I picked up the USA Today featuring this week’s high school girls top 25 and looked though the scores. I focused primarily on the California schools, as those are the ones who I know the best. The scores are outrageous (I left out the names so as not to embarrass the losing teams):
- private vs. public 59-13
- public vs. public 91-11
- public vs. public 67-14
- public vs. public 96-18
- private vs. public 75-23
- private vs. public 93-18
Now, the following is based solely on those scores (and those scores feature some of the best teams, so lop-sided wins are somewhat understandable), as well as some conversations with coaches who I know in California. This is a small sample size, and it may be that the conclusions drawn for the scores of one week of basketball are incorrect or overblown. It also may be that other areas are immune to the problems in California. Therefore, there are limitations in my observations; however, the scores appeared to point out problems with girls basketball that have been growing over the last decade.
The biggest issue is that the disparity between good and bad is growing. I am not familiar with the current situations of these schools, but a decade ago, several of the losing teams were able to hang tough with the victors. There are several potential explanations:
- Recruiting
- Good programs attract good players
- Good coaches attract good players
- Programs who play in national tournaments attract the most talented players
- Changing demographics (i.e. an aging community with fewer young families)
- Rise of smaller private and charter schools attracting students
- Smaller pool of good players
The final point is the big issue, at least in California. According to friends in southern California, schools with 3000 students no longer have enough girls show up for tryouts to field a junior varsity team. Again, according to friends, a team that used to compete for southern California championships less than a decade ago now does not field a junior-varsity team. According to another friend, the numbers in his youth programs are dwindling, as parents put their daughters in volleyball or soccer. According to another friend, the number of good, sustained youth AAU programs is decreasing.
Specifically, there was once a very good youth program who fed players to several of the above schools – winners and losers. It was not the only good youth program in the area, as there were at least three other prominent programs who fed players to these schools. These are prominent programs, as in programs winning AAU tournaments – I have no idea about what other, smaller, more local programs ran in the city during that era or now. However, of the prominent programs that fed those schools, only one still exists to my knowledge, and it draws players from a wide geographical area.
If, as the comments from friends suggest, fewer girls are playing basketball, and fewer programs exist to develop good players, the pool of good players is smaller. If the good programs attract the same number of players as before, there are fewer and fewer players left for the non-powerhouse programs. With fewer good players to go around, games are less competitive.
This creates other issues. If there is one elite program in the area, are good coaches seeking jobs at the other league schools that are losing by 60+ points or will they seek jobs in areas where there is a better chance to become the elite program? If you have a school that has fewer girls signing up for basketball, and fewer good players enrolling in the school, and cannot attract the best possible coach, how is the school supposed to become competitive again? It becomes a cycle – no incoming talent, fewer numbers, lesser coaches, talent going to other schools, less talent, fewer players, nobody wanting to coach, etc.
For the past 15 years, those involved with girls basketball have praised the advances of the game, which have been great. Every time that someone criticizes the game, a women’s basketball defender will point to Diana Taurasi, Candace Parker, Maya Moore, or Brittany Griner as an example of how far the game has come. This argument has two flaws: (1) It is arguable whether these players are significantly improved from Lisa Leslie, Cheryl Miller, Nancy Lieberman, Cynthia Cooper, Sheryl Swoopes, etc.; and (2) Pointing only to the elite ignores 90+% of the game.
The best of the best has improved. USA Basketball dominates the world in women’s basketball. Moore, Griner, Parker, etc. likely can do things that the former greats never imagined. The WNBA provides these players an opportunity to make a living and to make women’s basketball about more than just receiving a college scholarship. These are great and important advances for the game.
However, what about the other side of the game? What about the 8-year-old just picking up a ball? Have her opportunities improved over the last 15 years? Sure, she can aspire to play in the WNBA, but are there better programs for her to join to help her reach these aspirations? Are there better coaches at the local recreation center to teach her the game? Are there more and better competitive opportunities for her once she decides that she wants to improve her game? Is her local high school likely to have a better coach and better overall program?
I don’t know the answer. I am sure it differs by location. However, I don’t know that an 8-year-old in West Los Angeles is better off now than 10-15 years ago when Lauren Kelly ran Hoop Masters or since Dante Sarmiento left the Santa Monica Surf. I don’t know that a child in Long Beach is better off now than during the heyday of the Long Beach Warriors. I don’t know that a child in the Inland Empire is better off now than during the days of John Wells and BTR. I don’t know if SGV is near the same program that it was with Lyle Honda 15 years ago. I don’t know that Barry Moon and the Monterey park Heat taking a reduced role was good for children from all over Los Angeles and Orange County. I don’t know that children from the Valley have a program as good as the old ARC program or children from Orange County with the old O.C. Sharks. (I honestly don’t know, as I have not lived in Los Angeles in a decade). Some of the programs, like the Lakewood Sparks with Elbert Kinnebrew, are still around. I know Hoop Masters is around in some form with Sarmiento.
Despite all the progress in women’s basketball, and the skills and athleticism of the elite, I don’t know if the same progress has been made at the local, grassroots level. Does a player today have the same access and opportunity to good coaching and good competition as 10-15 years ago? If not, why not? If not, is that a reason why girls reportedly are choosing volleyball, softball, lacrosse, and soccer over basketball? If not, could the lack of good opportunities explain some of the high-school blowouts and lack of participation?
If these issues are connected in some way, has the focus on the elite and the progress of the elite shifted our focus too far from the grassroots or local programs? Will the elite continue to improve without a greater focus on developmental programs? If the programs are disappearing and the numbers are dwindling, is it possible that we have hit the apex of women’s basketball and are on the downward slide without realizing it due to the exploits of generational talents such as Moore, Griner, and Parker?
If you are involved in coaching girl’s basketball, you need to read this: http://t.co/52PsDNJM
@CoachHintonWCCS #brianmccormick
Brian,
Is it that the pool of good players is smaller or is it that the good players are increasingly more highly concentrated among the top private schools? It may well be the latter, for reasons you listed such as recruiting, good programs, good coaches, etc. This creates a cycle that feeds upon itself. The good players migrate to a set of private schools. These private schools then dominate competition. The next generation of good players flock to the same schools. And so on.
You see similar trends on the boys’ side as well. I recall reading that 19 of 20 teams at the state CIF championship games in 2011 were private schools. Probably similar in 2012.
John:
I think I acknowledged that possibility. I think it is a little bit of both: There is a smaller pool of good players, and the elite programs attract the same number of good players as before, which leaves a smaller pool for everyone else.
On the girls’ side, in southern California, many of the top programs traditionally over the last decade have been public schools like Ayala, Troy, LB Poly, Etiwanda, Brea, and a couple other of the I.E. schools, along with privates like Mater Dei, Winward, and some others. Whether those schools recruit or attract players due to their continued success is a different argument. However, it’s not as simplistic as blaming private schools. Even looking at the boys’ rankings from 1/27, 16/25 ranked teams by the L.A. Times are public schools.
Looking at the state championship game tends to be skewed because there are very few public schools in DIII, IV, and V, and most are in N. California.
The growing disparity between good and bad in… http://t.co/7HBHXilc
The growing disparity between good and bad in girls basketball http://t.co/GL8L3hHT via @BrianMcCormick
Brian,
I was a “grassroots” basketball coach, coaching (among other teams) a girls community select team in a small (one medium sized high school) Southern California town from from about 1999 to 2008. Players from this team went on success in basketball and other sports: 2 girls were 1st team All CIF basketball players, 2 others captained their high school varsity teams, one is on a basketball scholarship at a school in a D-1 power conference, 4 played or are playing D-1 college volleyball, 1 went to a D-1 soccer program and one became a junior world champion in a (winter) Olympic sport.
My own observation is that, much to my regret, girls basketball is losing many athletes of superior potential to other sports simply because other sports are better organized and offer both more attractive environments in which to practice and compete, and a better defined path to recognition, e.g., college scholarships. In and around my community, even though there are excellent basketball instructors and trainers, soccer, volleyball, water polo and (I fear) even lacrosse do a much better job of certifying coaches and competition. Basketball is a great game, but so are those other sports, and it is simply much more work for a parent (who as likely as not has no background in the particular sport) to sort out good programs from bad, great coaches from charlatans, in our sport. I thought I offered good instruction and a positive experience, but the other sports also had good coaches, plus spiffier uniforms, better organized tournaments with quality officiating and, frankly, less obviously corrupt organizers. I can’t really blame any of the families with no pre-existing ties to any of these sports, who have choices about how their children spend their time, when they choose volleyball, soccer or one of an increasing number of other well organized youth sports.
For whatever reason, these same considerations do not seem to be preventing large numbers of boys from sticking with basketball. I don’t really understand why, but these are my observations.
Wes:
I understand all those things, and I have heard them before. I guess part of why I wrote this was to ask why we can’t do a better job. When I wrote Cross Over, people thought that I felt Europe or whatever did a better job developing players, and argued that USA generally dominated international competitions. International results were never my concern; they helped to make some people give my book a look, but my primary concern was that I felt that we could do a better job in the U.S., especially given the amount of money in the game of basketball. There is far more money in grassroots basketball than in any other country, and I would guess than most other sports in the U.S. with the possible exception of soccer, yet the system is not the best. Why? That’s kind of the question that I’ve been asking since 2005.
In some respects I know the answer: Those who are invested and have a lot to lose do not want change, and they have the power to maintain the status quo. However, why don’t participants demand a better product?
Every summer, for example, parents, coaches, and players complain about the exposure tournaments in Vegas and elsewhere. College coaches complain. Yet, everyone forks over their cash and returns. I wrote about this a couple summers ago. I accompanied a D1 coach. The tournament changed venues of the teams on the day of the games with no way to find out until you showed up at a gym. The college coach had to pay something obscene like $300 for a book with the rosters of the teams, and the organization could not even update its web sites or send out an email to college coaches or whatever (pre-twitter). What are teams paying for if the college coaches can’t find the games? What are the college coaches paying for? I’ve said repeatedly that the power lies with the players, but the players and parents forfeit their power. They accept whatever is offered instead of demanding better.
I know running a tournament is difficult. I’m not going to step up and try to run a better tournament because (1) it’s not what I want to do and (2) it’s not my strength. However, I have run a 12-week AAU league in Los Angeles with some of the top youth teams and managed to give teams 20+ games for less than the cost of an average tournament with games that were almost always on time. Sure, the officials were not always the best, but they were high-school officials. Sure, my players made mistakes as scorekeepers. It was far from perfect. But for roughly $20 game, it was pretty good. It’s definitely possible.
I hear other things from people that I hope are not true. I definitely agree that basketball has somewhat of an image problem. How can those of us who care about girls basketball change this? Why don’t parents demand better for their daughters? Are there alternatives out there that are better or do we need to create those better alternatives? How can we identify the better alternatives and promote them to those looking for programs for their daughters?
Responding to the questions Brian poses in his last paragraph: as I suggested in my first comment, some of the existing alternatives are much better than others, but, on balance even the best alternatives available are less attractive, less convenient or both than what other girls sports seem to be offering. I have been fortunate enough to meet many parents that demand better for their daughters, but dismayed to see how many of them find it in another sport.
I think that providing more leagues, as opposed to tournaments, that are uniformly reliable (games start on time, officials and opposing teams show up) and reasonably accurately rated as to competitiveness would be a huge step in the right direction. I think it would drive positive change at the community coaching and team organization level.
It would also take a really big effort and, as you implicity suggest, organizing leagues on a large scale is not necessarily appealing to many (including me, and probably you) who care about girls’ and women’s basketball.
Interesting read @brianmccormick Questions if Maya,BGriner & Candace R assisting N decline of the game participants http://t.co/K9XtZRwX
As a follow up, and to support Wes’ comments, I saw this on another message forum:
Pingback: A critique of coaches and the misunderstanding of learning « Youth Basketball Coaching Association