The three major sports leagues in America (MLB, NFL, & NBA... I'm leaving the NHL out) are all scrutinized for different reasons. Most sports fans complain that Major League Baseball and the National Football League are typically too leniant in their rules and diciplinary measures. There was a congressional probe on steriod use in Baseball as the league has just recently made anabolic steriods illegal (they still do not test for Human Growth Hormone). There has been a similar trend in the NFL in the past season as steroid abusers are merely suspended 4 games. The gripes on the NBA, however, are quite different. The NBA brass is chastised for, if anything, being too harsh. Despite the constant barrage of steroid stories and media scrutiny, the MLB and NFL commissioners are less visable in the public than the commissioner of the NBA, David Stern. This is because David Stern has tried very hard to "clean up" a league that is often viewed as "thuggish" and dilinquent while efficiently communicating his mission and goals to league owners, players, as well as fans.
David Stern does an excellent job of communicating. Unlike his counterparts who rule over other professional sports, when a player, coach, or owner breaks a rule or must be punished, he does so quickly and fiercely. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has been fined over $2 million since purchasing the team in 2000. Each time Cuban has wandered on the the court or complained about officiating, he has been slapped with a substantial fine within 48 hours. For exapmle, in the 2006 NBA playoffs, Cuban told reporters that he wouldn't hire the NBA's head of officials "to manage a Dairy Queen," and was quickly fined $500,000 by the leauge within the day (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2006/news/story?id=2440355).
Possibly more important than Stern's constant fines and suspensions to clean up the league in its current state is his "State of the League" address he makes at every all-star game. Stern is trying to strike the roots of basketball to return integrity to the game. He is upset with how high school basketball players are being developed. Many so called "basketball schools" place basketball before schoolwork and hand out diplomas that are not earned. Therefore, Stern successfully pushed to force players to attend at least one year of college before entering the NBA draft. "How do you expect to take a kid and drop him into a cauldron if he hasn't been prepared for boiling," Stern said in his latest State of the League address. "Could you have done more to prepare him for the heat than you've done?" (http://www.streetbasketballassociation.net/content/Commentary/comm_sternaddress.html).
David Stern has dealt with a difficult problem head on and has effectively communicated his vision. Unlike the commissioners in other sports, Stern does not beat around the bush when faced with adversity. He, and the league, deliver a strong and unified message.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
Leadership in the Super Bowl
The quarterback is a leadership position. When one looks back on past Super Bowl winners, they always associate the team with their quarterback. The '71 Colts had Johnny Unitas, the Niners in the '80s had Montana, and more recently, the Super Bowl teams of the Pats had Brady. These QBs led their respective teams not only on the offensive side of the ball, but emotionally as well. In Super Bowl XXIII, the Niners got the ball back on their own eight yard line with three minutes left, down three points to the Bengals. Most offenses would have buckled under the pressure of driving the length of the field against the best defense in the league, but Montanta exuded an inner confidence that fed the rest of his players. Thus, the Niners marched 92 yards down the field as Montana connected on a touchdown pass to John Taylor with 34 seconds left in the game. Montana was a real leader.
This is the reason I knew the Colts would win the Super Bowl. The Colts had a leader at quarterback in Peyton Manning while the Bears did not in Rex Grossman. The Bears team leader, on the other hand, was middle linebacker Brian Urlacher. However, while middle linebacker is a very important position and is often the leader of the defense, it is not the leader of the team. This is why the Bears cracked at important times during the game.
The problem with Grossman is not physical talent. He has a rocket for an arm and is one of the better deep passers in the league. His problem lies in his leadership skills. He always looks scared and like he's about to make another mistake. If we only examine Grossman's stats, he does not look so bad on paper: 20/28, 165 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 1 lost fumble. That is not a bad line. However, these stats don't show the intangebles... such as how the turnovers occured. At the end of the second quarter, the Bears foced a fumble at midfield and got the ball back with a minute and a half remaining in the first half. This changed the momentum as the Bears had an opportunity to merely kick a field goal and head into the locker room with the lead. However, Rex fumbled the ensuing snap and gave the ball directly back to the Colts. This lost all potential momentum the Bears could have had going into the second half. Rex's interceptions were even worse. In the fourth quarter with 13 minutes left and down only five points, Rex threw one of the worst passes in Super Bowl history. His reciever, Muhammad, ran a hitch and go route. However, the corner, Hayden, was sitting eight yards back in coverage. So when Rex threw the deep pass, it fell right in the arms of Hayden who ran it back for a touchdown, which essentially put the game out of reach. On this play, and many others, Rex made up his mind on where he was throwing the ball before the ball was snapped. He didn't look at Hayden and see he was playing off Muhammad, which would have forced him to check down to a different reciever. Rex Grossman is simply not a leader.
A real leader (not only in football), such as Peyton Manning, navigates the terrain and reacts to what he sees. Manning walks to the line of scrimmage with three or four plays in his head and often changes the play at the line in response to how the defense is lined up. Manning would never throw into coverage because he made his mind up before the ball was snapped. If we examine Mannings stats, they are good, but not mind-blowing: 25/38, 247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT. However, Manning did not make any of the mental mistakes Grossman made such as fumbling snaps or throwing into coverage. He also made crucuial plays at crucial times of the game. Such as hitting Reggie Wayne on a 53 yard TD pass in the first quarter. Or throwing accross his body on third and long to hit Dallas Clark for a first down. Manning put his team in a situation to win the game while Grossman did not.
This is very similar to how companies and organizations work. Organizations with strong leaders who react to the current political and economic environment are successful. Stubborn leaders, on the other hand, who are stuck in their old fashioned ways often get burned for not adapting to current changes. Organizations and football teams must be sure to have strong leaders who can adapt to changes in leaderhip positions or suffer the innevitable consequences.
This is the reason I knew the Colts would win the Super Bowl. The Colts had a leader at quarterback in Peyton Manning while the Bears did not in Rex Grossman. The Bears team leader, on the other hand, was middle linebacker Brian Urlacher. However, while middle linebacker is a very important position and is often the leader of the defense, it is not the leader of the team. This is why the Bears cracked at important times during the game.
The problem with Grossman is not physical talent. He has a rocket for an arm and is one of the better deep passers in the league. His problem lies in his leadership skills. He always looks scared and like he's about to make another mistake. If we only examine Grossman's stats, he does not look so bad on paper: 20/28, 165 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 1 lost fumble. That is not a bad line. However, these stats don't show the intangebles... such as how the turnovers occured. At the end of the second quarter, the Bears foced a fumble at midfield and got the ball back with a minute and a half remaining in the first half. This changed the momentum as the Bears had an opportunity to merely kick a field goal and head into the locker room with the lead. However, Rex fumbled the ensuing snap and gave the ball directly back to the Colts. This lost all potential momentum the Bears could have had going into the second half. Rex's interceptions were even worse. In the fourth quarter with 13 minutes left and down only five points, Rex threw one of the worst passes in Super Bowl history. His reciever, Muhammad, ran a hitch and go route. However, the corner, Hayden, was sitting eight yards back in coverage. So when Rex threw the deep pass, it fell right in the arms of Hayden who ran it back for a touchdown, which essentially put the game out of reach. On this play, and many others, Rex made up his mind on where he was throwing the ball before the ball was snapped. He didn't look at Hayden and see he was playing off Muhammad, which would have forced him to check down to a different reciever. Rex Grossman is simply not a leader.
A real leader (not only in football), such as Peyton Manning, navigates the terrain and reacts to what he sees. Manning walks to the line of scrimmage with three or four plays in his head and often changes the play at the line in response to how the defense is lined up. Manning would never throw into coverage because he made his mind up before the ball was snapped. If we examine Mannings stats, they are good, but not mind-blowing: 25/38, 247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT. However, Manning did not make any of the mental mistakes Grossman made such as fumbling snaps or throwing into coverage. He also made crucuial plays at crucial times of the game. Such as hitting Reggie Wayne on a 53 yard TD pass in the first quarter. Or throwing accross his body on third and long to hit Dallas Clark for a first down. Manning put his team in a situation to win the game while Grossman did not.
This is very similar to how companies and organizations work. Organizations with strong leaders who react to the current political and economic environment are successful. Stubborn leaders, on the other hand, who are stuck in their old fashioned ways often get burned for not adapting to current changes. Organizations and football teams must be sure to have strong leaders who can adapt to changes in leaderhip positions or suffer the innevitable consequences.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Post #1-Team Identity
In A. Sen's chapter 'Making Sense of Identity', he states that everyone identifies with many different groups. Someone can, at a single moment, identify him/herself as Asian, American, Californian, as well as a vegetarian and a smoker. People belong to thousands of groups they often do not consciously realize. On a sports team, there are anywhere from 10 to 55 athletes who each belong to their own sets of groups. The successful teams are the ones who find a common team identity and work as one, rather than a group of individuals. I see this quite often in professional baseball. Despite the fact that baseball is arguably the most individualistic of the major team sports, the teams who win are the ones who play together. In the past decade, no team embodies this more than the New York Yankees. When they won their last World Series in 2000, they had a very good team, but it wasn't stocked with superstars as the Yankees of the mid-to late-2000s. They had a few great players such as Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, and Roger Clemens, and a bunch of very good role players such as Tino Martinez, Jorge Posada, Paul O'Neill and Scott Brosius. That team knew how to play together and were constantly picking each other up. The Yankees of today, however, have a very different team makeup. The team is packed with some of the best players the game as well as the best players from a few years ago. Players such as A-Rod, Jeter, Damon, Abreu, Giambi, Sheffield, Johnson, and Mussina cannot possibly find a common identity because these players are all accustumed to being the 'go-to guy'. Superstars have a difficult time identifying with other players because they are often above the game. And while a team needs some firepower, too much is usually counterproductive.
Baseball teams do not even need many superstars to be productive as long as the team as a whole is cohesive. The 2006 Florida Marlins are a perfect example of this phenomena. Their team payroll was just $14.9 million, while the Yankees' was a shade below $200 million. (The Yankees had five players with salaries more than the entire Marlins team payroll.) The Marlins, however, finished a little below .500 and were in contension for the playoffs until they tailed off in the last 2 weeks of the season. Why did this occur? Because the Marlins had a very young team of players who grew up in the minors playing together as well as two exceptional players in Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. The players already had a common team identity because they knew each other so well. As quoted in Sen's chapter by E.M. Forster, "If I had to choose between betraying my country or my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." A role player on the Marlins is much more likely to help his team because they are his friends. Unlike the Yankees who only have their own interests in mind.
Baseball teams do not even need many superstars to be productive as long as the team as a whole is cohesive. The 2006 Florida Marlins are a perfect example of this phenomena. Their team payroll was just $14.9 million, while the Yankees' was a shade below $200 million. (The Yankees had five players with salaries more than the entire Marlins team payroll.) The Marlins, however, finished a little below .500 and were in contension for the playoffs until they tailed off in the last 2 weeks of the season. Why did this occur? Because the Marlins had a very young team of players who grew up in the minors playing together as well as two exceptional players in Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. The players already had a common team identity because they knew each other so well. As quoted in Sen's chapter by E.M. Forster, "If I had to choose between betraying my country or my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." A role player on the Marlins is much more likely to help his team because they are his friends. Unlike the Yankees who only have their own interests in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)