Good Teams

Food for thought:

Good teams have the following building blocks:

1. Planning

2. Goals

3. Coordination

4. Diversity and Cohesion

Planning:

- Planning is inversely related to production time

- Leaders pay a bigger price for poor planning

Goals:

- Teams that set specific stretch goals outperform others

- Need to understand people's commitments and motives up front

and

- Leaders must lead with a vision/outcome in mind

- Effective goals have metrics

- You can design your roles with goals in mind

- Use backward induction (i.e. start planning with the last required step instead of the first step)

Coordination:

- Best teams have a connector who understands how the pieces should fit

- Best teams divide labor but individuals know the big picture and have a deep knowledge of relevant connection points

Diversity and Cohesion:
- Diversity of thought is good
- Cohesion is also good
- Diversity and Cohesion are typically at-odds, so
- Have a pre-defined mechanism for conflict resolution and inter-team discussion
such as
- Teach everyone to constructively criticize each other
- This process should include: a defined structure, norms, be focused on a task, be oriented towards shared goals and towards developing trust

Misc:

- Best teams are constantly learning and growing

- Best teams focus on process

Anything missing on your team?

Negotiating Coaching

This week we talked about Negotiating.  Negotiations as they were described essentially don't happen in coaching college ultimate.  But, a lot of smaller negotiations do happen!  So I'll try to pick and choose what's relevant.

Here are some examples of negotiations that occur when coaching ultimate:
1. Which tournaments to attend and why
2. What fitness plan to engage in and why
3. What offense system to use and why
4. What defensive system to use and why
5. What adjustments to make and how to present them to the team at halftime

All of these scenarios are considered "integrative negotiations", which is cooperative and the objective is to get into a win/win scenario.  This self-evident because you aren't negotiating with opponents, you are negotiating within your other coaches and captains.  So you shouldn't be getting into a lot of situations with competitive negotiating scenarios, I wouldn't think.

With the season planning items (1-4 above), I think the most important part is to properly prepare for your negotiations by doing background research and clearly explaining the purpose behind each decision.  The biggest hurdle to decisions like this are information, given how college teams systemically lose the upperclassmen who have done this research every year.  Once the information is present, being able to use the context of the competition (i.e. regional-based strategies/weather) feels like another obvious place to start, and you can even get into specific roster strengths you feel the team is more oriented towards.

I think 5 might be the most interesting.  It's sort of a negotiation and sort of not, but you have a lot of factors that make this situation hard.  For instance, you have about 2 minutes to talk to your co-coaches and/or captains to get a sense of what everyone is seeing, and from this information you need to select the most important thing and then cohesively find a way to communicate it to the team.  So you have a time constraint, you have a lot of things going on that are trying to pull your attention away, you have a lot of different perspectives, all of whom are seeing the game through different lenses and noticing different things.  And, if you end up with more than one action item, you can forget about your team being able to remember it and actually change anything on the field in the second half.  So, what do you do?

I think the most valuable thing here is to "create a script", or to create a focused way to share info and quickly arrive at the most important thing.  Another option could be to agree before the tourney that topics discussed in the huddle will be ideas mentioned in practice previously, or will be directly related to the explicit tourney goals, in order to keep the focus on-task.

Influence

"Influence" is a word that has been getting thrown around a lot in these leadership classes and training sessions.  Mostly it has been presented something like, "the role of a leader is to influence", and "how can you influence people to do what you want", and so on.

I was not a fan of this idea when I first heard it.  I felt like word "influence" had a negative connotation when used to describe one individual influencing another.  Basically an implication of someone taking "agency" (the ability to make ones' own decisions) away from someone else.  Essentially manipulating someone for personal gain.  I also felt (and still somewhat feel) that the word influence has a transactional flavor to it - i.e. a leader thinking "what can I gain from this person and how should I gain it".

Influence: The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.

The definition of "influence" does not seem to carry the negative connotations that I felt at first. In fact, upon reading the definition it is immediately obvious how much influence coaches have and should have.  After all, what could be more important to coaching than what is listed in this definition?

In class, we talked a lot about different aspects of influence.  Some of it felt too political for my tastes, but there were plenty of things I think would relate well to coaching.  Here are a few:

As a coach, it is extremely important to be credible.  

Some aspects of credibility include: 

Trustworthiness and Authenticity - Are you genuine?  Can players count on you?

Competence - Do you know what you're talking about? 

Warmth - Do you care about the players as individuals?

One idea was that influence emanates from both who you are and how you deliver your message.  So one good example of this might be: if you are a coach but you behave immaturely, it will be impossible for players to take you seriously.

We talked about cognitive load, about the interaction between listening and actually absorbing information.  Basically, the idea was that in long lectures, about 90% of what is said is forgotten.  So obviously the lesson here is coaches need to be concise and specific.

We also talked about a lot of political tactics for the workplace.  While I found those to be sort of interesting in a general sense, and I like being aware of them so I can recognize others who utilize them, I do not feel they are relevant for the coaching environment.

Common Cognitive Errors

I sat through a pretty interesting class last week on collective decision-making and some common mistakes and misconceptions that are made in that process.  We talked about how collective decision-making influenced the launch of the Challenger and some of the steps leading up to the catastrophic gasket failure.  The lesson there was obvious, to say the least.

In this post I'm going to attempt to contextualize a few common decision-making errors and try to relate them to Northwestern Ultimate.

Seven biases that limit effective decision making:
1. Escalation of Commitment (i.e. Sunk Costs)
2. Loss Aversion
3. Confirmation Bias
4. Illusion of Transparency
5. Overconfidence Bias
6. Anchoring
7. Sampling on the Dependent Variable

1. Escalation of Commitment
Essentially, decisions should be forward looking and not oriented on the past.  So a good example of this for Northwestern Ultimate might be a coach or captain being hesitant to change our offensive strategy, perhaps considering that in the previous year we spent a lot of time and built a lot of team knowledge of a certain system.  And so perhaps the leadership doubles down on what was not an ideal offense, using a lot of practice time resources on it and ending up in largely the same non-ideal position.

2. Loss Aversion
This is a status-quo preference.  So for Northwestern Ultimate, perhaps a captain or coach is concerned about making a big change because this could result in a rankings drop or a lower end-of-season finish in the series.  Basically the idea is centered around worry related to "What do we stand to lose".  Two re-framing solutions were offered to this, both of which I totally loved: A. Re-frame it as "What do you stand to gain?", or B. Re-frame it as "What do we stand to lose if we don't seek change?"

3. Confirmation Bias
The idea here is that we seek out information that confirms what we know.  So for example, at a strategic level, if I think "side stack is the best offense", I will seek out examples that show great side stack offense to justify my position.  At a player level, when I see a good player make a good play, I might think that confirms my belief that they are good.  But if I see someone who I think is a good player make a bad play, I am naturally quicker to dismiss it as a rare mistake.  This is certainly on display in the tryout phase for Northwestern Ultimate, and is very difficult to address.

4. Illusion of Transparency
This one is a "tendency to overestimate the degree to which our mental state is known by others".  I think this is basically a fundamental underlying tenet of team chemistry and has very broad applicability.  It seems to me like this comes into play in basically every interpersonal interaction within the team, and the better your team is equipped to navigate it, the better your team chemistry will be.  Things like team retreats seem to be good ways of helping to build a base from which to navigate this.  Also formalizing feedback mechanisms and check-ins with players feels vital for this.

5. Overconfidence Bias
This means that people tend to be more certain about things with a little information, i.e. "A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing".  An obvious one here is when players put too much value on power rankings or what they've heard about a team, without having seen them play.  In the past years, going into a game, players have expressed remarkable confidence that they are outmatched or are going to lose, before the game has even begun.  Obviously thinking this is not how to set your squad up for success.

6. Anchoring/Insufficient Adjustment
Essentially this is saying that we overvalue our initial reference points of things, even if those initial references are irrelevant later on.  And also, we don't adjust as dramatically as we need to.  A good example of this is on an individual player level on defense.  For example, maybe we're playing a matchup scheme and player X gets toasted deep.  One option is I can try to coach them to adjust and build in a bigger buffer, but if I'm not explicit in the magnitude of that buffer (or if we haven't really practiced this kind of adjustment), the change that is made is often not as big as it should be.

7. Sampling on the Dependent Variable
This is sample selection bias.  The example that was provided in class was "books on management that just look at the strategies of successful companies".  The idea here is that without a full set of data, (i.e. strategies of both successful and unsuccessful companies) we aren't able to gain very much insight into what really works and what doesn't.  So for Northwestern Ultimate, this means that only looking at what frequent nationals-qualifying teams do can only go so far, it really be best to understand the key differences between those teams and teams that do not make the big show, in order to draw more functional links between behaviors.

----

One thing I forgot to mention last week was on my mind this week, so I want to put it here as food for thought:

Top Down Change Often Leads to Poor Implementation

Simply mandating that people do something and enforcing it with:
- Mandatory training
- Complaint Systems
- Tests
Does not result in successful implementation.

What works better:
- Voluntary (Opt-in) Training
- Self-managed teams (i.e. Ownership)
- Cross-Training (i.e. Breadth)
- Mentoring and Peer Mentoring
- Task Forces (i.e. Empowerment)

Leadership Frameworks

One of the things I still struggle with is a proper definition for "Leadership".  To me, leadership means a lot of things and is an extremely large umbrella term that captures all of them.  Within a coaching context, there are tons of books that compete to describe the ideal characteristics of a good leader.  Anyway, I'm taking a class on Leadership, so I want to assess a few of the ideas as they come up and possibly relate them to ultimate.

The following definition for leadership is proposed:

"Leadership consist of the tools and resources you use to mobilize people to collaborate together to create something of social value."

To support this definition, there is some specificity around what is meant by "collaboration":

Collaboration: collective action among interdependent parties working towards shared goals.

There was also a good amount of discussion that since leadership consists of tools and resources, it is something that is trainable and improvable.

Overall, I think this is a pretty good definition.  It's vague enough to capture a lot of things but also has enough structure to be actionable.  I think collaboration as used here is still a bit vague, but it's basically proposed as the key to getting teams to achieve things "greater than the sum of their parts", and so I think it makes sense.  One small gripe I have with this definiation is it feels a bit transactional in nature, as it seems like you provide input x and then this team of other people can now collaborate, which seems to assume a basic hierarchy.  I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but this a blog, not a research paper.  Final note, I definitely am all about the growth mindset stuff in here.  Big fan of that part.

One other note I felt was pretty good was a discussion of what good leadership outcomes look like.  Basically it was presented like this:

Good leadership results in:

Decisions: Facilitates effective group decision-making

Influence: Influence others to adopt those decisions

Implementation & Motivation: Design structures to implement those decisions and motivate people to do it effectively

I think the best part of this for me was the last part, I found it interesting to think about leadership actions in terms of structures that maintain buy-in.  I think that has tons of obvious carry-over to coaching or captaining a team.

What It Takes

"You just have to have the players."
- Geoff S., 2013

What does it take to qualify for college nationals?

You need them all, in order of importance:
Desire - This is the most important thing.  Everything flows from this.  This is at the center of your team's motivation and drive.  Are a critical mass of players willing to invest enough of themselves into this goal?  If not, how can you cultivate and grow the seeds of this desire?
Culture - Your culture is the strongest tool you have, since it impacts everything you do.  But especially, your culture serves to direct, cultivate, and share the motivation your players have.  Specifically, a strong culture means things like having seniors that support and welcome freshmen, having players who train hard and encourage their teammates to do so as well, and players that are invested in supporting each other.  A strong culture is also a necessity if you want to have good recruitment, no one wants to be on a team that is too cliquey, too aggro, or constantly disrespectful to each other.  Your culture also plays a big role in governing your team's response to adversity.  And if you want to qualify for college nationals, you are guaranteed to face strong adversity.
Talent - You need players who can compete individually at a national level.  This means players who can get open well, defend well, and throw very well.  Teams like Carleton, Pitt, and UNC have coaches down to the youth level who are individually personally recruiting most of the players ready to contribute immediately.  Occasionally a player like this will show up at your door, but if you are not explicitly recruiting those players, you need to cast a wide net and invest hard in everyone.  It's by no means a requirement, but attracting athletes (and particularly former captains) of other team sports (especially football and soccer) can help a lot since those players may be athletically ready to contribute and may understand how to succeed in a very competitive team sports environment.
Another way to look at this is by considering the "contribution above replacement" of your best 14 players or so.  So basically this means, when to compared to a rough "average player" on a nationals level team, how much can each of your players contribute?  Since the objective is to create a team that plays "competitive" games with other teams at a national level (for reference: games typically within 2-3 with a real chance to win = "competitive"), you need to have an adequate total amount of contribution above replacement from your top players.  You can get this from 2-4 star players, or you can get this from 7-14 really strong role players.  I'm not going to put an exact value on what is needed, but in general you need to have some critical mass of players with strengths that you can leverage over other nationally competitive teams.  If your team is having trouble identifying this level of contribution in players, then you likely need to double down on your development and investment so that you have a plan to eventually get there.
Investment - Great teams are spending 15+ hours a week in practice, lifting, throwing, film review, etc.  If the team is not willing to put in that kind of work, you'll be at a huge disadvantage from the start.  If a team is putting in 10 hrs a week and is supremely talented AND is in a weak region, they may have an outside shot.  If the team is putting in 5 or fewer hours, there is essentially zero chance of qualifying.
Development (physical, skills, leadership, ownership) - You need to grow the talent you have and get them invested in themselves.  You need to work hard in the gym and on the track to develop athletically.  You need to be invested in throwing and constantly improving people as throwers.  The team needs to understand the ownership they have over the success of the team, and be given the tools to grow as leaders.  You need to share and teach leadership techniques and encourage younger team members to take on roles within the team.  As soon as a new player shows up, they are on the eligibility clock, so the sooner you can help them buy in, the more rewarding their experience will be and the more they will be able to contribute to the team.
Strategy - You need to understand your likely opponents, the likely weather conditions for regionals, and have some idea how your systems will work in those conditions against them.  You should prioritize a system that teaches good basic skills, but you should make defensive choices and add wrinkles based on what you expect your relative team strengths to be compared to your likely opponents.  There are regional differences between offense and defense as well, i.e. vert stack is common in the South Central for Men's.  Things like this should factor into your calculations when you're picking systems.

The goal of all of these tactics is simple - to play great ultimate and to be a great team.  We can't predict the level of our specific regional opponents in any given year, but at a macro scale we can estimate the level of play that it takes to be a top 10 team.  In my opinion, this should be the level of play a program should aim for in the long term.

Other circumstances:
Bids:
If you are in a region with a team considerably better than you, you need to do all of the above and also sub hard enough and play well enough during the season to earn a bid.  This puts more pressure (mental and especially physical) on your top players, but a few teams are able to successfully navigate this each year.  Earning a bid is never a guarantee that you will take that bid, but you will dramatically improve your chances of success if you do so.
If you are a top 10 team:
You can't ever take qualifying for granted, you need to do what it takes to impress the importance of taking qualification seriously.  Top teams don't falter the majority of the time, but every year there are a few that do.
Specific Regions:
"But coach, the great lakes is a weak region.  Why would this work in other regions?"
It's the same recipe in any region, it's just the baseline level that needs to be achieved is higher or lower depending on the region.

IYU 2018

A bit after college regionals, Andy asked me if I was interested in coaching the IYU U20 boys at YCC with him.  After talking with Zubair about it, we both eventually decided to give it a shot this season as assistant coaches.

I didn't really know what to expect going into it, but I was pretty sure that talking about ultimate with Andy & Zubair for 8 weeks was going to be a good time no matter what happened.  

These were my goals going into the season, in no particular order:

- Watch and learn as much as possible from Andy

- Watch and learn as much as possible from Zubair

- Work with a new group of players with a unique set of backgrounds and abilities

- Make a positive impact on the team in terms of culture, level of play, etc.

- Be a positive role model for developing young men & players

- Understand some of the differences in how the game is played and taught at the high school level

These were my concerns:

- Whether I would be able to develop productive on-field relationships with new players in just 8 weeks

- The level of impact I would have in a smaller role

As expected, the 8 weeks of tryouts and practices flew by incredibly quickly.  Practices were typically very hot, the playing surface was either a dried-out rock hard surface or a slightly grassy mud patch, attendance was a challenge with people going on family trips, and traffic on the way to practice was a real issue for a good amount of players.

Tryouts were a huge challenge for me, trying to learn the names of all the players and have productive discussion with my co-coaches after a few short hours of drills and games was very difficult.  I have never gone into a tryout situation as a decision-maker with so little background information and so little time to assess players.  In other contexts with club and college you either have way more information or way more time to make your assessments, and therefore the outcome is much more accurate.  In this situation I had no choice to defer to the other coaches on a lot of players, providing input as best I could with what I had seen.

Practices were typically attended by between 12 and 16 players.  We had a core of about 8 players who came to everything, then a rotating cast of 4-10 guys who came to things as much as they could between summer plans.  This was not great for the development of the team, and I think probably lowered the performance ceiling of the team by about 15%.  I don't have a good solution to this problem, travel distance and other priorities are going to remain a big challenge for a tourney team like this in the current format.  I think if we had known about the level of attendance people would have prior to roster selection, I would have potentially advocated for some different players.

The practice structure was fairly basic.  We would warm up, circle throw, do 4 lines, then basically alternate focused drills and short scrimmages.  With only 6-7 weeks of actual practice time to work with, we spent a bit of time on a lot of different topics.  I think this approach was really good for the players who came to everything, because it meant we were able to address a lot of different aspects of the game and improve a lot.  For the players who attended fewer practices, this approach meant that they were missing a lot of critical structural information offensively and defensively, and they were clearly left behind.  As a result, I felt like the players on the team were at really different levels by the end of the season in terms of ability to execute any kind of structure on the field.  In part because of this, I think our offense was only about 40% implemented and our defensive systems were only about 25% complete.

As a head coach, Andy does a really good job talking about purpose and mentality in huddles.  Most of his talk is focused on building "team-ness", through things like recognizing the positives in teammates, understanding the power of team effort and energy, and appreciating the time the team has together.  I really like how Andy is able to use his tone of voice to add energy and conviction to huddles, and I think these efforts had a tremendously positive effect on the character of the team.  Andy draws a lot of good ideas about spaces from soccer, and uses these concepts fairly directly when he talks about offensive cutting, decision making as a thrower, zone offense, and zone defense.  Andy is also a strong "player's coach", and makes an effort to maintain and develop positive relationships with all players.  He encourages players to have deeper conversations with each other, think critically, and addresses things directly when inappropriate comments are made.

Me, Andy, and Zubair obviously did not agree on everything.  We all have strong personalities and opinions about how the game should be taught and how practices should be ran.  If I had been the head coach of this team, our practices would have had more drills that were simpler & shorter, more stationary throwing, and more mini-games.  I would have done less generic scrimmaging and fewer long drills.  I would have spent more attention on making sure that players were getting enough throwing/catching and running in to improve in those areas over the 7 weeks.  I would have spent more time on teaching offense and less time on defense and zone, since I think we would have seen a bigger benefit if we had gotten our offense up to 65% rather than improving our zone look.

That said, this is really making a mountain out of a molehill if the attendance issue doesn't get addressed.  That's probably the biggest limiting factor, and changing practice structure probably isn't going to change that much.

The biggest barrier to development that I came across on this team was dealing with deeply ingrained bad habits.  Many of the players on the team had been playing ultimate for 4+ years, but had been doing so in systems where concepts like spacing and timing were not explicitly taught.  Each high school seemed to have it's own totally random set of cutting patterns and shapes, based on whatever the cutter is feeling at that particular moment.  It was really common to see incuts straight at the disc from 15 yards directly in front of the thrower.  Technical reset cutting was seemingly non-existent for many players, they would just do whatever was needed to get open with no regard for teammates or the thrower or attacking subsequently.

We had a scrimmage against Machine at the last practice of the season, which was a really fun thing Andy organized.  Going in I expected us to score fewer than 3 points in a game to 15, that's how badly I felt we were playing.  I was pleasantly surprised, as we ended up playing an 8-6 half against a pickup squad of machiners who were kind of trying.  I remember being impressed with how fast we were, how well we were able to get open, and our patience working through machine's junk sets.  I saw a skinny 16 year old sky Sam Kanner too, so that was a highlight I guess.

The tournament itself was a whirlwind.  Our team was inconsistent, mostly due to offensive issues.  When we were executing well and running hard, we played like a semifinalist.  We turned in a number of really strong halves of games like this.  We gave Atlanta a valiant effort in our pre-quarter match, showing a ton of heart and gritty defense, but at the end of the day our offensive inconsistency kept us out of quarters.  There were a ton of parents who made the trip to Minnesota to watch and support the team, which was really awesome.  Also, as much as KB doesn't like the organizational hassle, it is really cool to be able to have YCC in the same location as the U.S. Open.  Being able to watch the club semifinal games live in the stadium with the whole IYU team was an amazing experience.

As an assistant coach, I felt that the time I brought the most to the table was with watching & discussing in-game adjustments with the other coaches, providing useful feedback to lines in-game, providing offensive play calls, and identifying defensive matchups.  During the games on Saturday and Sunday, I felt like I was able to quickly identify large role offensive players on opposing teams and assign good matchups along with a few words of specific goals to those defenders.  I think this had a big impact on how we were able to apply better pressure in 2nd halves of games.  I also felt like I was able to communicate clearly and effectively with the offensive unit, and as a result we were able to use our small book of options in a more effective way.  In practices, my role as an assistant coach was fairly small.  I lead warm-ups for the first few weeks, ran a few drills here or there, provided individual advice, watched what our team was struggling at, and was available to run a practice when Andy was out of town.  That said, if I hadn't know our players as well, my ability to help put players in positions to succeed on offense and defense would have been much worse, so maybe there's plenty of value in that alone.

P.S.

None of the team name suggestions that I brainstormed for this team resonated with Andy and Zubair.  Which was lame.  I came up with some really good ones - I'm going to solidly lay blame on them for our lack of an interesting name, I did my best.  I finally started to make some progress by day 2 of YCCs with Zubair with "Land of Lincoln", hopefully that one sticks around.

Tournaments Coached

Year	Tournament	Location	Team	Notes:
2013	Huck Finn XVII (Sunday Only)	St. Louis, MO	NUT (assistant)	Rain/Mudfest. Drove solo due to Saturday Wildfire conflict.
	Chicago Invite	Chicago, IL	NUT (assistant)	Cold and Windy. Luke served ramen at the fields.
	USAU Illinois D-1 College Open CC	Chicago, IL	NUT (assistant)	Champe sat on a Bucket.
	USAU Great Lakes D-1 College Open Regionals	Rockford, IL	NUT (assistant)	I remember we somehow almost got into a fistfight with indiana in the 5th place game and I had to help de-escalate.
	--
2014	Cat Fight	Lexington, KY	Bolt	First tourney as head coach. Forgot to drink water/eat/use the bathroom for 10 hours. Calling lines was hard. It was a blast!
	The Rock	Rockford, IL	Bolt	Snowed out. Gotta travel out of the midwest in feb-april for more reliable weather.
	Last Call	Charleston, IL	Bolt	Super fun. Watched yolo swaggins university win it all ft. young Ben Spielman after our games.
	Eastern Great Lakes Dev College Men's CC	Kalamazoo, MI	Bolt	Strong tournament
	Great Lakes Dev Gollege Men's Regionals	Rockford, IL	Bolt	1-day round robin
	--
2015	Cat Fight (rejected)	Lexington, KY	Bolt	We did not learn that we were rejected until super late. Not enough time to find a different tourney.
	Invite Plan B	Manteno, IL	Bolt	Chi invite got snowed out and this got scheduled. We ran with 10 guys. Everyone cramped. We played BYU and scored 1 goal.
	Eastern Great Lakes Dev College Men's CC	Kalamazoo, MI	Bolt	I didn't feel like we played enough games this year, which is why I pushed for warm up in 16.
	Great Lakes Dev College Men's Regionals	Rockford, IL	Bolt	1-day round robin for more games
	--
2016	Warm Up: A Florida Affair (Dev)	Tampa, FL	Bolt	Slept in an unfurnished house. Got bageled by Hafeez.
	Midwest Throwdown	Columbia, MO	Bolt	This tournament was very generic.
	Old Capitol Open	Iowa City, IA	Bolt	40 mph sustained wind. Saw a port-a-pottie get blown over. Games cancelled due to wind. Team watched "Zootopia".
	Great Lakes Dev College Men's CC	Kalamazoo, MI	Bolt	Difficult tourney, lots of great play by inter-region dev teams
	--
	Windy City Invite	Rockford, IL	NUT X
	Missouri Loves Company	Columbia, MO	NUT
2017	Warm Up: A Florida Affair	Tampa, FL	NUT
	Midwest Throwdown	Columbia, MO	NUT
	Indy Invite College	Indianapolis, IN	NUT
	Huck Finn	St. Louis, MO	NUT
	Illinois D-1 College Men's CC	Rantoul, IL	NUT
	Great Lakes D-1 College Men's Regionals	Fair Oaks, IN	NUT
	--
	Missouri Loves Company	Columbia, MO	NUT
2018	Queen City Tune Up	Charlotte, NC	NUT
	Warm Up: A Florida Affair	Tampa, FL	NUT
	Centex	Austin, TX	NUT
	Huck Finn	St. Louis, MO	NUT
	Illinois D-1 College Men's CC	Rantoul, IL	NUT
	Great Lakes D-1 College Men's Regionals	Ann Arbor, MI	NUT
	D-1 College Championships	Milwaukee, WI	NUT
	Youth Club Championships	Blaine, MN	IYU U20 (Assistant)

2018 College Championships

Thoughts from Milwaukee:

- First of all, to all my returning NUTs out there: Nationals is a gift, not a right.  Commit to the fundamentals (play, throw, lift, sprint), there will be fresh games to 1 to be won soon.

- Secondly, this post from CSU's coach on nationals from 2017 is accurate:
http://katfishultimate.blogspot.com/2017/05/five-things-i-learned-at-college.html

- There are nationals-level plays happening all over the country at conferences and regionals.  The two key differences is nationals-level teams have a higher overall bar of athleticism and skill.  The questions are the same at the highest level: Can your players defend 1v1? Can your players get open 1v1? can your players throw & catch?  Schemes don't matter if you can't hang individually.

- We had a sideline full of friends and family.  It was incredible to be able to have everyone come out and watch us play some games.  Can't overstate how important the community aspect is to the program.  Milwaukee being 90 minutes from Evanston was ideal.

- The environment at nationals is as-advertised.  Hard to find things to say about it that haven't already been said.  It's incredibly fun and a privilege to compete there.

- The games are just games.  Our team mentality was the same as ever, and we approached the games in the same way.  0-0, nut v nut, performance over results, tournament skills.  Never expect to win or lose, but always expect to play your best.

- It was hot!  We had cramping issues on both days in our last games.  Tough to balance getting people ready for games with suitably intense warm ups but avoiding late-day physical issues in the mid-day heat.

- The idea "You have to have been there before" is total bullshit.  Everyone has the power to work hard and play well, there's no secret sauce.

- This was the hardest working NUT team I have ever played with or coached, and it showed in the on-field product.  Even if we had not finished where we did, we were able to raise the bar for our own level of play to new heights.  That is - we were executing the basics at a higher level than ever, which is what it's all about.

- I talked to Denardis for a bit after UNC won the finals.  Super nice guy, very fun to chat with.  We talked about how UNC develops players through the season, how they set goals, and how they are able to divide and share leadership.  Lots of interesting thoughts.

- Being mentally steady and consistent is such a huge strength for a team to have.  At nationals, it is obvious that some teams feel the weight of the moment way more than others.  I am proud of NUT 2018s ability to be consistently present and focused on the task at hand.  This was one of our greatest strengths, and not something to take lightly.

Uncharted Territory

Preface:
My friend Matt wrote this post in 2015, check it out: http://illiniulti.blogspot.com/2015/04/24.html
I promised him I'd do a similar write-up.

A few pre-regionals notes on the state of the team that I want to mention before I get into it.
- At sectionals two weeks prior I felt like we were carrying a lot of outcome-oriented expectation centered around winning the section again.  This in combination with some strong play from Chicago and ISU gave us a healthy dose of humility - those teams played great and we didn't execute well.
- We had two good weeks of practice leading up to regionals.  The majority of our roster was healthy and going hard, we were a great balance of focused and loose.
- In our last practice before regionals, I wanted to remind the team what makes us good and I wanted to give us a touchstone to fall back on in times of doubt.  I talked about trusting (your teammates and yourself), about expectations (we never expect to win or to lose, we expect to play well), and I talked about how I felt that the identity of our team this year was as a mentally consistent, hard working, "blue collar" team.  I did not say this, but I felt that we were among the best/fastest teams in the region at person defense when we fully committed to the effort it takes.
- Going into regionals I felt like the pressure to perform was almost completely gone.  Having gotten 4th at sectionals very significantly changed our mindset for the better, removing a lot of the weight of expectation and helping us recommit to our values.
- The format change heavily favored the 1 and 2 overall seeds by providing a relatively easier path to the semifinals by seed.
- I felt like our chances going into the weekend were 15-20%, mostly depending on how we showed up.  I thought we had a great shot if we brought our A-game.

-----
24 (plus 1)

All times are approximate, based on my memory and the tweets we have.

3:00 pm, Saturday, April 28th
The team has wrapped up a 2-0 day with a strong performance versus a quality MSU team and an underrated GVSU squad.  Me, Champe, and Yiding drive over to the other field site to see if we can catch the end of the neck-and-neck Gungho/Flywheel pool play game.  We get to the field site right when the game ends, feel dumb and head back to the original site to scout Purdue/Kentucky a bit.

3:45
Notre Dame is camped out watching the next field over (MSU/Indiana), so I wander over and say hi to all the Stump (South Shore Line) guys, get the low-down on Purdue, and wish them good luck for Sunday.  Beetle and I talk about how awesome a stump finals would be, and we both apologize to each other in advance for taking the bid from the other.  Feels good.

4:30
Keith messages the group about going to the thrift store to pick up blue collar shirts to wear during Sunday morning warm ups.  I am loving this idea, I ask him to get me one too.

4:40
Purdue/Kentucky is at DGP, Purdue has to go upwind on offense to win.  Kentucky gets a layout D on an incut, works it to the goal line, calls TO.  Subsequently drops the wide open game winner.  Purdue works it down to the opposite goal line, calls their own TO.  Long upline from the reset, ballgame.  Looks like we get Purdue tomorrow morning.

4:50
We talk for a bit about the matchups we want to use and the approach we want vs Purdue.  We're feeling good about the way our defense has been playing so far, and we feel like we can put a lot of pressure on them in the reset space.

5:00
The weather has turned pretty nice, so we stick around at the field site to throw some hucks and win the fields.  Yiding throws some jump balls to me and Champe we get some quality trash talking in.  Feels good.

5:40
Josh's family is hosting a bbq for the whole team for dinner!  Huge!  We head over.  Note: In a lot of ways, this tournament felt like a home tournament for us.  Both Josh's and Champe's families live about 30 minutes from the field site.  This made the whole experience have a much friendlier and comfortable feel.

6:15
At the bbq there is a lively discussion about the validity of "quack quack seat back" versus "fives" for staking your claim on a chair.  As a Minnesotan, I'm a strong quack quack advocate.  Spirits are high and we're having a good time.

6:35
Champe and Yiding are determined to crush Eric in ping pong, so I chat for a while with Kyle, Bif, Nate, and Jeff about who we think the best player in college is right now and who should win the callahan.  We also talk about how good you have to be for you to win with a terrible video (Nethercutt), and how much of a travesty it was that neither Jack Williams nor Ben Sadok won last year.

8:15
We head back to Champe's dad's house (which his grandpa built!) and settle in to watch the Bucks/Celtics game 7.

8:45
Andy comes over and we get into some lively conversation about who should be 1st team all-region in the GL, the objective best way to beat (Michigan's) clam, and how soccer zone/person defense is taught.  I tell Andy I think Kyle is the best player in the region, he doesn't buy it.  I tell him "you'll see".

9:30
The Celtics are just obliterating the Bucks.  I consider staying up to watch the Warriors/Pelicans for about 5 seconds, then decide against it and head to bed.

3:20 AM, Sunday, April 29th
I wake up, check the time on my phone.  T-minus 6 hours.  I try not to get too worked up about how exactly I want to prepare my team against the clam if we make semis.  I manage to chill out enough to get back to sleep, thankfully.

7:30
I wake up to some really soft TV noises coming from Yiding in the next bed over.  Turns out he is watching a replay of a disc golf tournament on his phone (??) with the volume on the lowest setting.  Unclear how long he has been watching, though likely between 0.5 and 8 hours.

7:45
I'm feeling good today.  I say good morning to Champe, we eat a couple pieces of cantaloupe, and we rock n roll to the site.  The drive is mostly quiet, each of us with our own thoughts.  We talk briefly about how we'll approach the clam if we see Michigan in semis.  Before the weekend I had a conversation with Andy about finding the right balance of "worry" and "trust" as a coach.  This conversation had a huge impact on my approach to the weekend, mostly by reminding me (as the coach) to remember to trust our work and our players more.  I think it is natural for coaches to worry, but sometimes I can slip too far to the worry side.  This weekend I was resolved to be a source of stability and trust for the team.

8:45
It's sunny with mild wind.  Gungho is crushing Purdue next to us.  Keith hands me my "blue collar" shirt.  Our energy is strong; high focus and good spirits. 

10:30
Our offense is carving up Purdue and our defensive pressure is causing real problems for them in the backfield.  Rozo is closing down their main handler and we've been able to create a bunch of blocks and punts as a result.

10:55
We head into half up 8-3.  I talk with Yiding for a few minutes about adjustments, but we feel like the plan is working well and we'll just stick to it.

11:40
D2 has just rattled off 5 breaks in a row on Purdue and we close them out on an efficient O point.  On the next field over, Chicago is taking it to Michigan, and they close it out 14-10.  Turns out I won't need to use my clam schpiel after all!

11:50
I'm trying not to pay too much attention to what's going on in the other quarters because I want to keep my mind focused on the game in front of us.  Despite this I catch that ISU won on DGP over Illinois and ND won on DGP over Indiana.  Phew.  I congratulate Zubair on the win and we flip.  We're on D going upwind to start.  I'm glad we're playing UChicago - we have a great relationship between teams and the game are always very competitive and spirited.  I am also slightly relieved to not have to play Michigan, though this Chicago team is excellent and had smashed us pretty good at conferences a few weeks back.

12:20
We go up 3-1.  We did not change our strategy much between this game and conferences - we made some tweaks to our matchups and we had Kyle cross over and take Wets.  Kyle did an incredible job, anchoring the offense while also shutting down Chicago's best cutter for about half of the D points.

12:55
At 7-5 we load up a Dline going upwind and break for half on an inside break from Kenneth.  The oline is untouchable right now - turning in flawless holds against whatever look Chicago is bringing.  I know they're going to come out of half firing and their top guys have the legs to play a lot of points in a row, so I'm trying to sub so that we can put them away.

1:30
At 13-7 we send out D2 and Chicago drops a swing pass giving a short field.  We fast break and score immediately, then D2 closes out the game downwind next point.  Finals!  I am not particularly excited at this point, I am very much in the mindset of one game/point at a time.  It was not until much later that I felt the magnitude of what we were doing. 

1:50
The Stump (South Shore Line) regional final is a reality!  I'm very excited about this outcome.  I head over and talk to Beetle, Klenke, and Hoff to congratulate them and wish them a good game.  I tell them that I will be happy regardless of who wins, and I mean it.  I quickly add, "but we'll give you our best" in a totally unneeded clarification.  We're on O going downwind.  It's a very mild wind, conditions are good.  Sunny and not too hot.

1:55
I talk with Yiding and Champe about our defensive approach and the matchups we want.  We feel like Kyle has the legs to play a lot given how our bracket games went, and we feel like we'll need him to help contain Beetle.

2:10
We come out firing, Kyle Ds up Beetle and we go up 3-0 right away.  I'm feeling okay about that, but I know that ND has a lot of great athletes capable of making big D plays and a couple really strong throwers who have the legs to play every point.  I'm wary of the push I expect them to make.

2:25
Hoff gives me a high five on the sideline.  What an awesome guy.

2:40
The oline is playing lights out.  Turning in efficient hold after hold against a variety of ND defensive looks.  We turned it twice in the first half but converted quickly on the back of Josh's defense after the turn.  ND is sagging off Keith and he is getting consistently free in the endzone.  We go into half up 8-5.

2:45
I talk with Yiding and Champe about adjustments.  In general we've done a great job containing their deep game, but there are a few really great players we hadn't known about going in that we want better matchups for.  I know Kyle is getting a bit tired, but we also know he'll have halftime to rest and that we'll need him down the stretch.

2:50
Going into the second half I know that Beetle is going to play almost every point, that the ND sideline energy will be intense, and that it is unlikely that our offense will continue to play flawlessly.  This was my worry mode showing a bit.  I do some mental game planning for how I want to approach the likely ND push/our oline getting broken.  My general plan is to show my trust for them and to commit to not over-coaching.

3:10
We break out of half to go up 9-5.  Then the ND push comes, bringing the game to even at 10s.  As I expected, the errors we are making are execution errors, the offensive decisions we are making have been generally good.  My play calls for the offense don't change much, and I do my best to show with my voice and actions that I trust them to execute well.

3:35
We hold and break to 13-11, they hold and break to tie at 13s.  On the next O point, Kyle reels in a incut past a bidding Beetle, who receives a blue card.  Kyle puts up an away shot to Keith, Keith has his guy on his back, goes up a bit too early, tips it, then follows and gets a clap catch layout for the goal!  After that hold, I figure we'll get two chances to win, this point and DGP next point, and I send out our universe dline to try and break to win. 

3:40
Matt makes a massive bid on a Beetle upline but comes up just empty.  The D pressure is great and Beetle has to look off some options downfield, and the swing pass back to the center is bobbled and dropped.  We go slow and set up an iso to Jeff about 30 yards out.  Matt goes to pick up, looks at Kyle, Kyle says "you got it".  Jeff strikes deep and gets past the backside help, Matt puts up a trust away flick.  Ballgame.  I'm standing about 10 yards away.

I don't exactly remember what happened next, but I remember rushing the field, shouting, and hugging everyone.  I remember that I lost my pen somewhere, probably threw it.  Someone told me I threw my hat in the air.  I remember taking a ton of pictures, shaking a ton of hands.  I remember saying good game to Notre Dame.  I remember talking in the huddle about history and struggle and milwaukee and how our youth stepped up this year (our oline has 1 senior).  I remember taking a picture with the players I had coached on Bolt.  I remember telling Andy "I told you so", talking about Kyle.  I remember hugging Carol.  I remember talking to Pat and Bens and them coming over to congratulate us.

The evening was filled with excited discussions about nationals, with congratulatory emails and texts, and with a palpable feeling of excitement.  Our van ride home was filled with talk about our seed, Max's experiences with nationals, and our next 4 weeks of practice.  We're going to nationals!

Raising The Bar

Champe and Sahaj were wondering my thoughts on this post:  http://champeman.blogspot.com/2017/11/demanding-best.html
The short answer is I mostly agree with what Champe is saying, though I don't feel any particular level of despair.  The longer answer is below.

----

Raising The Bar
(This is intentionally a lifting reference)

First of all, I have a ton of thoughts about this topic both generally and specifically in reference to NUT.  I think Champe is asking the right kinds of questions here.  My thinking on goals setting and team/individual expectations has changed a lot in the past 8 months, some of my current thoughts are going to be different than when I first started coaching.

I'm going to reduce his post to a few questions/ideas and cherry pick lines that I like.  Champe talks about:
1.  Without an external mentor providing setting a high bar, complacency and comfort with current ability level is pretty typical.  Even Champe, someone who is extremely internally motivated, sometimes needed that bar to be set for him externally (his step-dad, Bruns).
2. So how, as a coach or leader, do you get your players to demand the best of themselves?
3. Demand for one's best has to come from someone they believe is in the arena with them.
4. Why is demanding the best something to strive for?
5.  "...to reach the next level of competition...we have to get better at playing frisbee"
6.  On acceptance of failure, the standard of not losing, and creating an environment in which players are used to/comfortable with losing games.

1.  Without an external mentor providing setting a high bar, complacency and comfort with current ability level is pretty typical.  Even Champe, someone who is extremely internally motivated, sometimes needed that bar to be set for him externally (his step-dad, Bruns).

I think this is an extremely important idea.  I think it is the responsibility of the coaches to set this bar for the players at the individual level.  It's critical to understand both what motivates the player externally, and how to elicit internal motivation.  An aspect of setting the bar is that feedback needs to be honest, correct, and with an actionable plan for improvement (basic example: Champe you are fat, if you were fit you'd be good - KB).  This ties directly into relationship-based coaching aka "being in the arena with them" (because you are!).  So the coaches should understand what the team needs, and set an accordingly high bar for individuals with a constant eye for building motivation.

Thought #2, from "Training Soccer Champions" by Anson Dorrance:  It is the coaches responsibility to hold the team accountable for their level of play.  The biggest challenge of coaching has to do with the mental responsibility of maintaining this high standard, of having uncomfortable or awkward conversations when they are needed and making sure the team gets as much out of practice time as possible.  A lesser coach may miss or forgo this encounter due to the awkwardness involved, and the team will be worse for it.

2. So how, as a coach or leader, do you get your players to demand the best of themselves?

Another important question.  Probably one of the quintessential questions for any leader of any team.  At the most basic level, players need to understand what "their best" is, and they need to want to achieve it.  Coaches should help players with understanding what their best looks like through individual feedback and support.  Coaches can also work to elicit the individuals desire to perform to that level.  I think this 2nd piece is about the fundamentals of motivation and stages of change.
Motivation:
"Human beings are motivated by purpose, autonomy, and a drive towards mastery."
Stages of Change:
1. A case for change (I/we are not great & losing, I/we want to be great & win)
2. A compelling picture of the future (I/we could play great ultimate)
3. A sustained capability to change (I/we can develop our skills)
4. A credible plan to execute (I/we can use my/our skills and win)
(Legacy, James Kerr.)
The message is:
- [x] is our team's purpose
- here is where we/you are today
- here is where we/you could be
- here is how we/you get there
- here is why we/you want that
Each of these steps must be completely honest.  Providing incorrect or dishonest feedback helps no one.
I think the culture of improvement and growth is incredibly important for creating a healthy basis for this motivation to grow.

3. Demand for one's best has to come from someone they believe is in the arena with them.

Coaches who do not have good relationships with players are going to struggle massively with communication and the development process.  Players are humans and must be treated as such.  It's really important to have strong trust between players and coaches so that the critical constructive feedback cycle works properly.  Love this point.

4. Why is demanding the best something to strive for?

The obvious answer is because it is necessary to be a great team.  The 2nd layer answer is because this is a skill that has massive carryover to all other aspects of life.  Investing your whole self into something and really pouring yourself into it is a recipe for a rewarding and successful life.  If you are capable of doing something well, you should do so, all the time.

5.  "...to reach the next level of competition...we have to get better at playing frisbee"

I am all about this idea.  I think this is completely true.  It is so obvious, but is seemingly glossed over all too often.  Specifically with reference to NUT, if we want to go further in the post-season, we simply need to get better.  Not just a little better, a lot better.  We should not try to "steal a bid" or "get a crazy upset", we should level up our own game and be a legitimate contender for the kind of outcome we want.  If we want to be a great program that goes to nationals regularly, the level we are attempting to reach is a level where we are consistently earning a bid for nationals through our regular season competition.  The nation is filled with talented, hard-working teams, and ascending to this level is not an inevitability.  It is a matter of developing truly great individual players and truly great teams.  If we want to champions, we need to train like champions and believe like champions.

6.  On acceptance of failure, the standard of not losing, and creating an environment in which players are used to/comfortable with losing games.

A number of thoughts here.  Firstly, simple acceptance of failure should be unacceptable.  Failure is inherent to attempting something challenging, but it must not simply be accepted, it should be addressed directly and worked on.

When it comes to playing well and being great, losing an individual game is external.  If NUT wanted, we could go to 3 low-tier tournaments during the regular season and go undefeated, a perfect 21-0 record heading into the post-season.  We could potentially end the season with a record something like 31-1, falling at regionals to team x.  This is not the way to develop and grow the program, this is a surefire path to complacency.

By going to more difficult tournaments with better opponents, we are challenging ourselves to play better against better opponents.  Great opponents are the best true feedback loop for us as individuals and as a team.  We'll gain a real understanding of how to get open, how to defend, how to place throws, etc.  Our standard of play will be elevated above what it would be if we didn't push our level.

We must play every game with the intent and a deep desire to win.  Regardless of opponent, no game is out of reach, especially not at the college level where turnovers are plentiful and competition varies a lot game-by-game.  Our desire should extend down to the micro level, where we are battling to win each moment of each point of each game.  If we play incredibly well and lose, this is of far more value to us than us sleepwalking through a game and winning, in my mind.

I think one of the most powerful ideas that Chuck brought to NUT was a nuanced approach to process vs outcome and commitment to team-ness.  He wrote a note a couple years back that really resonated with me:

"We were under a lot of pressure [last year], and it was visible.  We were upset instead of joyous to play.  And our team had expectations of performance which made it seem like a goal was just something that was supposed to happen instead of something worthy of celebration.  We were fragmented.  We were individuals.

I want us to:
- Be invested in the man, not the player.
- Be committed to the process, not the outcome.  (i.e. "it's unacceptable to get beat or lose" is the wrong message).
- Recommit to Humility

Last year there were some damaging beliefs that crept into our minds:
1. We believe we "should" win some games.
2. We believe that our best player needed to play great for us to win big games.
3. We believe that only nationals or winning (or no turnovers or getting a block) is acceptable.

These ideas exist on many teams, even high-caliber teams.  All of those ideas contradict humility.  Let me explain for each:

1. We don't deserve any wins, and we're not focused on wins.  We have the opportunity to earn it every time we step on the field.  That's it.  We come to each game humble, and we respect our opponents and always believe in our teammates, especially when our brothers make mistakes.
2.  No individual is greater than the team.  No one needs to single-handedly lift the team to victory.
3. It is none of our business what the results of our efforts are.  We are committed to each other, and we are committed to the process.  We get better every time we are together, we give honest and clear feedback, and we stay committed to each other.  Captains/coaches need to keep the tone positive no matter what because being negative IS ARROGANT.  We don't know what is supposed to happen, so when we get upset with what is happening, we are essentially saying that we DO know what's supposed to happen and that this isn't it.  We don't commit to a result.  We commit to each other and the process.  That's it."

- Chuck