playing time
Don't get along with coaches
Chance to play in a more competitive conference
Opportunity for a Master's degree at another school
Asked to leave by a coach due to lack of on-court performance
Better fit in another system
Coach was fired, and they'd like to play for someone other than the replacement...

Are these lists really that different?

Right or wrong, this is our society. No longer common are the days of the four year starter at the small school who has no further aspirations beyond playing for the team they grew up cheering for. No longer common are the days of the employee who works forty years in the same job and retires. This is not to say it doesn't happen, but it isn't the norm.

When I worked at Westwind Prep, we would occasionally get players who were on their fourth or fifth high school. Kids change club teams all the time. Professional athletes change sports teams all the time. People change jobs all the time.

Why then, are we so surprised and angered when kids transfer from a college? A total of 4,381 scholarships are offered to division 1 Men's basketball players ("Scholarship"). The 525 transfers this season equals just over 8% of that total. It seems to me that transferring is not an epidemic, but a realistic representation of the movement within the American work force.

Don't get me wrong, as someone who has worked with and coached dozens of athletes who went on to perform at the college level, I have nothing but respect for those who stick it out wherever they land. Chances are that they do so because they have already developed the work ethic to be successful wherever they're at. As a coach, I would always warn my players when making a decision to choose a place they envision spending four years at. Somewhere they want to be beyond the basketball court. If no options they loved presented themselves, I often steered them towards the JUCO ranks.
Personally, I think that the ability to compete at a level in which one must earn playing time builds character. I often catch myself shaking my head when players transfer for 'more exposure', or 'more playing time'. I think persevering through adversity is one of the most valuable lessons one can learn as they go through high school and college.

However, not everyone is the same. For some it takes longer, and for some it takes a change of location, a fresh start to help them discover who they really are and who they really can be. While I have my strongly held beliefs against transferring for the usual reasons, I can't judge kids when constant change has become a part of our culture. While I believe gaining the work ethic to be successful where one is currently is more important than moving to a place with less competition, I also understand that every case is different. As a result, I don't feel the panic and hatred for those that do transfer schools that I see from many.

Teaching loyalty and commitment in our nation's youth is vital, but its also important to note that college is a place serving the purpose of preparing people for the future. In a society where the average American changes jobs every 4-5 years, I don't see a problem with college students doing the same. It may not be ideal for a particular fan base or coaching staff, but teaching someone to pursue the best fit for themselves is not such a bad lesson considering the statistics and realities of our current society.

Like it or hate it, this is the way it is, and the transfer list is just going to grow, just as more and more people continue to change jobs.

Either way, those with the work ethic and determination to stay in one's school or job are probably going to be just fine in the long run. When we look at the transfer list, instead of shaking our heads and swearing under our breath, maybe we should just hope that the player transferring can find the right place where they want to stay, and can learn the lessons necessary for them to transfer into productive citizens by the time their college careers are over.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels

Works Cited:
Meister, Jeanne. 2012.  Job hopping is the new normal for millennials. www.forbes.com.

Scholarships for athletes. 2007. www.scholarshipforathletes.com.

The Process of Winning

"They only won four games last year, my kid's coach sucks."

Not necessarily. The real questions that should be asked are when the four games were won and whether the team improved in comparison to their opponents as the season went on.

For the purpose of this argument, and simplicity's sake, I'll be discussing "success" in terms of on-court success. The impact a coach has off the court is a different topic entirely, one worthy of its own post at a later date.

When one looks at the success of a coach, often the list of championships attained along with games won and lost serves as the primary example of whether that team's coach is a good one or whether they need be replaced. However, the overall record often pales in importance to the team's improvement. What people don't often realize is that those championships come as a result of years committed to the process of ensuring one's team improves in order to meet their coach's vision of what what it should look like when their team is at their best. Often those championships simply serve as validation for a job well done, a validation of one's commitment to the process of developing a winning team true to their vision.
Example, if one was evaluating Coach K after his third season at Duke, they would see a 21-34 record in his previous two seasons. An A.D. who looked at record alone may have fired him. We would not think about Duke basketball as we do today. Though a college example, I want to look at this from a high school perspective. Too often, coaches are dismissed quickly due to a variety of circumstances that are out of their control.

The problem is, the record is all many use to measure success.

Thinking about this topic in terms of year-by-year development, this becomes evident. If one year, a coach wins thirty games, and the next they win ten, the idea that they've suddenly become a bad coach is ludicrous. Instead, look at circumstance. Perhaps the first year they graduated a team full of seniors, and in the next year, they were breaking in a new, younger group. If many of those ten wins came at the end of their season, then it can be easily determined that the coach is continuing to help their team improve in comparison to their opposition as the year goes on. Often, high school coaches are fortunate to coach the talent they have. This is not to say the coaches of the talented teams aren't talented coaches in their own right, most often they are. However, this also does not mean that the coach of a less-talented team is any less talented a coach. When we went 30-2 and won the state title in 2010-11, we were not the best coaches in our state, we had the most talented team. We did well with them, but looking at that championship alone would be a flawed method of evaluating coaches in our classification. However, if one has a team that wins its first fifteen games, only to split its last five, one has a situation where the process of continuous improvement (barring injury) may be lacking. While they may be perceived by record alone to be the better coach, this may not be ultimately true.

A coach's win-loss record does not define them as successful or unsuccessful.

The ability for a coach to help his team constantly improve throughout the season shows they are good at what they do.

Oftentimes, the eye test is a better way to determine whether or not a coach is effective. Watch the team at the beginning and the end of the season. Is there clear improvement? Evaluate the talent of the team. Are they getting the most out of these kids that they can?

This is where basketball becomes a metaphor for life in another aspect. A basketball team is an organization, which needs a clear goal, and benchmarks which show the leaders (coaches) that they are on the way to reaching that goal. When I took over as the Head Coach at Westwind in the summer of 2011, I knew that we had a long ways to go. I had placed us in a difficult summer league, and coached without the score of the games in mind. I had a vision for how I wanted these kids to play; my goal was to get them there. We lost nearly every game that summer, but by the end, we were noticeably better. The kids were executing our offensive and defensive schemes in a manner much more to my liking. I followed this process throughout the season in which we overachieved greatly, finishing 17-9. The lesson I took away was that the wins came as a by-product. I was lucky enough to have a great group of kids that were hungry for success, and undeterred by a difficult summer. Other coaches may have programs where the process takes a little longer. In my position as an administrator, I now use this perspective as an evaluative tool. If the team is improving consistently, then they're doing a good job. The ones whose teams fare worse as the year goes on (major personnel injury aside) are the coaches whose performance should be more closely examined. The ultimate measure of on-court success for a coach in my opinion (and take that for whatever you feel its worth), is the ability for their team to improve as the season goes on. The result of that process, ultimately will be the wins in which the coach deserves to be measured, not some of the losses that may be the result of a difficult circumstance they've entered into. Take a look at the entire picture, and let's avoid evaluating coaches by wins and losses alone.

For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels