Question

Your life as a college basketball coach used to be fairly easy, since it was based on just one principle—get the most talented players. A few months every year, you and your army of assistants and scouts would comb the country, looking high and low for the best players, and convincing them that your program was where they belonged. And even if recruiting didn’t go your way one year, you could expect that the players you did get would be a part of your program for three or four years.

Well, times have certainly changed. You still have to go recruiting, but the allure of playing big-time college basketball for four years has faded. At first, your players started leaving for the NBA before they graduated, some as early as their sophomore years. And then, elite high school players decided that they didn’t need to go to college at all, going straight into the pros. To try and revitalize the college game, the NBA passed the “one and done” rule in 2005, requiring that its players be one year removed from high school graduation. But this made your job even tougher—even though the best high school players came to play for you, they only stayed one season. This left your program with little continuity and stability. What’s worse, you were left with little margin for error—if you didn’t recruit well each and every year, your team would be quickly passed by the competition.

There have been a number of basketball programs that have found success using a completely different approach to team building. Rather than aiming for top talent that, with luck, might be at school for two years, coaches at smaller, lesser-known schools (often called the “mid-majors”) recruit lesser-known, complementary, role-players who have little ambitions for the pros and will likely be a part of the team for four years. And even though these coaches won’t be working with the next Michael Jordan, many have created cohesive teams that have had great success. Gonzaga University has made the NCAA tournament every year since 1999, while Xavier University has reached the “dance” every year since 2001. George Mason reached the “Final Four” in 2006, while Butler University made it all the way to the championship game in 2010. It’s not just that these teams are lucky. They’re the product of an approach to team building that emphasizes cohesion, cooperation, and commitment to the team.

So, which approach to team building do you think would be the best for your program and, more importantly, your sanity? Will you continue to look for as many superstars as you can, knowing that they may not stay around too long? Or are you willing to pay more attention to complementary role players?

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each type of team?

2. If you were to decide on the superstar-player approach, how would you deal with the instability and enhance effectiveness within your organization?

3. If you were to take the team/role-player approach, what steps would you take to help the team members and outsiders deal with the perceived lack of talent?

Answer 1

There are many cons and pros of each type of teams and if we compare the two, there are considerable amount of discussion points that can help in taking the final call.

If we talk about the Superstar-player approach, it is very likely that the new players get the opportunity to learn from these professional and senior players. Also having a star player in the team brings large audiences in the stands and gives notable recognition to the team and coaching staff once they reach the bigger platforms like the NBA. But on the other hand, there is a big loss to the team when these celebrity players leave early by violating the college team contracts and it's almost impossible for the coaches to get a replacement in the middle of playing season resulting in team's low morale and bad performances.

Still, if a superstar-player approach has to be chosen, the pro-active approach has to be implemented wherein multiple team combinations have to be made with a mix of young talented kids and pro-players. And the combination has to be in equilibrium that if a player leaves the team in between, other players immediately take control of the situation. Also to retain the star players, more responsible roles have to be given along with a regular game practicing schedules. These players have to be nominated as Mentors to the young team members so that they act mature and become role models rather than just leaving the teams for their own benefits and give negative image.

In contrast, in a role-player approach, the young and less known players in pursuit of proving themselves, play to their maximum potential, which might in turn help the team win matches. These players likely to stay with the same clubs for longer period of times and motivate other team members too to remain consistent. The only factor that can discourage the team and its coaching staff is low audience turn up for their matches. But that can also be countered through the team's good performances against big ticket teams.

Though, influencing players to join such teams with role-player approach is difficult as there is a perception of lack of talent. The young players can only be attracted through the world of mouth approach, wherein the existing team members talk about the facilities and coaching team commitment among their peers. And this is only possible if these young players actually feel their importance in the team, their performances and achievements need to be highlighted to boost their confidence and make them feel as they stand nothing less than the other star players. Rewards and recognitions have to be given to the rising talents. This will not only motivate the new players to join the team but also help them to perform better than their counter parts.