Mark Lewis

Mark Lewis writes for Hoop Gurlz… he writes exceptionally well.  Very insightful.  Would I consider him a writer?  Probably not.  No disrespect intended.  Mark’s a basketball coach.  In my mind’s eye I still see him on the sideline, or out on the road recruiting…. minus the camera.

So many times in the recruiting process parents try to re-live their sports lives (or lack there of) through their child’s… HUGE MISTAKE.  Mark’s insight is accurate and helpful.  Mark says, “I’m not a parent…”  I disagree.  Biology may not have played a part in Mark’s “parenting,” but he “parented” many during his 20+ year coaching career.

I’m a parent.  We have a daughter.  Both my wife and I went off to college.  I blew out my ankle twice.  If I didn’t pick the school because I wanted to be there no matter what happened on the basketball court – I would have been miserable.  My wife did transfer because she was miserable.  We had both sides of the story.  Mark is spot on.

I hope Mark is around and I remember his words in 2018 when our daughter is making her decision.

In… Remember who has the final decision, Mark shares a great perspective into the process of recruiting for parents.  Who actually has the final decision is really important.

Parenting is tough. That fact is evidenced every day by rebellious kids and surrendering parents who just throw up their arms in exasperation. The approaches to guiding, teaching, preparing and supporting are varied and as daunting a challenge as any adult will face.

Now add to that the twists, turns and decisions that come with the recruiting of a prospective student-athlete and you’ve got a volatile mix that can tip the fragile relationship between a teenager and her parents.

I must confess, I’m not a parent. In fact my single greatest contribution to society may well be that I’ve added no offspring of mine to the population. However, I have had a ringside seat to a multitude of recruiting decisions through the years that have revealed some startling child-parent dynamics.

A lot of athletes go through the recruiting process with their parents at their side and come up with the right decision that makes sense for her future in the classroom, on the court and personally. The tug of war begins when the agenda of mom and dad start to override that of their daughter.

It’s only natural that parents have important considerations in their daughter’s choice of school. More often than not, it’s distance from home and the parents’ desire to remain a more active part in their daughter’s life and college experience. I’ve met parents who had a hope that their child would choose a certain type of coach. Some wanted a man, some wanted a woman, some want black or white and others still had a concern about the coach’s lifestyle. Sometimes it was religion and others it was the history, tradition or success of the program.

In recruiting matters concerning their children, parents often have trouble keeping their own needs caged up.

All those are fine and certainly legitimate concerns … if they’re those of the athlete as well.

Several times this summer I heard coaching friends of mine remind me of one of the scariest sentiments you come across in recruiting. They told me that this recruit or that recruit was out of the picture because their parents “won’t let them go there.” We’re not talking about off-the-wall choices of schools or coaches recently paroled from federal prison. Reputable universities and programs with caring, professional staffs that the prospect had an interest in were not an option because mom or dad said so. End of story. One coach shared with me that a prominent prospect with many options was given a final four list of schools from which to choose after her father had narrowed it down to schools that met his standards, not hers.

I had almost forgotten how common that thought process is and how absolutely frightening it must be for the athlete. At times it’s been said that the first three major decisions you face on your own are where to go to school, what you want to go into professionally, and who you’ll spend your life with. While I’m not too sure it’s all that cut and dried, I do know that the athletes who head off to school knowing that it’s the school of their own choosing face the challenge of college life with a better much better and more positive perspective.

It’s understandable that parents want their concerns heard in the recruiting process but in the end they’re not the ones going to school. Wanting a daughter close to home so you can see more of her games and share more time together is fine only if that’s what she wants as well. I had one father tell me that he had “invested too much” to let her go away to school. She had offers nationwide and at the highest level but if they weren’t close enough for him they weren’t a consideration for her. In who or what was his investment?

Some parents address the distance factor by saying they can’t afford to travel to games or can’t afford to bring her home during breaks. At the same time, you have to ask yourself if you can afford to force your agenda on her if she wants to go away to school. Sometimes the price is high for tradeoffs in recruiting.

I’ve heard of parents who offer up the “it’s her decision” line accompanied by a heavy dose of subliminal guilt. They tell her, “It’s your choice, but if you go away we won’t be able to afford family vacations or that car we promised you won’t happen, the holidays without you will be tough. But we want you to be happy!” Gee, thanks for the autonomy.

Express your thoughts but don’t impose them. It’s OK to tell her what’s important to you in her decision and it’s important that she understand why you have those concerns. At the same time it’s important that she knows that she has ownership of her decision and can base her ultimate choice on the things that are important to her.

One of the most insightful fathers I came across offered up this thought as his daughter considered going to school clear across country rather than choosing a program in her backyard. “I’d like her to stay close to home, but even more I’d love for her to be happy.” Smart guy.

By Dana O’Neil  ESPN.com

The image of college basketball has taken a beating in recent years, with rumors, murmurs and innuendo about cheating spreading like wildfire. Cynics believe no one is trying to follow the NCAA rulebook and that the game has fallen victim to the begging hands of agents, runners and hangers-on looking to collect on the next NBA star.

Is it that bad? What are the real problems? And is the NCAA doing enough to fix those problems?

To get the answers, ESPN.com went to the sources. During the EYBL Peach Jam last week, we interviewed 20 high-profile head coaches, representing each of the six power conferences. With the promise of full anonymity, we asked them to tell the truth about their sport.

And they did.

What is your least favorite part of summer recruiting?

No one likes the constant travel, the bad basketball and the emphasis on individual skills instead of team play.

Coaches travel everywhere to watch high school kids in July, but can’t keep an eye on their own.

But of the coaches surveyed, many — eight of the 20 — cited the time away from campus and their own players as the biggest problem with the summertime.

“I have my team over for a barbecue before I leave in July,” one coach said. “Little do they know it’s a farewell, not a welcome barbecue.”

“You walk into a living room and promise a mother that you’ll be there for her son,” said another. “And as soon as they get on campus, you’re gone.”

“They’re all on campus and I’m on the road,” added another. “If they do something stupid, I’m going to get fired — but I can’t be there to see what they’re doing.”

Some other popular grievances:

“What don’t I like? All of it. I don’t think there should be summer recruiting, period. They want to clean it up? Get rid of it.”

“I’ll tell you another problem — 70 percent of the kids we’re sitting here watching should be in summer school. They shouldn’t be here.”

“What don’t I like about summer? Everything. The babysitting, the ass-kissing. Does that cover it?”

If you could change, add or delete one rule in the NCAA Manual, what would it be?

Like the endless rulebook, the suggestions here were endless. In fact, there were so many opinions that it was impossible to get any sort of consensus.

One coach even offered a sweeping renovation: “All of it. Get rid of the whole thing. There are so many stupid rules in that thing that you can’t enforce. We need to throw it away.”

The hottest topics?

• April recruiting: In 2009, the NCAA board accepted a proposal from the Basketball Issues Committee to prevent college coaches from evaluating prospects in April, unless the prospects are on a high school, prep school or junior college campus. The idea was to keep high school kids in school.

“That passed with 60 percent of the vote,” one coach said. “Where are all those people who were in favor of eliminating it?”

Apparently overruled, because no one seems happy that the spring evaluation period essentially has been eliminated.

“They stopped it because they didn’t want the kids out of school,” one coach said. “Well, they’re still having the events, so why can’t we go?”

“Give me April and time in July off the road so I can be with my players,” another said, combining the two biggest complaints. “Everyone likes to talk about the APR [Academic Progress Rate] and they want to hold us accountable for the APR. Well, let me be on campus in the summer when my guys are getting started. Let me make sure they get off on the right foot.”

• Phone calls: In an age of immediate technology, most everyone agreed that the limit on phone calls was laughable, though there was one dissenter who said, “To me, your brain is like this [making a fist] and with enough phone calls to a kid, you can mold that brain by twisting it and turning it with the information.”

That coach, however, was a lone wolf screaming in the wind.

“Everyone has caller ID; everyone has unlimited texting. If you don’t want to talk to me, hit ignore. I hit ignore all the time.”

“I get a kick out of the phone calls. Who gets caught with that anymore? It’s a joke. They’re out there catching the guy with the one phone. How about the guy with two and three bat phones?”

While recruiting, coaches better keep their eye on the court and steer clear of the players.

• The so-called bump rule: Back in the day, summer league games ended with an on-court receiving line, with coaches lined up to glad-hand and talk to the prospects and their coaches.

It got so ridiculous that the NCAA decided to make the summer an evaluation-only period. That means no talking at all, as in no hello in a crowded hallway.

“We have the NCAA gestapettes around here like World Cup officials,” one coach said, referring to the NCAA representatives — most of whom are women — who monitor the summer circuit. “You smile at a kid, they give you a yellow card. Do it twice, it’s a red card and you’re off the road.”

How many of your peers do you trust?

Let’s put it this way: There is more honor in politics. Here’s the breakdown:

• Eight said flat-out no, they do not trust their peers.

“No, not at all. Maybe some of it is hearsay, but I don’t trust them at all.”

• Five said they trust fewer than 10 of their colleagues.

“How many? Five,” one coach said. Five percent? “No, five total,” he said. “And those five are my assistants.”

• Three said they actually have faith in their fellow coaches and trust “most.”

“I’d say 95 percent. There have been very few times in my career where someone did something absolutely underhanded to me. It’s happened, but not a lot.”

• One said 50 percent with a caveat.

“Half, but maybe I’m overly optimistic.”

• One dodged the question.

“That’s a loaded question. I think at heart, coaches are in it for the right reason. But I also know that everyone is trying to gain an advantage.”

• One evaded it.

“I would say I respect everybody because I know how hard they work.”

• One gave an answer within a non-answer.

College coaches generally play nice in public, but apparently don’t trust each other much privately.

“Well, everybody talks about you. You do this long enough, someone is going to say something bad about you. Last year someone said I didn’t go to practice.”

The one thing everyone agreed on: The lack of trust is disheartening.

“I would send my kid to play for seven coaches,” another said, before going on to name them. Those names, however, could compromise his identity, so they won’t be revealed here.

“It’s sad,” another coach said. “I grew up in this game with an idea of what I thought it was or what I thought it should be. Now I see it’s not like that at all. You have low- to mid-major guys aspiring to move up who will do anything to get there and you have guys who, once they get used to a certain lifestyle, will do whatever it takes to keep it.”

“There’s less of a brotherhood here than there is in football and that bothers me,” another added. “We have more guys stabbing each other in the back or using you guys [the media] to go after their agenda. That’s a big problem.”

How many programs do you think are committing major violations? Secondary? And why does no one snitch?

Here’s the silver lining for college basketball: Virtually every coach thinks that the majority of Division I programs are not intentionally breaking major rules. Of the 20, only four said 25 percent or more of the programs were, in the words of one coach, “committing felonies.”

“I had a question about e-mailing a kid and I asked another coach,” someone explained. “He thought we could; I thought we couldn’t. We both called our compliance directors and got two different answers.”

So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

“Here’s what I think happens a lot — a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It’s like there’s so much arrogance with them; they can’t believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.”

“I had a question about e-mailing a kid and I asked another coach. He thought we could; I thought we couldn’t. We both called our compliance directors and got two different answers.

Those who have been around the game the longest will tell you cheating has been going on as long as the game has been played.

“In the old days, the coaches had bird dogs. A guy would walk in a gym and you knew, ‘OK, he’s working for Frank McGuire; he’s working for Al McGuire.’ But funny enough, there was almost an honor in the fact that it was so out in the open. Now you don’t know who the bad guys are.”

Indeed, most everyone agrees that the cheaters have become far more nuanced. Gone are the days of the bags of money; in their place are people inventing ways to circumvent the meaning of a rule.

“I know guys help a kid get into a school that’s not really a school. Is it breaking a rule? Technically, no. Is it on the up and up? Absolutely not. I don’t think guys are climbing in windows and changing grades, but they are massaging things to make it easier for kids.”

“One of my players [who left early for the draft] was working out with another top-five draft pick,” a coach said. “They got to talking and my kid said something about not having money or whatever on campus. The other kid said, ‘My coach set up expense accounts all over town for me. Yours didn’t?”’

So with so much information on teams, why doesn’t anyone snitch?

“If you snitch, you’re Abar Rouse [the former Baylor assistant who taped the phone conversation with then-coach Dave Bliss and has since been ostracized from coaching]. That’s why no one talks. Plus, how do you prove it? I know stuff. I know stuff that is 100 percent happening right now, but the NCAA wants proof. How can I prove it?”

Which league is the cleanest? The dirtiest?

Congratulations, Jim Delany. Your league wins in a landslide. Of the 20 coaches surveyed, 11 said the Big Ten was the cleanest in the country. Three others cited the land where time stood still, also known as the scholarship-less Ivy League. (Although even the Ancient Eight earned one disparaging nod: “The Ivy League,” one coach said before pausing to add, “I mean the Ivy League a couple of years ago, before all of that stuff at Harvard.”)

But coaches cited the Big Ten’s perceived willingness to police itself and rosters that “made sense,” in which players traditionally come from the footprint of the schools they choose to attend.

“Look at Michigan State,” one coach said. “They’re there every year. When you see the dips, then you wonder. What happened? What didn’t happen? But a guy like Tom Izzo, he’s there every year because you know what his program is about and so do his players. There’s a consistency and an integrity.”

The SEC has made an effort to clean itself up, but its perception among coaches is still not favorable.

As for the dirtiest, despite Mike Slive’s best efforts to clean up the image, the Southeastern Conference was perceived as the worst, with three coaches partnering the SEC with the Big East and another tossing in the Big 12 (one coach went league-by-league, counting up schools). All in all, the SEC was named by 14 of the coaches.

“Oh no, it’s not just a myth,” one coach said about the SEC. “It’s the truth.”

Others weren’t so sure, however.

“Everyone says the SEC, but that’s because of [the] football thing,” said one coach. “That’s the standard answer, but I’m not sure it’s true.”

Added another: “The perception is the SEC doesn’t have a good reputation. I don’t know if that’s legit or fair. I was on the other side 10 years ago. If a program starts getting better, starts getting kids, the question is always the same: What’s he doing? He’s gotta be doing something. And that adds to the perception.”

One longtime coach said the image is slowly getting repaired.

“I do think by hiring guys like Anthony Grant at Alabama, the SEC is on the right track to cleaning things up.”

If you could land a top-five player but had to break a major rule to do it — knowing there was a zero percent chance of getting caught — would you?

This interesting ethical/moral question brought out a lot of interesting answers.

Only one coach hinted that he would consider it, asking: “Where am I in my career? It’s a risk-reward. If you’re at the beginning of your career or at the end of your contract, you might take the risk.”

And one other admitted, “Now would I break a minor rule? A secondary? Yes, absolutely.”

Everyone else said absolutely no way they would take the devil trade (though, naturally, everyone agreed that someone else would and has).

But here’s where it gets interesting. Six coaches said they wouldn’t do it because they couldn’t look at themselves in the mirror or because they wouldn’t knowingly break a rule, regardless of the outcome.

Most everyone else?

The rationale went like this: “You can’t coach him,” one coach explained. “He’d always have something over you, so how do you make him practice hard? How do you make him go to class?”

Or they pointed to strict liability, which means a head coach can be fired for the transgression of an assistant, or new contractual clauses as deterrents.

“A lot of universities now have clauses where, if you’re found guilty of a major violation, you have to pay for any costs incurred from the investigation,” a coach said. “You start adding up lawyer costs and that will stop people.”

Are rules being broken here this week at Peach Jam?

The simple answer: Yes. The more complicated: Define “rules.”

Only two coaches thought something truly nefarious was happening on the Georgia/South Carolina border.

“I may bump into a coach at a hotel and say hello,” said one, “but I also know there are people who purposely stay in a hotel because a team is there. That’s shady.”

“Are there meetings going on in hotels right now? Absolutely. The deals and plans are being hatched.”

Everyone else thought it was of the minor violation type — i.e., saying hello to a recruit in the hallway or his parents in a restaurant.

However, the silly bump rule can get downright dirty if taken to the extreme. Most of the NCAA reps are women, and women can’t go into men’s rooms. There’s a real paranoia that some coaches are following prospects or their coaches or parents into the restrooms to broker deals.

“I don’t know. I’ve never won a recruit in the bathroom,” one coach said. “Maybe I need to pee more.”

How often during the recruitment of a player does someone — a coach, a parent, someone else — ask for something in return? How does it happen?

Here’s where it really gets ugly. This hasn’t happened to every coach (12 said they’ve faced it directly), but all 20 of them know it goes on.

While at tournaments, coaches attempt to evaluate but often run into people with their hands out.

“It happened to me this morning,” one coach said. “I had a guy try to hand me a résumé, get them a job.”

Sometimes it’s subtle; sometimes it’s overt, but the implication is understood — if you want to recruit my player/son, you’ll need to take care of me first.

“It will start off as, ‘You know, he’s had a part-time job and now that he’s going to college, I won’t have that income … what can you do to help me?”’ one coach said. “Or it’s, ‘I’ve never missed one of his games. How am I going to afford to travel to see him play now?”’

“I almost cringe when I have a job opening,” another coach said. “Here it comes. I used to get calls from other coaches. Now it’s AAU coaches, trying to place their guys.”

No one admitted to completing the transaction, yet all 20 said they lost a player because they chose not to complete the transaction.

“I think a lot of times they’re just floating it out there, see if you’ll bite,” another coach said. “But you know what? If you don’t, someone else might.”

What is the biggest problem facing college basketball?

Finally, 100 percent consensus: It’s agents and runners. Not only are they sullying the game, but they’re also changing the way players look at their college careers.

That’s no news flash. Agents have long been considered the boogeyman of college athletics. What’s interesting? How they’re doing business:

• Loans or lines of credit: “Say you’ve got a top-10 kid but you don’t have a lot of money,” one coach explained. “The agent will get a line of credit through his financial adviser for you in your name. When your kid goes pro, you pay it back.”

• Prepaid debit cards: Slightly different than a loan, these allow an agent to offer a constant stream of cash by giving a prospect or a prospect’s family member a card with a cash value that can be constantly stuffed with more money, not unlike an actual bank account. The kicker: As of now, the NCAA has no way of tracking the transaction.

“That’s the latest one I’ve heard,” said one coach.

• Tying in to a summer league program: Numerous coaches said that agents now have ties to specific summer league teams and that the people serving as coaches are actually already agents’ runners.

Another coach, who recently coached a top-five draft pick, said that every agent who came to sign his player offered the same thing: “If you sign with me, I’ll deliver you this guy and that guy. Every single one of them is tied to an AAU team. Every one. They cook the deal with the AAU coach. He gets the kid on campus and then cuts a cut.”

• Hiring parents as “consultants”: Shoe companies sponsor virtually every summer league team. The team wears the shoe company’s gear and plays in the shoe company’s sanctioned events.

“I’ve heard of shoe companies hiring parents at ridiculous salaries as their consultants,” one coach said. “Parents are making a big comeback. They look at their children as property or dollar signs, not children. They all see the big cashout.”

The big cashout, of course, is the NBA, the albatross hanging around many a coach’s neck. Hemmed in by the league’s age limit, many coaches are wondering what exactly they’re doing for a living.

“Parents are making a big comeback. They look at their children as property or dollar signs, not children.

“We don’t coach anymore,” one coach said. “This job isn’t about coaching. It’s about acquiring talent.”

“What’s happening at Kentucky, all these one-and-dones, that’s not good for our game,” another added.

Indeed, many coaches thought that the one-and-done rule has diminished the value of a college career — even a one-year college career. They point to players who are more concerned with their individual stats or who are so preoccupied with their future, they aren’t paying attention to their present.

“I told a kid recently, ‘If you say NBA one more time I’m walking out the door,”’ a coach said. “If you’re good enough, you’ll leave after one year or two years or three years. I’m here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.”

Do you have faith in the NCAA to monitor and control college basketball?

Sort of.

All but three coaches thought the NCAA was at least trying to get a handle on the problems of college basketball. The catch? No one thought it could succeed.

“They’re trying,” said one coach, echoing the sentiments of the majority. “But no matter what the rule, people are going to cheat and the problem is, the best of the best, you’re never going to catch them.”

The coaches interviewed didn’t seem to have a whole lot of confidence in the NCAA.

Coaches pointed to an unfair numbers advantage — more coaches than NCAA investigators — and a savvier coaching fraternity as the top problems.

And others thought the organization was little more than a bureaucratic hypocrisy.

“The NCAA is stealing money from television and they don’t want to kill the golden goose,” one said. “Look at the people on the NCAA committees. The guys who are doing things the right way, they aren’t on the NCAA committees. Why is that?”

There’s also an interesting gender dynamic at work. As noted earlier, almost all of the NCAA investigators are women and they are policing a man’s game. That doesn’t go unnoticed by the coaches, nor does it help the investigators get taken seriously all the time.

Along with the coach who called the women, “the gestapettes,” another said, “If the NCAA was serious, they’d hire someone who knew what they were doing, not these women out here trying to get a husband.”

Are you optimistic/pessimistic about the game?

Mixed bag here. Most coaches (15 of 20) thought the game was more scrutinized and regulated than it’s ever been and believe that the sport is on its way to redemption. Yet even they concede there are major problems with college basketball’s image and its actions.

“I think there are more good than bad out there,” one coach said. “But if you keep saying something, people believe it and we keep saying it. Things have been going on for 50 years and they’ll be going on 50 years from now, but we make it seem like it’s the worst it’s ever been now. I don’t think so. I don’t know if the game has ever been better or the competition has ever been better.”

Others, however, were far more pessimistic.

They see coaches perceived as rulebreakers being rehired — and the NCAA, in their opinion, is doing little to stop them.

“I sometimes wonder, ‘Can I survive in this profession without compromising who I am?”’ one said. “I’m not sure about that answer and it really disappoints me.”

Added another: “I know this: I’m glad I’m not 40 and just getting started in this business. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but I would say I’m a little more pessimistic about things than I was a few years ago. It just seems like we can’t stop it. The bad guys keep winning.”

Monica Wright

Monica Wright playing Ryan Gomes is H-O-R-S-E.

http://www.sikids.com/Horse

Moni has to learn to talk the talk and walk the walk!

In reviewing game film of Minnesota Lynx rookie guard Monica Wright, Seattle Storm coach Brian Agler noted that she is a confident go-to player and liked “how physical she is for being that young.”

Monica Wright

Wright wasted no time in person showing Agler and the Storm just how good she could be when she came to Key Arena on Wednesday evening.

On an inbounds play during Minnesota’s first possession, Wright came around a screen on the right wing and received the ball from forward Hamchetou Maiga-Ba and in seemingly one fluid motion elevated over Tanisha Wright for quick jumper falling away for the first two points of the game.

That was just a sneak preview of what was to come.

In the first five minutes before a Storm timeout with 4:44 left in the first quarter, Wright had already scored 6 points on 3-5 shooting capped off by a strong layup off of two feet after driving by Wright on the left wing and pulling a crossover on a rotating Lauren Jackson in the middle of the key.

It wasn’t just that the Lynx were running plays to Wright, it’s that she so smoothly showed the ability to score in multiple ways and an undeterred tenacity even in the face of a stalwart defender like Lauren Jackson.

In catching up with her after the game, Wright was definitely disappointed with the Lynx’s 79-76 loss, but relieved by the breakthrough performance in which she finished with 19 points on 8-16 shooting in 34 minutes.

“It just felt like it was a weight lifted off my shoulders,” said Wright. “It was just something I needed to do for the team to be in the game and be able to win.”

The weight Wright was referring to was the 8-31 shooting in her first two games against the Tulsa Shock and Washington Mystics, which some might see as a harbinger of inefficient volume shooting to come. However, Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve shared a more nuanced analysis of her performance with Swish Appeal prior to Wednesday night’s road game against the Seattle Storm.

“You know, without Monica Wright to start the Tulsa game, we don’t get off to a double figure lead,” said Reeve when asked about Wright’s 6-18 and 7 turnover performance against the Shock. “So we didn’t really have a whole lot to say to her. We actually took her out at the end. And we’ve got some veterans that we need to count on. It should not be a situation where you count Monica Wright to get through this time. So I’m more interested in letting Moni just kind of adjust to our league and when she plays well obviously we’ll be really good, it’s just going to take some time.”

Between Agler’s observations of the Lynx offense, Reeve’s faith in her rookie, and Wright’s self-assessment of her game, it might almost seem inevitable that Wright ends up becoming a great scorer in this league. Perhaps needless to say, Wright was a bit better than the Storm expected.

Interesting… The Sporting News (Digital Edition) released today all the Men’s Division I basketball attendance figures for the 2009 – 10 season.  There is both the Top 100 individual schools as well as the conference by conference breakdown.

The page is linked below.

Division I Men’s 2009-10 Attendance

We’re not permitted to work with players individually in the summer.  Having them just come to campus, take classes, lift weights and play pick up isn’t (on it’s own) going to get it done.  They need PGC.

The below article is by Dena Evans and gives you just a taste of her mindset and the teaching going on at PGC.

Go to the PGC Website and listen to what the players and coaches say about their experiences.  Trust me, it will help your players improve and your team win.

Point Guard College is very unique. It not only teaches the skills needed to become a great player, but goes far beyond that by imparting basketball knowledge and passion to players and coaches. PCG helps players to think and “play smart”. It is an intense, no-nonsense learning experience for high school and college-aged male and female student-athletes. Not like typical basketball camps, it’s called a “college” for a reason. The course curriculum is specially designed to teach basketball players to play the game intelligently, to train purposefully, to be “coaches on the court,” and to be true leaders during games, in practice, during the off-season, and in everyday life.

This article was written by Dena Evans, and discusses important concepts that will help good point guards become better… beyond skills and drills.” - Coach Gels

RACECAR: Seven Key Concepts that Every Good Point Guard Needs to Know by Dena Evans

Dena Evans was a truly consummate point guard, who in terms of sheer physical stature, probably did more with less than any point guard that ever played the game. Only 5’4″ tall, Dena became a star at the University of Virginia, where she led her teams to three NCAA Final Four appearances and a 118-17 record during her four-year career. As a senior at UVA, Dena was voted the Best Point Guard in the nation and received the Frances P. Naismith award as the country’s top collegiate player under 5’7″. In 2002, Dena was named to the Atlantic Coast Conference’s 50th Anniversary All-Time Women’s Basketball Team. Dena is the Owner and Chairman of Point Guard College (PGC) (www.pointguardcollege.com), a series of basketball camps that use classroom sessions, video analysis, and specially designed competitive drills and games to teach sound fundamentals, smart basketball, and a complete package of leadership skills. The following article is excerpted from one of Dena’s talks at a PGC session in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada) in March 2004.

We use a lot of acronyms at Point Guard College. This acronym—RACECAR—stands for seven critical concepts that every good point guard should understand.

1, 2) The “R” and the “A” in RACECAR go together. A good point guard will always Race the ball from Arc-to-arc. By ‘arc to arc,’ we mean between the three-point lines. A good point guard is always racing the ball up the court and trying to get inside the three-point line as quickly as possible. But “race” doesn’t mean “rush.” Instead, “racing” means bringing the ball up the court at a speed that makes the defense uncomfortable. You can race the ball up the court in two ways: (1) with a good, fast dribble, or (2) with a pass. But you shouldn’t always walk the ball up the court. A good point guard will always race the ball up the court and take advantage of a disorganized defense. You should always put maximum pressure on the defense.

3) The “C” in RACECAR stands for Control — control of your emotions, control of your body, control of the basketball, control of the game. Control is the number one point guard commandment: There’s nothing more important for a point guard than to be than under control.

I was watching a high school game a few months ago, and there was a point guard that was playing really fast and taking a whole bunch of shots. He was actually making some of those shots, but he was also making bad decisions, passing while in the air and throwing the ball out-of-bounds. And the guy sitting next to me said, “Man! That point guard is keeping his team in the game!” And I didn’t say anything out loud, but I was thinking, “Yeah, and he’s keeping the other team in the game too.” No coach wants a point guard who is keeping both teams in the game. When you have the ball in your hands, your coach should feel relaxed and calm and confident—not nervous and worried that you’re going to take a bad shot or do something off-balance.

You should start to be almost arrogant about your control; you should look for ways to race the ball up the court and still show off your control. And one great way to show off control is to use dynamic jump stops in the lane. Anytime you can race the ball from arcto- arc, get inside the three-point line and then jump stop, you’ll get a chance to make something good happen for your team.

4) The “E” in RACECAR means that you Eagerly Hunt the Paint. The word “hunt” means “to seek out,” “to go after.” A great point guard—Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd— will eagerly, constantly look for opportunities to hunt the paint. People always ask, “How does Steve Nash make those passes?” “How do Chris Paul and Jason Kidd get so many assists?” Well, watch them play. They’re always eagerly trying to get into the paint. They know that’s where they’re most dangerous to the defense.

But you’ve got to know what to do in the paint once you get there. Lots of players get into the paint and then HURRY. And there’s nothing that will make you look more out of control than hurrying when you get in the paint. Instead of hurrying in the paint, you should stop and get FEROCIOUS. I like the word “ferocious” because it connotes, not just something physical, but also a mental attitude. When you get to the paint, you’re going to get hit, you’re going to get slapped, you’re going to get bumped, you’re going to get knocked around. So the first thing that you have to do is to stop with one of those dynamic jump stops and get ferocious. Then you want to assess the situation. Instead of hurrying, I want you to HUPPPPY—that’s spelled with four P’s.

The first “P” in HUPPPPY stands for Powerful. You’ve got to get powerful, because you’re going to get bumped, you’re going to get knocked around. And, again, the best way to get powerful is with a dynamic jump stop, where you’re tough, you’re ferocious, you’re on two feet, and no one can knock you off-balance.

The next “P” stands for Purposeful. You must be decisive! You can’t try simply just to avoid mistakes. Dwayne Wade led the NBA in scoring this year, and Chris Paul led the league in assists. But both Dwayne Wade and Chris Paul were also in the top ten in the NBA in turnovers committed. This doesn’t mean that you should be sloppy or careless with the basketball; but you can’t be tentative. You must be purposeful and decisive when you’re in the paint.

And then, when you get into the lane, you want to Peek. That’s the fourth “P” in HUPPPPY: Get into the habit of peeking at the rim. A lot of point guards get into the lane and only look to pass. Instead, when you get into the lane, take your eyes up to the rim, and all of a sudden, everything will change: Defenders will start running at you; you’ll see all four of your teammates; passing angles will open up. So get in the habit of peeking at the rim.

The fourth “P” stands for fake—which we spell PHAKE at Point Guard College. A good fake in the lane takes only one-eighth of a second; but that one-eighth of a second will buy you the time to do something special for your team.

. 5) The next “C” in RACECAR stands for CLEVERNESS. Good point guards are very clever. They use a lot of fakes; they’re tricky and deceptive. The number one rule for fakes is to use more of them. I’m talking about pass fakes, ball fakes, foot fakes, shot fakes. Use fakes, fakes, and more fakes. Fakes don’t require any special athletic ability. You just have to remember to use them. Good point guards—players like Sue Bird, Tony Parker and Diana Taurasi—are always toying with the defense. These players can make their opponents look foolish, not with their athletic ability, but because of their cleverness.

7) The next “A” in RACECAR is also related with faking. This “A” stands for ARRUM—or ‘air ‘em’. Anytime you get into the lane and you have doubts about your ability to get your shot off, add an ARRUM and get a defender to leave his feet. If you stay low and on-balance, peek at the rim, and give one good pump fake, defenders will leave their feet again and again. That’s because most fans love shot blockers who can slap a shot into the ninth row. And because most players love to please fans, from now until the end of time, you will play against players that love to leave their feet on defense. You should be on a mission to make these big, athletic players look foolish. Add an ARRUM and get them to leave their feet. If you can get a defender up in the air, it’s easy to create all kinds of passing angles, draw a foul, or even get an ‘and-one.’

7) The last “R” in RACECAR stands for REMINDERS. If the only way you lead is to lead by example, then you are a very poor leader. At any given point in a game, there are at least thirty reminders you could give that will help your teammates play better: “He’s a shooter. Get your hand up!” “Watch the screen! Get over the top!” “She’s left-handed! Bring her my way!” But reminders are only useful if you give them before they are needed. Let’s say that Benny and I are teammates, and that it’s an important possession at the end of the game; maybe the score is tied and we need a stop. And let’s say that Benny is guarding the other team’s best three-point shooter, and that his man comes off a screen and hits a three-point shot. And I glare at Benny and say, “C’mon Benny! He’s their best shooter! Get your hand up!” Does that have any impact at all on the play that just happened? No! I’m not reallyreminding Benny; I’m criticizing Benny for not doing his job. A good point guard would recognize that situation before it happens. A good point guard would think, “Okay, this is a key possession, and Benny’s got their best shooter.” And, at that point a good point guard would say, “Hey, Benny! He’s a shooter! Get your hand up!” Now your reminder can have an impact on the play. Now Benny’s got it in his head, “Oh, yeah—he’s a shooter. I’m can’t let him get a shot off.” Get in the habit of giving constant reminders, but give them before the play happens, before it’s too late.

Dick DeVenzio’s legacy lives on in the programs at Point Guard College (www.pointguardcollege.com), a series of basketball camps that use classroom sessions, video analysis and specially designed competitive drills and games to teach individual development, smart basketball, and a complete package of leadership skills.
(Copyright© 2006 by Dena Evans.)

The WNBA Draft is today!  For Monica Wright, her family as well as a host of others, today is a special day.  In a little less than an hour, everything Monica has known as a player changes.  There will be pay checks, endorsements, appearances, media, pictures, travel.  Exciting times!  Congratulations to all, enjoy the moment and the day – it’s special.  Follow the DRAFT HERE. See our 2010 WNBA MOCK DRAFT HERE.

From By DAVE UTNIK

On the rare occasions when she allowed herself to look beyond the goal directly before her, Monica Wright imagined what it might feel like to walk onto the court for the first time as a professional basketball player.

She’s never been one to assume anything. The University of Virginia’s all-time scoring leader has spent her entire career pursuing one small milestone after another.

Looking too far ahead isn’t her thing. Wright prepares for the moment and then moves on. It’s a personal rule that has worked out well because everywhere she goes, success ultimately follows.

But even Wright has day dreams.

Monica Wright's Draft Day

And her happily-ever-after visions have usually involved playing in the Women’s National Basketball Association.

Even as a high school sophomore, when she was just beginning to discover her potential as one of the nation’s elite women’s basketball players, it was assumed by everyone around her that Wright would play in the WNBA.

Her talent was that obvious.

Almost everything Wright has accomplished over the past decade—two high school state championships at Forest Park and first-team Associated Press All-America honors at Virginia—has led her to this afternoon’s draft in Secaucus, N.J., where the best player in Prince William County history is expected to be among the top five selections.  She won’t get past the second pick.

“I can see myself around the perimeter playing maybe one through three. That’s where I have been playing throughout my whole career,” Wright said. “But I feel the most comfortable at shooting guard.

“As I have heard and learned, this draft is going to be guard heavy so it’s going to be exciting to see where everybody goes.”

Pre-draft buzz has Wright reaching the podium within 10 minutes, most likely as the No. 2 or No. 3 overall pick—shortly after the Connecticut Sun select UConn center Tina Charles with the first pick.

Here is a quick look at where Wright could be headed:

Connecticut Su

1st and 7th overall pick

After finishing sixth in the Eastern Conference last season at 16-18, the Sun had a busy offseason. They acquired 2009 first-round pick Renee Montgomery from Minnesota in exchange for the first overall pick. On Wednesday, they traded guard/forward Amber Holt and center Chante Black to the Tulsa Shock to get the No. 7 pick.

Connecticut, which desperately needs a center, is expected to select Charles. The last two No. 1 selections—Angel McCoughtry and Candice Parker—went on to win rookie of the year honors.

The Sun would certainly choose Wright at No. 7, but she probably won’t last that long.

Minnesota Lynx

2nd and 3rd overall pick

The Lynx seem to be a perfect fit for Wright, who led the Atlantic Coast Conference in scoring and was named the NCAA defensive player of the year.

First-year coach Cheryl Reeves wants defense to be a priority after Minnesota gave up the second-most points in the league a year ago. And that is Wright’s forte.  ACC and National Defensive Player of the year, check.

The thing about Wright is that she also creates match-up problems with her speed and versatility. She’s started at point guard, shooting guard and small forward at one point or another in her career. The Lynx appear to be set in the backcourt after acquiring Lindsey Whalen from the Sun to play alongside Candice Wiggins.

Chicago Sky

4th overall pick

The Sky nearly made the playoffs for the first time since joining the league in 2005 and Wright is just the kind of athlete who could finally lead them there.

If the Lynx don’t select Wright with one of their two picks, then the Sky almost assuredly will despite five guards on the active roster, including point guard Kristi Toliver, from Maryland, and Jia Perkins.

The Sky bolstered their front court by getting center Courtney Paris from Sacramento in the dispersal draft and Shameka Christon is a trade with the Liberty.

What they need now is an impact scorer. With one pick in the first two rounds, Chicago will have to draft wisely.

San Antonio Silver Star

5th overall pick

The Stars are the first 2009 playoff team to make a pick in this year’s draft. After nearly upsetting eventually champion Phoenix in the Western Conference semifinals, there aren’t many weaknesses.

They addressed a need for rebounding by trading for center Michelle Snow, signing Tasha Humphrey and getting forward Laura Harper in the dispersal draft.

All-Star Becky Hammon and shooting guard Roneeka Hodges are the likely backcourt starters, but Wright has a way of blending in almost anywhere.

Washington Mystic

6th overall pick

It’s probably wishful thinking. As wonderful as it would be for Wright to play—and star—in her hometown, there is very little chance of her landing in D.C.

The Mystics are one of the league’s up-and-coming teams after a string of successful drafts and the recent signing of all-star guard Katie Smith, who should play along with Alana Beard and Lindsey Harding in a three-guard backcourt.

After reaching the Eastern Conference semifinals last season, the Mystics could still use another versatile small forward. Maybe they’ll be lucky enough to find Wright still on the draft board at No. 6. It’s not likely though.

According to forms filed with the federal government, these schools reported the largest deficits for their women’s basketball programs in regard to the 2008-09 season:

School Deficit

1. Kansas $3,177,605

2. South Carolina $3,155,424

3. Arkansas $3,120,026

4. Texas A&M $2,996,821

5. Virginia $2,933,888

6. Auburn $2,874,009

7. Duke $2,836,386

8. Auburn $2,761,504

9. Oklahoma $2,677,885

10. Northwestern $2,652,529

11. Texas $2,639,111

12. Georgia Tech $2,479,525

The cost of Big 12 basketball

As this chart shows, one-third of the Big 12 schools lost money on basketball during the 2008-09 season, largely because of the massive deficits associated with their women’s teams. The revenues and expenses listed for each school were taken from forms filed with the federal government. The revenues listed for Baylor, a private school, may include subsidies from the university.

Texas

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,918,013/ 14,770,278/ 16,688,291

Expenses: 4,557,124/ 7,891,661/ 12,448,785

Profit or loss -2,639,111/ 6,878,617/ 4,239,506

Texas A&M

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,049,951/ 8,984,818/ 10,034,769

Expenses: 4,046,772/ 6,219,442/ 10,266,214

Profit or loss: -2,996,821/ 2,765,376/ -231,445

Texas Tech

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,746,714/ 6,479,893/ 8,226,607

Expenses: 2,734,893/ 3,831,828/ 6,566,721

Profit or loss: -988,179/ 2,648,065/ 1,659,886

Baylor

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 4,082,782/ 4,595,742/ 8,678,524

Expenses: 4,082,782/ 4,595,742/ 8,678,524

Profit or loss: 0/ 0/ 0

Oklahoma

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,448,696/ 6,753,149/ 8,201,845

Expenses: 4,126,551/ 5,409,808/ 9,536,359

Profit or loss: -2,677,855/ 1,343,341/ -1,334,514

Oklahoma State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 427,816/ 11,052,293/ 11,480,109

Expenses: 2,118,334/ 5,166,055/ 7,284,389

Profit or loss: -1,690,518/ 5,886,238/ 4,195,720

Colorado

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 389,436/ 3,993,889/ 4,383,325

Expenses: 2,710,495/ 3,951,423/ 6,661,918

Profit or loss: -2,321,059/ 42,466/ -2,278,593

Iowa State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 1,541,423/ 6,197,669/ 7,739,092

Expenses: 2,996,712/ 4,296,701/ 7,293,413

Profit or loss: -1,455,289/ 1,900,968/ 445,679

Kansas

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 315,529/ 15,737,145/ 16,052,674

Expenses: 3,493,134/ 8,219,362/ 11,712,496

Profit or loss: -3,177,605/ 7,517,783/ 4,340,178

Kansas State

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 765,006/ 5,656,041/ 6,421,047

Expenses: 2,513,866/ 4,608,889/ 7,122,755

Profit or loss: -1,748,860/ 1,047,152/ -701,708

Missouri

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 354,849/8,857,828/9,212,677

Expenses: 2,028,463/4,528,720/6,557,183

Profit or loss: -1,673,614/4,329,108/2,655,494

Nebraska

Women/Men/Total

Revenue: 695,026/6,297,232/6,992,258

Expenses: 2,247,575/3,961,218/6,208,793

Profit or loss: -1,552,549/2,336,014/783,465

“This is definitely a time of year that I look forward to annually as I get to announce the 12 finalists for The State Farm Wade Trophy,” said WBCA CEO Beth Bass. “The prestige of this award goes without saying, and I can only imagine how excited these 12 student-athletes are to be on this list. We wish them the best of luck in the remainder of their seasons.”

The short list includes last year’s winner, Maya Moore of Connecticut, as well as her teammate, Tina Charles. Ohio State (Jantel Lavender, Samantha Prahalis) and Stanford (Jayne Appel, Nnemkadi Ogwumike) also had two players apiece on the list of finalists.

The complete list of 12 finalists includes:

This is one of those moments… Thank You Monica.

Monica Wright

Virginia senior guard Monica Wright (Woodbridge, Va.) has been named to theAssociated Press All-America first team, the organization announced Tuesday (March 30). Wright becomes the first Cavalier to earn first-team honors.

Wright is joined on the 2010 squad by Tina Charles (Connecticut), Kelsey Griffin (Nebraska), Jantel Lavender (Ohio State) and Maya Moore (Connecticut).

“This is a tremendous honor and I can honestly breathe a sigh of satisfaction knowing that four years of hard work has paid off,” Wright said. “To be mentioned in the same breath as some of the all-time great players at Virginia is wonderful. I obviously would like to thank my coaches and teammates but also a big thanks goes out to my family for all their support throughout the years.”

Wright wrapped up her illustrious career at Virginia as the Cavaliers’ all-time leading scorer with 2,540 points, a total that ranks third on the ACC’s all-time scoring list. This past season, Wright set the UVa single-season scoring mark with 734 points, breaking her own school-record of 696 points set in 2008-09. She averaged 23.7 points per game, which led the ACC and ranked seventh in the nation, and she tallied eight 30-point games and 22 20-point games in 2009-10.

She was named the WBCA National Defensive Player of the Year on Monday (March 29), and averaged 3.6 steals and 6.5 rebounds per game this season. Wright tied the school-record with 10 steals in a game vs. Liberty on Dec. 29.

Wright was named the ACC Player of the Year, ACC Defensive Player of the Year and first team All-ACC as a senior. She was also named to the ACC All-Tournament second team and was tabbed the Richmond Times-Dispatch State Player of the Year.

Wright has started and played in every game during her four years with the Cavaliers. She was a State Farm Coaches’ All-America Team regional finalist as a junior and sophomore and was the ACC Rookie of the Year her freshman year. She is majoring in sociology.

Associated Press All-America First Team
Tina Charles, Connecticut
Kelsey Griffin, Nebraska
Jantel Lavender, Ohio State
Maya Moore, Connecticut
Monica Wright, Virginia

Second Team
Jayne Appel, Stanford
Alysha Clark, Middle Tennessee State
Brittney Griner, Baylor
Nnemka Ogwumike, Stanford
Andrea Riley, Oklahoma State

Third Team
Elena Delle Donne, Delaware
Victoria Dunlap, Kentucky
Amber Harris, Xavier
Danielle Robinson, Oklahoma
Jasmine Thomas, Duke