Just read Muffet's book "Courting Success" (pub. in 2003)

Just read Muffet's book "Courting Success" (pub. in 2003)
by McLean_ND (2018-08-08 09:49:53)

Some excerpts or paraphrased items

At the end of the season (2001?2002?) she gave everyone on the team the Myers-Briggs personality test and she took it herself – said she discovered that her personality was much different than most of the players, that she was most like Alicia Ratay, introverted, shies away from the limelight, doesn’t like public speaking, but when she speaks is very direct, doesn’t sugarcoat anything (said she plans to use the test at the beginning of every year)

We’ve probably had only a few prospects in the past 15 years where the team [which of course met and interacted with the potential recruits] was genuinely concerned about her fitting it. Team chemistry is our number one priority.

I’ll take a good player who really wants to be here any day over a top-10 athlete I had to convince to come here.

The year before the national championship we had terrible chemistry and terrible role acceptance. We had two players in particular who really didn’t want to accept their roles. A year later once they accepted their roles, we became a very good team.

I don’t use my full allotment of scholarships because that’s just too many people to keep happy. I think 11 is good but I can deal with 10

Youth on the coaching staff is an advantage, especially in relating to young players on the recruiting trail. I have nothing in common with 17 year olds but my assistants can relate to them much better than I can.

I’ve only had two technicals since I’ve been at ND. If I scream at the referees, the players will think it’s OK for them to do it also.

So much of this job has become psychology. It used to be about basketball. The coach used to command respect by virtue of the position. He or she was allowed to be authoritarian and a disciplinarian. And parents used to back the coach. Today, everyone seems to be treated so carefully, so fragilely.

I got a call from an athletic director last year who wanted me to consider coaching at his institution. I told him no thanks. I already have the best job in America.

You can’t win without a team leader. This is the single most important ingredient in winning.

I don’t necessarily think you have to be a really good assistant to be a good head coach. I was a horrible assistant coach. I like to make the decisions.

Most assistants want their own program eventually. And that’s good. I want assistant coaches with that kind of aspiration and ambition. Otherwise, they’re content where they are and contentment often invites complacency.

I’ve always had a man on my coaching staff because I know in certain situations he can get away with more in terms of coaching our team. Our players almost expect him to rant and rave and show less compassion. If he says to one of our players “you stunk” she would probably agree and go play. If I say “you stunk” she takes it personally and holds it against me.

She talked about goals set for a season – e.g., hold the opponent to fewer than nine offensive rebounds, make more free throws than the other team takes, ….

Practice has always been my favorite part of coaching.

You don’t see loyalty as much anymore, but it’s very important to me. If a player isn’t happy, she transfers. There is no loyalty at all. There is none. It’s all about “me.” I feel betrayed by a transfer I was counting on to fill a spot for us.

I do have a little trouble hiring a former player to coach with me. I’d prefer they get out and get some experience for a couple of years first. That way they’ll come here with some new philosophies and ideas.

Just because one was a great player doesn’t mean that person can be a great coach.

I am a very big stickler for being on time. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I’ve left a ton of people behind if they’re late for the team bus. I’ve left players behind for trips to the airport. I’ve even left assistant coaches behind.

Discusses how she really wanted Rebecca Lobo and thought she had a good chance to get her, but “we signed Michelle Marciniak in the same year, and we lost Rebecca.”

Discusses how the team leadership in the season after the 2001 national championship was not good and some of the six incoming freshman got a lot more playing time as the season progressed (and that “became a huge problem.”)

The most devastating loss in my career was the loss to Texas Tech a few years ago in the NCAA tournament. The winner advanced to the Elite Eight. We were up 17-0 … the Final Four was in my hometown of Philadelphia …

With rare exceptions, we tell recruits “first come first served” – i.e., those that accept the scholarship offers first will get them

She discussed some of the obstacles ND faces in recruiting – that it’s a football school (back when the book was written anyway), academics, weather, the “Catholic issue” – where many people thought you had to be Catholic to go to ND, and how one mother said “she was afraid her daughter might marry a Catholic boy”

Coaches aren’t allowed contact with the professors at all which is why I really don’t know very many members of the ND faculty.

We work with players on addressing the media. We have a consultant who puts them through mock interviews and discusses things like making eye contact with the interviewer.

We don’t have curfews for our home games. We have 6 am practices and we can tell pretty quickly who was out late. A stamped hand, by the way, is a dead giveaway.

She also discusses how her plans changed such that she was not on one of the 9/11 planes that crashed into the World Trade Center

"Coaches cannot contact professors"

I find this interesting. I understand it is meant to ensure a coach doesn't pressure the prof, but think there could be value in understanding a prof's view of something a coach is concerned about a player.

Anyone know if this is still the policy?

Intriguing

• Allotment of scholarships at 11 or 10 – I love it!
• You can’t win without a team leader. – Has this changed? Who was it last year? Kathryn? Marina? Who this year?
• Loyalty statement is interesting – Sheds new light on Jewell, Erin, and Ali.
• Rebecca Lobo – Did the signing of Michelle Marciniak affect Lobo’s decision?

I'll bet Coach McGraw would revise a lot of it today.

Some principles are timeless, but most leaders' thinking evolves over time.

For example, I'm sure the coach would concede that not all decisions to transfer or turn professional with eligibility left are examples of disloyalty. If she still felt that way, she wouldn't have been party to Jessica Shepard's "disloyal" departure from Nebraska.

Fifteen years ago, a basketball scholarship was an opportunity that paid a young woman way more than she contributed based on the economics of women's basketball. Attendance wasn't what it is today. Tickets were practically given away, often actually given away. I can see why a coach would think walking away from the program after being granted such a scarce and profitable deal was betrayal.

It's different now. There is more money in the sport, so the players are earning their scholarships and then some at the best programs. Coaches are earning a whole lot more money than they did fifteen years ago. The player relationship to the coach and program is more like a contract than a gift or a great break.

I also think Coach McGraw would concede that players leave a school for understandable reasons, often reasons not related to basketball. A departure might be for a "me" reason, but not every "me" reason is a selfish reason.

Always having a man on coaching staff has changed

Probably partly because the competency of women's coaching has soared

Good post *

As I recall from comments last year...

The leader was Westbeld. That was one of the reasons why the team did better when she was in the game (See Villanova game).

I think this year any particular senior could be the team leader. I'm betting on Mabrey, although Shepard would fit the role of "lead by example."

Leadership

What I have seen, I think all four will be some type of leader. Now which one will be the stronger of the four is a good guess. However, what I saw from her last year my money is on MM. What we need to be concerned with is the leadership for the following year. I can not think of any of the returning underclass women have I would say will take on the on court leadership role. Maybe Vaughn and maybe Patterson for what she went through. She has learned a lot to pass on. Don't count out players returning from injuries for what the went through and mental part of sports they had to learn. That is what I am counting on with Bri and this being her last chance. Sports is more about the mental part of the game then physical. If it was not, then we would not have so many upsets in sports.

SEG/Chief

It'll be Jackie's team in '19-'20.

Her level of experience will dwarf the rest of the roster. She may be relatively quiet, but there's no reason to believe she won't step up and lead by example. I've never seen or heard anything negative about her.

Jackie

Don't get me wrong. I love Jackie's game. For some good leadership for some takes time. I would believe we will see her strong leadership on the court her senior year. She will have more confidence in herself and the drive to say this is now my team. I have seen that transformation many times in the mucho years I been following sports. Heck, I will admit I was not an outgoing leader my young years of playing sports. But as mentioned, the older I got the stronger my leadership became. The Navy helped me there. I can not wait to see Jackie her senior year. I truly believe she will be special. She is not far away. I would go on but I already talk to much. PS. I am a big Jackie fan.

SEG/Chief

Criteria

A leader has these four traits:

1. Vision
2. Context
3. Trust
4. Optimism

Vision is what the leader wants the team to become. In basketball it's likely to be hardworking, unselfish, communicative, etc. It's also a vision set by the head coach with the player leader in agreement so that the coach can work through the leader.

Context is making every choice and every action move the team closer to the vision. More importantly, it's making sure everyone on the team knows that choices and actions are intended to get the team closer to the vision so that they don't seem like random things going right. Leadership is done intentionally.

Trust is a personal characteristic. It involves integrity, day-in day-out work ethic, doing what one promises, and ultimately respect.

Finally, leaders are optimistic. No matter what the situation, "we'll get through it and be better off." No team ever thrived on optimism in the face of obstacle after obstacle better than the 2017-18 Fighting Irish. The coaches steadied the team and kept it focused, but someone had the team saying, "Screw it. We're going to keep winning anyway."

Note that nothing I said above requires a fill-the-room personality. A person with a reserved personality can have vision, context, trust, and optimism just as well as the gregarious person can. Skylar Diggins, Natalie Achonwa, and Kathryn Westbeld are three very different kinds of people, but all three were outstanding leaders.

I don't think there was an outstanding leader between Achonwa as a senior and Westbeld as a senior. Good people for sure. Hard workers. But nobody had the levels of trust and respect those two earned.

I really don't know who it will be in the 2018-19 season, if it's anyone. Sometimes the head coach has to fill a void, but it's always better if the coach can work through a leader.

Similarly, I don't know who it will be when the seniors of this coming season are done, but don't write off Jackie Young just because she is more reserved. She's a very smart, very thoughtful young woman who might thrive when it's her turn to lead.