MBB: NESCAC

[madzillagd]

Cool to get an inside perspective from someone that lived it.  I really don't think there is a right way or a wrong way, there's definitely going to be +/- to any decision a coach makes and roster size is just one of them.  Since we do have someone with recent experience in the mix, I'm going to indulge myself a bit more on the development stuff since we still have time...

I've always been of the mindset that a player really does the bulk of their personal development in the offseason.  Hitting the weights, getting shots up, skill work - a lot of individual hours are put in improving your own game.  Players that don't put in this work are not going to be getting much better from year to year, even if they try hard during the season.  Most incoming freshman haven't really understood the level of effort and dedication needed yet and so it isn't until after their freshman year that they can apply the lessons they've learned.

Open gym and practice is about guys learning to play with their teammates, understanding the schemes and learning their role.  Obviously this the opportunity for the coach to establish priorities and what the team will focus day in and day out.  This is team development more than player development.

Finally, you've got the games.  In my opinion nothing can substitute for game experience because it adds a level of pressure that you really can't duplicate in practice.  Some players handle the pressure well, can focus on their role and perform well right from the start.  Other players may struggle in game action losing sight of what their role is and it takes them longer to build a comfort level. 

If I were to put a % on these in terms of importance in individual player development I would say: Offseason work 50%, Practice 25%, Game 25%.  Curious to what others think.  Although you are spending far less time on the floor in games, I still think it is as valuable an experience as the hours you spend in practice (for personal development, not team development). 

[amh63]

Madz.....thanks for laying out your approach/thoughts to the game.  One factor that is often overlooked and not discussed openly to the general public is the leadership role of players....whether they are bench players or starters.  Amherst's HFC is one that talks about having leaders and I believe Coach Hixon factors leadership qualities in his efforts to built a team.  Amherst has in recent years developed a LEADS program (see Athletic website for details) and Hixon has been involved.  I believe, all sport team potential captains are invited to participate.
Oh yes, in my search for info, I read Coach Hixons Jan. letter of last season.  He list 5 new recruits expected to join the team....seems reasonable after loosing 5 players to graduation.  I point this out since Madz noted 4 FY players for Amherst.  Really doesn't change the discussions to date.  To muddle the waters some more, last year's posting noted the presence of a 6'10" walk-on during try-outs. I confirmed that there was a tall person trying out.  Wonder if he will try-out again.

[TheHerst2and4]

Amh63- things are going well - hope to see you up at Amherst for a game - no worries on the "outing" I'm not concerned with revealing my identity
Madz- couldn't agree more on the importance of the offseason and game experience. Both offer advantages that are difficult to duplicate in practices in-season. My point was only to justify a potential reason for holding a heavy roster.
I think reserving a roster spot is truly unique to the player. There are guys who look great and develop in practice who don't perform when their number is called. Then there are plenty of guys who don't seem to stand out during practice but are able to turn it on during game-time.
Also I'm sure, as you noted, roster size is connected to a coach's preference. Coach Hixon has seen success with keeping extra "walk-ons" on his roster (in recent memory guys like Franklin Perry, Russell Lee, Mike Hosely). I'm sure some other coaches haven't seen the pay-off.

[nescac1]

As a general matter, I think it's probably a positive if a coach can carry more players, just because you never know when someone will unexpectedly develop over time, it's like more ping pong bolls in the lottery.  Wash. U., which recently won two and nearly three national titles, usually has a roster well over 20 players, as another example of where that approach can work.  At NESCAC, especially the smaller NESCAC schools, this is simply usually not really feasible, due to a combination of recruiting constraints (coaches only get a few recruits per year, in most cases) and budgetary constraints (bigger roster does = more costs; also, Amherst has a bigger staff than some other NESCAC schools, so they have the coaching resources and presumably travel budget to support a larger team).  Now, if I were a player, I'm not sure I'd want to risk never getting off the bench as the 19th guy on a team vs. getting a chance to play early as the 10th guy, but alas I am not a player, and obviously it has worked out for guys like Herst2and4. 

Of course, if you have two or three all-American caliber guys on the team at once, which has been the formula for the most successful Williams teams (Crotty/Coffin/DeMuth, Wang/Whittington/Schultz, Chapin/Nogelo/Hunt), you don't really need to worry as much about who your ninth guy in the rotation is going to be, but even fewer schools are fortunate enough to collect that much high-level talent in one group of recruits.  Wash U. is the rare team that was able to do both -- have an enormous, incredibly deep roster, with three or four all-Americans leading the way.  Which is why Wash U. had the most successful run in recent D-3 history ...

[amh63]

Remember meeting the coach of Wash. U at the post-game celebrations in Salem/Roanoke after the 2007 championship game.  Also after the 2008 season in which Wash. U won their first of two (back to back) titles.  In one of those title season, there was a fine player that was injured the previous season.  Since Wash. U. has graduate schools, the player was a grad. student.
The dominant BB program at WashU up to then was the WBB program with multi-championships.  The WBB program always carried large squads and had a strong JV program and up to 6 extra coaches.  I made some comments about the size of the squad on another board....especially after Wash U. beat Amherst for the title in OT using a grad. student player.  Squad size didn't have an impact the following year when Amherst won the National title.
Though the men's coach of Wash. U. may have taken some advice from the women's program, it is a bit ironic that Amherst's woman's BB coach has taken a different approach than Coach Hixon.  He keeps a small squad.  He may have learned a bit in the title lost when the WBB team faded in OT after losing the lead in the last few seconds of the game from missed foul shots and a tired team.
Still, whether the coach subs a great deal or not, keeps a large squad or a small squad, it still takes good recruiting of talent and building a team with good team chemistry, etc.  In short, how to best use the talent that you recruited.
"Herst"...look forward to it.  Maybe also at Homecoming....come to my class tent.  Bring your father..missed his opinions.

[Old Guy]

Big squad vs small squad: pardon my pragmatism, but Ws & Ls are important in this discussion. If I'm on the bench and my team wins as many games as Amherst (or Middlebury lately), I'm happy to be on a championship team, making a contribution in practice. I am making those stalwarts who get big minutes in games better players. I'm a part of their success on the court.

If I can't get off the bench and the team is losing, I am not a happy camper (though perhaps I am working hard to be a good teammate) and my father (why would you ever trust the evaluation of a dad?) is apoplectic. We can lose with me on the court as well as those guys the coach is sending out there. More people on the bench can mean more unhappy people.

Chemistry requires a delicate balance. A coach wants his substitutes to be confident in their abilities and believe they can contribute effectively in games. A winning coach is obviously playing the right guys. Criticism is muted by victory. A losing coach is, in the view of many (especially dads!), playing the wrong guys. Everyone's a critic.

Next year's Middlebury team is potentially the deepest in talent I've ever seen at Middlebury (four decades). Reports I've heard about the frosh are positive indeed. This means Middlebury players 5-15+ can all play and believe they can play at this level. There will likely be some players unhappy with their minutes.

It takes some deft communication by the coaches and captains (and seniors) to keep those talented players who rarely take their warm-ups off for 40 minutes positive and involved. Chemistry, character, and leadership are crucial components of success.

[WPI89]

Old - thought you were headed in a different direction at first.  Well said - the only thing I would say (really emphasize since you touched on it early) is that the opposite can also be true.  Success can be a crucial component of chemistry, character, and leadership.

Chicken or the egg?  All the little lurking problems seem to stay lurking if the team is winning.  If not, they tend to bubble up and manifest is so many different ways. 

Bears (80's), Yankees (70's), Raiders, UNLV, .....can think of many teams with questionable chemistry but winning makes them quirky, fun, interesting, unique.  When you lose, it is all fried chicken and beer in the clubhouse!

Not downplaying leadership one bit - I think it is huge......but I think it is at least debate worthy.  Does success make good leaders or do good leaders make success?

Back to the topic - I am a fan of a big bench personally - especially with a strong JV program for the younger players to get game action.

[amh63]

Old Guy...FYI....Ken Howard '66, has the title of Actor in Residence at Amherst and seems to have a room in the Lord Jeffery Inn (totally renovated and recently reopened ..its like your Midd. Inn ) for now....so you can probably get in touch with him there.  He is teaching a course mentioned in a recent Amherst twitter on the school website.  He did attend Yale Drama School and has taught there in the Drama School.
WPI189...My take on your debate question.....leadership can/tends to success more than vice versa.  People who are identified as having leadership have "traits" of confidence, verbal abilities, and tend to often  lead by example......qualities often coming from having success in participation in group activities.......yes, a little egg and chicken thing.
Surprised today by a feature article on this year's LEADS program at Amherst...on the Amherst athletic website.....cannot miss it...it is the one that has a nice looking woman in an non sports outfit!  This program tries to build leadership.

[Old Guy]

WPI89: For years, I paid lip service, and more, to the concepts of character and leadership as crucial to success in team sports at the college level. After the success of the Middlebury basketball team in the last decade, I believe it more than ever.

I've said this before, and apologize to long-time chatters for my repetition, but the success of Midd hoop lately is in no small measure attributable to the strength of character of the team leaders. Coach Brown makes the same point.

This is not to take anything away from the sterling leadership and basketball knowledge of Jeff Brown, but I'm a 60s type and believe that the athletes themselves are largely responsible for their performance, on and off the court. Midd hoop has been breathtakingly positive of late. I'm grateful.

[nescac1]

Some NESCAC recruiting news, a Williams verbal commitment:

http://www.newenglandrecruitingreport.com/news/article/2793/Williams-Scores-with-Robinson.php

[madzillagd]

The NE Hoop News version...

http://nehoopnews.com/news/1920/Duncan-Robinson-picks-Williams.php

[nescac1]

A nice article on Robinson:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120325/GJSPORTS_01/703259889/-1/FOSSPORTS

[toad22]

I have seen Robinson play. He will be very good at Williams. Physically, he seems very young. I'm not actually sure that he has stopped growing yet. He could end up at 6'8' or more. He needs to fill out a little to be as good as he can be, but he is very good right now. He shoots it really well from 3, and sees the floor beautifully. He will probably play the small forward position, but he could play the 2 or the 4.

[amh63]

Seems like a winner.  His growth schedule reminds me of a player for Amherst...Walters.  Walters is still playing overseas, I believe.  He attended the same HS in Ann Arbor Mi. as Nate Robertson.  Walters played some guard in HS but started growing and ended up at around 6'8" at Amherst....could play inside or outside.
In any case, it seems that this is the first NE recruit for Williams in the era of the present Williams' coach.

[JustAFan]

The New England Recruiting Report story on Nate Robinson also mentions that Williams has picked up a transfer from Boston College, 6'7" Hingham native Ryan Kilcullen, who spent last year as a recruited walk-on at BC.  Kilcullen has enrolled at Williams as a sophomore and should provide the Ephs with extra depth up front this winter. He is a graduate of St. Sebastian's and PG'd at Exeter before attending BC.