Throughout 2007, I published a weekly newsletter which I sent for free to anyone who emailed to subscribe (to subscribe, go here and fill out the form in the middle of the screen). After receiving too many requests to forward previous issues of the newsletter, I compiled them into a book, which is now available: Hard 2 Guard Player Development Newsletters, Volume 1.

Here is what some people have said about the newsletters:

Mike McNeill, Director of Coaching Development, Basketball BC:

“Each week Brian McCormick’s Hard 2 Guard newsletter includes ideas ranging from coaching strategies, athletic development, strength training, nutrition, skill development and basketball strategy. There is something every week for the coach seeking a greater understanding of how and what to coach in our game. Brian gives it to you in his ‘no-holds-barred’ writing that is both entertaining and educational. I highly recommend the Hard 2 Guard newsletter to anyone interested in coaching!”

Fran Fraschilla, ESPN Analyst and former NCAA DI Head Coach:

“Brian McCormick is slowly influencing the game of basketball in America, especially at the grassroots level. His insights on skill development are second to none. If you coach or, more appropriately, ‘teach’ the game of basketball, this book is a must-read.”

Dave Hopla, Washington Wizards Player Development Coach:

“I look forward to receiving my newsletter so that I can get new ideas, drills and information to implement into my workouts.”

Jeremy Russotti, Professional Trainer, 1% CLUB Basketball:

“Brian's newsletter is a great resource for all basketball players and coaches. It includes up-to- date knowledge of skill building, team strategy, psychology of sport, and strength and conditioning. All basketball trainers, coaches, and players will appreciate this newsletter, since these concepts can easily be looked past or neglected.”

Posted on Monday 21 of January, 2008 [18:18:05 UTC]

The Blitz Basketball Method is a method of coaching and training young players I found to be successful. I have published the method as an e-book, as a strategic means for youth player development.

In Cross Over: The New Model for Youth Basketball Development, the model, in many ways, is based on an ideal environment for basketball development, one which is not currently present and one which conflicts with many people’s notions of sports. Blitz, in many ways, is a practical application of the Cross Over beliefs and concepts.

Blitz is not a means to teach every skill; instead, it is a strategy, a style of play, a mantra to encourage and incorporate player development as part of an overall method of teaching basketball within a competitive environment (league, AAU) to young players.

Blitz, in some ways, answers the coach I have received most frequently: I believe everything in Cross Over, but if I do it just like the book, we are going to lose and my players will leave for a “better” team because parents do not realize the value of long term development and only want their son to travel and win so they like the sport. So, what should I do?

Blitz is not necessarily the perfect system. However, it is a method to concentrate on skills players can master at a certain developmental level and create a system of practice and play which encourages and promotes fun, learning and development, the cornerstone philosophy of Cross Over.

Rather than memorize plays, Blitz employs a simple offensive philosophy: Attack! If the floor is well-spaced, players have room to attack with the dribble; if help comes, the ball handler’s job is to find the open man. That is the basics. And, through the Method of teaching the system, most of practice is spent pressuring the basketball defensively and working against pressure offensively. Players develop ball handling skills, passing skills, decision-making skills and defensive skills. Therefore, they are prepared to move to the next level of development where a coach may use a new system or continue to add skills through the same system. Either way, the Method insures players continue to develop and improve their skills in a game environment, rather than just running drills and/or memorizing plays.

I believe strongly in the Method and currently use it, with some slight variations (based on some things Vance Walberg at Pepperdine does), with my professional team in Ireland. In our short practice week, the switch in systems allows more time for skill development because the skill development reinforces the strategic system.

The Method is not for everyone. However, as a strategy to remain competitive and develop skills young players can master, it is a very good method to use.

Posted on Wednesday 03 of January, 2007 [21:35:40 UTC]

Since I published Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball in April, excerpts have appeared on several sites as well as commentary. And, I feel like I failed. While I have received positive feedback from many coaches, including a Toronto youth coach who said it created a “Jerry McGuire-like moment,” many appear to misunderstand and miss the point.

First, Cross Over, the title, does not refer to the basketball move, but to a shift in the mindset; a challenge to “cross over” to a different approach and model.

Second, the book is neither pro-AAU or anti-AAU, despite what I read on other sites. However, the book examines flaws in the current system, much of which is dominated by AAU or club basketball.

Third, the book is not pro-European and anti-American. My belief, and the one I attempted to express in the book, is that the American system is not the optimal or most effective system for player development. And, since it is not the best, I believe it must be examined and studied until the optimal system is developed. If there was a system in place which I felt was the perfect system, I simply would have written about that system. I do not believe the European system is perfect, but I believe there are parts of each system worth keeping, while other parts need to be invented or taken from other sports or resources.

Fourth, the book is not an anti-Nike book; if anything, USA Basketball is most at fault because it refuses to assume control and use its influence in a position of leadership. Nike is just one company fighting to fill the leadership void. However, the root of the problem is the void, not necessarily who fills it.

Fifth, economics rule sports, even youth basketball development. Currently, there is no financial incentive to change, as those who profit most from basketball-the NBA, NCAA, Nike, adidas, NBA players, ESPN, TNT-continue to increase revenue and profits as they expand their reach. As a virtual monopoly with billions of dollars of influence, the NBA only needs a handful of new players each year and the sheer numbers of players playing the game dictates that a few players are bound to be qualified to play in the NBA.

Sixth, in order to shift the economic argument, those who desire a better system need to promote value over profit as a long term strategy. While reading about design issues in Fast Company, I realized the conflict between “corporate types” and “designers” is similar to the conflict between those who back the status quo (corporate types) and those like me who insist change is necessary:

Corporate types, by and large, seek to fuel growth by building from bullet proof, reproducible systems; designers generally attempt to do so by imagining something new, different, better.

The NBA, and by its extension all basketball development in the United States, follows the bulletproof formula of growth by expanding into new markets and improving product placement (espn).

A reliable process–which tends to attract folks in finance, engineering, and operations–produces a predictable result time and again. This is business as algorithm: quantifiable, measurable, and provable. It hews to that old management adage, “What doesn’t get measured doesn’t get done.”

On the other hand, I follow the ideas of those who improve the design of the product to fuel growth. In this case, the product is the level of play which directly relates to the youth development system entrusted with discovering and developing the product.

A valid process, on the other hand, flows from designers’ deep understanding of both user and context, and leads them to ideas they believe in but can’t prove. They work in a world of variables: the unpredictable, the visual, the experimental. Great designers worry less about replicating a successful process than about producing a spectacular solution.

The problem, in this debate, is people like examples. And, of course, it is tough to argue there are flaws in the system when young talents like Chris Paul, LeBron James and Dwayne Wade populate the league.

As the computer scientist Alan Kay put it so memorably, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” And that is what design-centric organizations do: They peer into the needs and desires of their customers, identify patterns of behavior, refine ideas that tap into those behaviors, then push into the unknown–or at least the uncertain.

And, that is where Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development enters. The need and desire of the customers (players) is a better system of development which meets the needs of all players, from recreational to elite. The model is unproven; however, I am very certain it is moving toward the future.

Seventh, I never intended Cross Over to be the Alpha and Omega. Cross Over, the book and the site, is an attempt to start a discussion and provide a potential solution, one that provides a model for each coach to use as a starting point for his or her own program or situation.

Finally, change is required to provide all basketball players a better environment. As the book suggests, the path to elite player development starts with a better, more balanced approach to recreational and especially youth basketball. With a greater emphasis on training coaches and creating a more fun, playful environment for players to learn basic skills at a young age, more players maintain an interest in the game and the foundation is developed for elite development.

While USA Basketball attempts to change the system from the top down, grassroots basketball is where the change must start, even though there is no profit index which suggests change is necessary. However, if we emphasize value, not just profit, the need for a better approach becomes obvious.

Posted on Friday 13 of October, 2006 [23:57:02 UTC]

On my other blog, I did a running blog of the Greeks victory over Team USA. I spoke at length with Tom Farrey of espn the magazine this morning and started to write a blog entry about various opinions; however, it’s all the same stuff I have written over and over (among other places).

I have read opinions throughout the Internet on the fall out from the game and nobody has touched on what I see as the main point: Team USA played like most AAU teams play while the Greeks played professional basketball.

I wrote an entire book about this, but, in a nutshell:

European club teams develop players to compete for professional clubs and national teams; Americans compete for league, section, divisional or national championships in every season and there is zero continuity of development. This, in one sentence, describes the entire game and the reason why all the pundits continue to miss the point.

As I wrote from the start, the “Coach K as Savior Movement” was doomed to fail because it attacks the wrong problem. The problem starts far before players reach the NBA or qualify for the men’s national team. The issue is not the lack of adjustments to the pick and roll or the inability to adjust to International rules. The issue is the manner in which players are developed from the pee-wees to the pros.

Anyone who watched the game and comes to another conclusion is blind to the ills we have created in this country. And, there are many in this group, as I have been attacked recently on multiple sites because I happen to espouse a belief that the current system is plagued with problems.

Team USA stood around on offense and watched each other try and go 1v1; occasionally these forays led to wide open threes in the corner or offensive rebound putbacks. But, often they led to poor shots against multiple defenders. The ball was almost never entered to a post player.

Defensively, Team USA stood around and watched. Players only reacted once the ball was already in the air, and many times players were too far out of position to recover.

The Greeks ran multiple pick and rolls to create open shots for the ball handler, the roller, cutters or players spotting for open threes. This was exactly what happened in 2004 in Athens against Lithuania and Puetro Rico.

Defensively, the Greeks packed the paint, helped, forced the extra pass and generally made it difficult to play 1v1 basketball. Just like teams did in Athens.

I watched the game and had flash backs to AAU games from the summer: players standing around, absence of post play, no team defense concepts, etc. Team USA played just as these players have played their whole lives because all the players are of the “AAU generation.” (Ironically, in the articles linked above from earlier in the year, I compared the “AAU Generation” with Spain’s Player Development Center’s which have developed many of the current Spanish team).

To me, losing an International competition is not the end of the world. I will not lose any sleep because the Greeks beat the USA in a near-empty arena in Japan. My issue is the constant reinforcement from every possible angle illustrating the magnificent flaws with the way we approach basketball, youth sports and athlete development in the United States. As I said on another site, I am not interested in my way; I am interested in spurring the discussion to develop and institute the best way.

Unfortunately, few others seem interested. I sent my book to Jerry Colangelo, Mike D’Antoni, Mark Cuban, David Stern and George Raveling. I have e-mailed And1 (I will not associate with adidas as long as Joe Keller represents the brand), AAU teams, the Jr. NBA, BCI and others. Raveling called me and asked for more copies, which I sent, but then left me and the book out of the summit he organized and has failed to return multiple calls since. On web sites, my comments are disparaged because there is a giant force with vested interests in maintaining the status quo because change might interrupt the income and wealth of many individuals and companies.

On the other hand, Basketball Canada ordered 100 books this week to pass out to some of its Steve Nash Youth League Coaches and numerous officials and directors within the Basketball Canada hierarchy have emailed about the book, applauding its ideas. Canada sees the US system and wants to learn from its mistakes. Unfortunately, basketball minds in the United States appear unwilling to make a similar effort.

Posted on Friday 01 of September, 2006 [22:54:24 UTC]

Visit The Cross Over Movement to learn more about the book and its concepts. Join the forum and add to the discussion and read the blog for the latest updates to the information contained in the book.

The Movement is here. Put the youth back into youth basketball. Visit The Cross Over Movement.

Posted on Monday 07 of August, 2006 [05:51:33 UTC]

Bob Hohler mentions the book in Part III of his Boston Globe series on the sneaker wars:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2006/07/25/are_you_kidding/

Posted on Tuesday 25 of July, 2006 [16:32:20 UTC]

I spent a solid hour in a Paris Internet cafe on Tuesday trying to find a way to get to Nuremberg, Germany for the United States game against Ghana today. I failed. So did the USA.

After watching the US play Italy and the Czech Republic and Ghana play the Czech Republic, it was hard to root for the US: it played boring soccer.

I am not going to question Bruce Arena or call for his firing as a National Coach has little ability to develop players. And, while the players played with effort, they simply lack world class ability, and that is not Arena's fault.

The US' speed of play is sooooo slow. Every time a US player broke into open space in today's game, the roar of anticipation grew in the stadium. And, then the attacking player passed backwards and the sighs were audible on television. As passionately as Sam's Army is, they sounded as if they were struggling with the US' uninspired play.

The US lacks two vital qualities: speed and creativity. Clint Dempsey is my favorite player and I was disappointed in the Czech game when he did not start because he is one of the few players on the roster who consistently makes plays. While the US banks on Landon Donovan, the team needs more Dempsey, more players willing to take on players and finish their chances.

Unlike others who are jumping off the US bandwagon, I think the US is a squad filled with serviceable international players. Unfortunately, it lacks a midfielder with the creativity of Ronaldinho or Riquelme or a midfielder with the pace and work rate of Pavel Nedved or Michael Eissen or a striker with the finishing of Didier Drogba or Crespo or a player who is deadly on free kicks like a David Beckham.

During the Costa Rica game, commentators mentioned that Paolo Wanchope spent several childhood years living in the United States; if he was on the US roster, the US advances into the next round, as he is a proven finisher with speed and strength, an element the US lacks.

What is amazing to me is that one of the most organized development systems in the world fails to produce players with world class ability, while the beachs and streets of barrios in Brasil, Argentina and elsewhere produce multiple teams worth of International playmakers.
The problem is similar to that afflicting basketball development: too much structure, organization and adult involvement stifles creative development and self-learning and players simply lack the feel, touch, vision and creativity of world class players. In basketball, the urban parks provided these learning environments to generations past, but today, kids have left the parks in favor of AAU Tournaments, free shoes and overcoaching; kids depend on coaching more and more and this dependence elimnates creativity, quick decision-making and feel. This is less evident in basketball, as more American athletes pursue basketball than soccer, but each suffers from the same affliction.

As Gary R. Allen, Director of Coaching: Virginia Youth Soccer Association writes:

"Our current method in the United States...mistakenly focuses almost exclusively on the extraordinary physical maturity and technical ability of players like Samba and Adu. This thinking ignores perhaps the most crucial element in the total development of a soccer player: the ability to read the game, the flow, and how to anticipate and adjust to individual opponents and teams. These are the intangible traits that make great players rise above others, and that players only develop over a long period of time with experience and experimentation.

We must focus on the long-term and intrinsic development of players, guiding them, but more importantly, allowing them, to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. This will enable them to have the tools to adjust and exploit a vast array of situations, in many cases, all in the same game. This is neither an easy nor a short-term learning process. The fact that we are dealing with pre-teens and teenagers further complicates the matter.

I remember when I was a freshman in college, playing varsity at a very successful Division 1 school. I was one of two Americans on the team. The rest were Brazilian, El Salvadoran, Israeli, and English. Some of the greatest learning experiences for me as a player that year did not occur in college training sessions. Instead, they occurred on Saturdays when many of us played small-sided pick-up games in a local park with Portuguese fishermen who were in port at the time. It is in this type of environment that players have the opportunity to truly learn how to play and adjust to many types of situations and players. Thinking and the ability to adjust take a long time to develop, with a lot of experimentation, and, yes, failure. But our culture won't allow the failure required to learn at any age or stage. We must always have immediate success."

The answer is not more coaching; it's less. Players need to play, to experiment and to learn on their own, whether on the hardwood or the pitch. Until we change the methods we use to develop players, the United States will never produce a Riquelme or a Pavel Nedved, and fewer and fewer Dwayne Wade's and LeBron James' will find their way to the Association.

Also, as an aside, the Landon Donovan experiment is not working. No Brasilian basketball player shuns the NBA to play in Sao Paulo, Brasil to be close to his family and girlfriend and simultaneously considers himself a world class player. It's fine if Donovan wants to play in the MLS; however, if he does, US Soccer needs to put its National Team fortunes on someone else's shoulders, a player playing in one of the best leagues in the world. Hopefully Eddie Johnson, Freddie Adu, Clint Dempsey or someone else quickly emerges as that go-to, star-quality player.

Posted on Monday 26 of June, 2006 [01:04:23 UTC]

THe following is a string of questioned emailed to em by a coach after reading my new book, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development.

I fully agree with the developmental categories of participation, but as a HS coach who is hired and fired and judged on wins and losses, I can see where a HS coach would want to add a little more structure to the develoment of youngers kids. As a HS coach, you have to try and build a winner, but how do you incorporate free play, but still teach the kids the fundamentals they need to succeed at the HS level???
That's one point of the book: coaches should be judged by more than wins and losses, and until there is a paradigm shift in our collective mentality, kids and development suffer.

Secondly, players learn best through free play; sure, it makes it more difficult at first, but the end result is a better player. In coaching terms, preparing to play a great motion offense is much more difficult than preparing to play a team that runs sets because the motion is less predictable. However, teaching a motion offense is much more time intensive and requires more effort. It also requires a coach to release the controls and allow the players to make plays, as opposed to relying on the sets or system to generate the desired shots. Utilizing more free play is similar; it is a matter of empowering players to take responsibility for their development as opposed to creating an atmosphere where they constantly look to the coaches for all the answers.


"For many children, the experience differs from the joy experienced playing basketball on the playground or in the neighbohood, and they quit formal basketball." I agree 100% with this...BUT.....what was I supposed to do at my school where 95% of our kids live out in the country. We have no local parks, etc?
What about open gyms where the kids develop their own games, rules, etc? We run organized workouts here; we warm-up with an hour of drills, mostly ball handling and shooting, and then play for two hours. Mostly we let them play; occasionally I stop and instruct; there are no plays or sets. It's a much different environment than a league game with refs and a scoreboard and parents complaining about playing time, shots, wins, etc. When I coached with the Santa Monica Surf AAU program, we organized a once a week "open gym" for our players and others to play informal basketball where the players directed the activity and played freely, not with set offenses, rules, etc.


What is the prize that European countries eye?? Is it the olympics??
European clubs use the system to develop professional players. The goal is to peak at 22 year olds while playing pro ball, not 15 year olds on the JV team.


I think that each coach or player in the USA has a different prize that they eye.

In California, everything is about exposure. I train kids who go to adidas exposure events for 11 year olds. Everything, it seems, is about winning AAU National Championships and/or getting a college scholarship. Nothing else seems very important.


Why is it starting sport specific development not recommended for kids in the 9-11 year old range??? I agree that kids should play multiple sports, etc but as long as things are kept fun at this age level, why can't the fudamentals of basketball be stressed and worked on in a semi-structured atmosphere???
The difference, I suppose, is emphasis. Obviously if a kid plays a sport, he will have some sport-specific instruction. However, all skills should start with general instruction. For instance, before a kid can shoot properly, he must be able to bend properly; before he can play defense, he must know how to shuffle laterally. Unfortunately, most coaches skip the general skills and build sport-specific skills on top of poor general athletic skills which limits development.

I do think kids should play at the 9-11 age range; just not year-round and with a greater emphasis of play and general skills as opposed to results and sport-specific skills.

For more discussion, go to the Hoops Training message board.

Posted on Friday 05 of May, 2006 [23:34:03 UTC]

A USA Today article this week bemoaned the current American basketball system (i.e. AAU), which touched off a debate throughout the Internet and led one coach to ask where AAU will be in five years.

Cross Over addresses this question over and over.

Is there a problem with the current approach? Yes. See Chapter 1, 2 and 3.

If so, what will it take to change? A miracle. Leadership from an as yet unknown source who can rival the NCAA, Nike and Adidas. Basically only two entities exist with such clout: the NBA and USA Basketball. The current system benefits NCAA coaches, as it makes recruiting and evaluation easier, and the shoe companies because they find "player pimps" who clothe the next generation of superstars. The NBA and/or USA Basketball must stand for the good of the game because the shoe companies and NCAA care only about its own interests.

Pros of current system? Better players playing with and against each other.

Cons of current system? too many games, unncessary travel, too much money, too many unsavory player agents, no emphasis on improvement, no rest for players, no time for development, etc. See Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Does anyone see a spin-off? Yes. Chapter 11 and 12 covers my ideas for the next generation of club basketball, a system more aligned with the European club system which creates a more efficient, balanced approach to basketball development.

Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development examines the flaws in the current system, creates a new model based on a more long term approach to player deverlopment, outlines a coaches' education program and proposes a new club basketball system designed to provide more recreational opportunities for youth players and elevate the development of the elite player.

Please visit my message board for further discussion of these issues.

Posted on Sunday 23 of April, 2006 [00:01:41 UTC]

In Chapter 10, I briefly outline a Basketball Coaches Training Program. I believe the occasional Nike Coaches' Clinic is insufficient preparation for today's coaches and young players deserve better trained coaches. Asking all aspiring coaches to major in exercise science is unrealistic and demanding all coaches complete some form of certification is as well, as so many coaches are needed for all the youth sports' teams. However, every coach should be able to pursue additional training in a formalized coaching curriculum for a nominal fee. Many sports federations, like USA Track and Field and USA Weightlifting, offer certifications and coaching clinics. USA Basketball does not.

Lithuania is a small nation on the Baltic Sea that is an international basketball powerhouse, consistently producing a strong national team and NBA players since its independence from the former Soviet Union. Lithuania takes its coaching education programs seriously:

"Basketball coaches attend 40 to 50 hours of coaching seminars and lectures each year...The LPEA (Lithuanian Physical Education Academy) graduates 10-15 basketball coaches each year...Approximately 80% of Lithuanian basketball coaches have graduated from LPEA, where they have had 600 hours of basketball studies, while students work as coach assistants during training sessions, developing their first coaching skills," (Mindanaus Balciunas, 37).

While we panic because our national team lost to Lithuania in the last Olympics, maybe we should take a lesson from the rigorous training expected of its coaches, rather than simply blaming "spoiled NBA players" and hiring Coach K to solve all USA Basketball's problems.

Posted on Tuesday 18 of April, 2006 [20:58:29 UTC]