I.T. Erudio

Category: sports

  • Vince Lombardi – Speech 1970

    SO “back in the day” (in another lifetime, in a small town in southwestern Ohio when I might have described myself as an “athlete”) a high school teacher gave me a mimeograph (“ditto sheet”) copy of a speech by Vince Lombardi.

    Yes, that is the “Vince Lombardi” for which the “Lombardi Trophy” is named.

    The speech came to mind because I used the “winning is a habit” line (again).

    Mr Lombardi gave the speech in July of 1970. I’m guessing at the time of the speech he was planning on coaching in the NFL that year, but he died in September 1970 (colon cancer, he was 57).

    The mimeograph copy I had was PROBABLY a transcription of the speech. From a “document” point of view that means that “paragraph breaks” were a little arbitrary – i.e. the “ditto sheet” version was a couple VERY large blocks of text.

    The full speech was probably around 50 minutes (5,000 words, “paid after dinner speech” length) – again, just me guessing after spending 10 years teaching/getting paid to talk.

    I did a little more light editing this morning, changed the font, increased font size for readability, more paragraph breaks. The U.S. Copyright act of 1976 started automatically granting “copyright protection” to any and all “creative works.”

    Before 1976, to get copyright protection you needed to place a “copyright notice” on the work in question – which means I’m 99.99% sure THIS speech is in the public domain


    I want to talk a little bit about attaining a goal, a success what I think it is. I want to say first that I think you’ve got to pay a price for anything that’s worthwhile and success is paying the price. You’ve got to pay a price to win, you’ve got to pay a price to stay on top, and you’ve got to pay a price to get there. Success is not a sometime thing it is an all the time thing. In other words, you don’t do what is right once in a while but all of the time. Success is a habit, just like winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. So it has been the American zeal, gentlemen, to be first in everything that we do and to win and to win and to win.

    Vince Lombardi

    Random thoughts

    There is a lot of “meat” in the speech which is still valid in the 21st century.

    Vince Lombardi often gets depicted as “legendary football coach” standing on the sidelines and yelling. Leadership styles are obviously influenced by personality – and Mr Lombardi was certainly “explosive.”

    BUT his success did not come from “yelling on the sideline.” We could fill up a small library with books “related to” Vince Lombardi – so he made that transition from “Hall of Fame coach” to “cultural icon” at some point.

    I’ve read a few Lombardi biographies so some random thoughts:

    • He was an assistant coach at the U.S. Military Academy West Point when they were still a national football power – under “legendary” coach Earl “Red” Blaik
    • coaching in the NFL was (probably) a second choice – i.e. there were rumors that “major colleges” at the time wouldn’t want to hire an Italian head coach – I’m not making any accusations, but it was a different time.
    • it is easy to forget that “college football” was more popular than the NFL “back then” – the rumor is that Earl Blaik encouraged Vince Lombardi to take an assistant coach job in the NFL
    • Woody Hayes (as the story goes) called Vince Lombardi the best coach he ever met – Mr Hayes is another example of “great football coach” whose “sideline antics” got a lot of press, but had little to do with his success (but a lot to do with his “fall from grace” – umm, ’nuff said)
    • The NY Giants won the NFL championship in 1956 – with Vince Lombardi as offensive coordinator and Tom Landry as defensive coordinator — Mr Landry would win a few games (and 2 Super Bowls) as head coach for the Dallas Cowboys, ’nuff said
    • There was a LOT less money floating around the sport of football “back then” – pro football was NOT a “full time”/year round job for a lot of players from that era – but I wouldn’t over sympathize the lack of money into thinking of that time as some sort of “when the game was pure” era …
    • from an “armchair amateur historian” point of view – the fact that OTHER coaches considered Vince Lombardi a great coach says a lot more than any win/loss record. I’m sure they didn’t all LIKE him, but they RESPECTED him …

    Would Vince Lombardi be successful in 2024?

    Short answer: Yes.

    The game is obviously very different. There is a lot more competition, players make a LOT more money, but (just me guessing) Vince Lombardi would have adjusted.

    Bill Parcells had a very “Vince Lombardi” coaching style and I would describe (waiting to be inducted into the Hall of Fame) Bill Belichick as another example of a “Lombardi like” approach to the game.

    Again “side line personality” is an increasingly small part of the game of football. e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    Sports Psychology

    Another famous “Lombardi quote” (when he was coaching in Green Bay) was that he wanted players to place the Green Bay Packers “third” on their list of priorities.

    What should be first and second on the list? “God” and “family.”

    This is important as the “balance point” to another famous “Lombardi quote”: “Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing.”

    From a “practical sports psychology” point of view – those concepts met at a point where “playing performance” is very high.

    i.e. “football” is important, but not the REASON for existence. Relationships OFF the field are MORE important than on the playing field – but those “on the field” duties shouldn’t be neglected.

    Lose a football game and you shouldn’t be happy, but it isn’t the end of the world. The same applies to “winning a game” – yes, enjoy when you win, but it isn’t permanent.

    The “desired performance state” is where the athlete can go at “full speed” but still be in control. That involves “being in the moment” and not worrying about past OR future possibilities.

    Mistakes are going to happen – but don’t let the “last play” (good OR bad) get in the way of the “current play.” e.g. ok, you messed up, don’t spend time apologizing, worry about getting the next one right – there is plenty of time AFTER the game to dissect what went right/wrong

    i.e. save the “After Action Review” for AFTER the action …

    Of course “elite athlete” doesn’t achieve that without a lot of work/practice. They can’t just “show up” and expect to win.

    e.g. You have to pay the price to win.

    If there are “life lessons” to be learned from “sports”, then that is a still a big one …

    Success consists of getting up just one more time than you fall.

    Oliver Goldsmith

    Management Theory

    There is a lot of talk about how “leadership theory” changes between generations.

    Tom Landry once said that when HE played the game, if the coach had told them to lay on the ground while coaches kicked them in the stomach, THEY would have done it.

    The point being that “back then” players didn’t dare question coaches. Of course “coach” was supposed to have a reason for doing what he did – but he wasn’t expected to share that reason with players.

    THAT type of “centralized command and control” was the norm when Vince Lombardi was coaching.

    Obviously trust has to be earned – and no, I don’t think Tom Landry had coaches kicking him in the stomach. I’m guessing that Tom Landry had players asking him “why are we doing this.”

    Of course “American History” is kind of centered on “questioning authority” – but that is a different subject.

    Random thought: One of the “colorful” personalities in American Revolutionary history was Inspector General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who CLAIMED to be a Prussian officer. He wrote the “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.” The rumor is that General von Steuban complained about “American troops” always wanting to know “why”/asking questions – i.e. as opposed to the obedience of Prussian troops …

    (… btw: the “von” part of his name implies that he was an “aristocrat” – which would have been expected of an “officer” in Prussia/Europe – BUT he probably wasn’t. Like I said he was a “colorful” personality ..)

    MEANWHILE …

    SO Vince Lombardi’s “leadership style” was typical for his generation — but again, he was a “teacher of football.” His view of human nature was that humans are naturally lazy (in general) and need to be “encouraged” to work.

    Of course I’m sure he “encouraged” individual players differently – recognizing that the way “rookie” needs to be “encouraged” is different than they way “veteran player” needs to be “encouraged.”

    Putting a label on his management style isn’t important – the grand “management” concept is ALWAYS that “management equals communication.”

    “Basics of leadership 101” in the 21st Century PROBABLY starts off with the concept that “folks” are going to be better “employees” if they understand the “why” of their job.

    From an “amateur armchair historian” point of view – I would argue that understanding the “big picture” has been the ideal/goal for MOST of human history. It was only after the industrial revolution allowed “management” to “deskill” labor by extreme job specialization that phrases like “that isn’t my job” became possible.

    Random thought: IF I was ever shown a “job description” for a job, there always was an “other duties as assigned” line – which basically meant my job was to do what they told me to do.

    THAT concept might be a good dividing line between “skilled” versus “unskilled” labor – i.e. if they can train your replacement in a short amount of time, you are VERY replaceable.

    How do they learn the “why?” Well, obviously someone needs to teach them – and making sure that happens is “management.”

  • Talking Football – August 2023

    Back when the B1G was actually 10 teams – “two yards and a cloud of dust” was sometimes used to describe the offense philosophy of most coaches in the conference.

    The forward pass might have been added in 1906, but to paraphrase a coach “three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad” – and of course that same coach lived by the “off tackle” play (in his defense Woody Hayes believed that “off tackle” could be adjusted as needed – in the same way that Vince Lombardi described the “power sweep” as “running to daylight”)

    Philosophy

    I’d argue that “ball control and defense” is still a sound starting point for a coaching philosophy – but it obviously won’t win video games where running and defense are after thoughts.

    Remember the point of a football game is NOT “score as many points as possible.” The goal in football is to score MORE points than the other team.

    Example: quick which NFL team holds the record for “points scored per game?”

    If you said that the 1950 L.A. Rams scored 38.8 points per game then you are truly a football historian.

    Of course if you also knew that those 1950 Rams went 9-3 in the regular season and then lost the (pre Super Bowl era) NFL Championship to the Cleveland Browns (Rams 28 – Browns 30) then you are probably a Cleveland Browns fan …

    Team Game

    The point is that football is a “team game” – i.e. offense isn’t more important than defense. This idea that “defense matters just as much as offense” applies to MOST team sports.

    At various points in modern sports history “genius coaches” have come up with the idea to “emphasize” offense over defense – and they tend to score a lot of points, but give up more points than they score.

    To be fair – coaching philosophies like “run and gun” (basketball) and “run and shoot” in football came about as creative ways to deal with a lack of “player size.”

    If you put on your “defensive coordinator” hat and imagine the offense that is hardest to defend – and you will probably come up with some version of an “option” offense (i.e. an offense where the play can change in reaction to the defense). The classic “triple option”/wishbone offense comes to mind – which is still successfully used at various levels.

    BUT all of the above goes out the window when you start talking about “professional sports” where “big and fast” players are the norm. Yes, there are still different coaching philosophies – but dealing with an organizational lack of “size and speed” goes away when you can just “draft”/hire big and fast players

    (btw: Glenn Ellison – the football coach not the economist – earned “Ohio Coach of the year” in 1961 for developing the Run N’ Shoot offense at Middletown High School in Ohio – his book on the offense is available on Amazon.

    As I remember the story he also advocated putting the “best 11” players on offense and trying to outscore the opponent. I don’t think he ever had an “undefeated season” but his “run n’ shoot” teams were always competitive.

    Ohio high school football didn’t start having “playoffs” until the 1970s – BUT I will just point out that his offensive philosophy has won a lot of “State Championships” at the High School level. At the NFL level it was kind of a “fad offense” until defensive coordinators “figured it out”)

    Turnovers

    The “traditional Big 10” offense implies a field position philosophy. Part of that philosophy is a practical recognition of traditional Big 10 “winters” and general “not southern California” weather patterns which account for SOME of those “traditional” low scoring games.

    Remember the point of football is to “score MORE points than the opponent” – we could express that as a Win (W) happens if Points Scored (PS) minus Points given up (PGU) is greater than 0

    W = (PS – PGU) > 0

    the “Win” equation

    Simple enough – the nuance comes in when we recognize that EITHER team can score on any play. This is the dreaded “turnovers” statistic.

    To expand the equation “Points Scored” can be broken down to “offensive points scored” and “defensive points scored” and “Points given up” broken down to “offensive” and “defensive” (and no I didn’t forget about “special teams” – feel free to add them as their own category or combine them either offense or defense)

    Then a statistic like “net points off turnovers” could be positive (if the team minimizes turnovers and/or creates more net turnovers) or negative (the inverse)

    Saying that “turnovers” can decide a game is obvious – but from a “team” point of view what matters is how they react to the turnover more than the turnover itself – which is another subject for another post.

    It is a cliche to say that “every play matters” and then point out that most football games are “decide” by 5 plays.

    TODAY I’m just pointing out that “field position football” revolves around the idea that the key to winning is not making “big mistakes” close to your end zone (and giving up points).

    I suppose a true “field position” practitioner would try to “surprise punt” if they are inside their own 10 yard line and try to reverse the field position – but you will never see that in the NFL simply because the athletes involved all have “big play – 90 yard touchdown” potential.

    ANYWAY that “elongated sphere” tends to be slippery in bad weather and bounces funny even in the best of conditions – so “ball control” (don’t turn the ball over on our side of the field) and “defense” (don’t give up big plays) remains a sound coaching philosophy starting point …

    Playbooks

    Imagine that “Team A” gets their hands on a copy of “Team B’s” offensive playbook – does “Team A” get a substantive advantage?

    Well, no. The specific formations/plays don’t matter as much as “real time general tendencies.”

    IF a player has a “tell” then that is going to be useful – i.e. if a receiver only puts in his mouthpiece when it is a ‘passing play’ and holds his mouthpiece in his hand when it is a ‘running play’ then THAT is actionable intelligence.

    Trying to recognize tendencies is the point of “film study” in the NFL.

    The “old school football” idea that you can tell the other team what you are gonna do and they still won’t be able to stop it – MIGHT still work if your players are MUCH physically superior than your opponent.

    Just having the opponents “playbook” is useless – knowing the opponents “tendencies” is priceless.

    This is the substance of “traditional rivalry” games in any sport at any level – i.e. both teams are well acquainted with the other teams players and tendencies so we get the basis for another cliche about “throwing out the win/loss records” because it is “rivalry week”

    At the pro level it tends to be EXTREMELY difficult to “blow out” the same team multiple times in the same year. Yes, statistically “good teams” are going to beat the “not as good teams” on a regular basis – but if they play two times a year every year the chances of two “easy victories” decreases – after all they are all “professional athletes” on both sides of the ball.

    Divisions and Television Rights

    When you are talking about “College football” in 2023 there are obvious divisions – the “small school nonathletic scholarships” folks are still called “Division III” (250 schools), there are 169 “Division II” schools (about 60% of DII athletes get “athletic aid”)

    I will say that the athletic facilities of the “average DIII school” are probably a little nicer than the “average large high school” – and yeah, the best large high school programs might be “competitive” against the average DIII team — but DIII is still “college football”

    For what it is worth – the NCAA runs the “college football” championship playoffs in DII and DIII. “Division I” football has “Champions” going back to 1869. The “National Collegiate Athletics Association” was founded in 1906 – but “Division I” football is still kind of an outlier in the overall “college sports” landscape.

    From a business point of view this “outlier” status is interesting because the NCAA does NOT control the television rights.

    until the mid 1980s the NCAA had control over which teams would appear on television. Which might sound like a “monopoly” if you are not working at the NCAA – and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed in 1984 when they ruled 7-2 in favor of the lawsuit Georgia and Oklahoma (well, the Universities in those States – but it might as well have been the general population) had brought against the NCAA challenging control of “college football on television.”

    (random great line from the lawsuit = “we thought that NCAA stood for ‘Never Compromise Anything Anytime’”)

    The 1984 ruling opened up the television market for individual athletic programs – but (as I remember it) conferences inherited a lot of the “television” control that the NCAA used to have – but that would obviously only apply to “conference games” and certainly didn’t preclude individual Universities from signing contracts for “non conference games”

    ANYWAY in the 1980’s “regional coverage” was the rule – probably an example of the last days of NCAA television control – but you could watch college football all day if you wanted.

    In 1991 Notre Dame Football signed a exclusive contract with NBC for national coverage of their home games – which illustrates the history/popularity of “Notre Dame football” as well as recognized their on the field success.

    In 1993 ESPN started broadcasting “Thursday night college football” – which still seems to feature teams I’ve never heard of on a regular basis. It became a “weekend preview” show just as much as competitive football game.

    The Big 10 had ceased being a 10 team league when Penn State (which along with Notre Dame had up till that point been an “independent” football program) joined in 1990. Penn State football was fully integrated into the Big 10 schedule until 1993.

    The addition of Penn State to the “Big 10” seemed natural – if not inevitable just from the geography involved – i.e. Pennsylvania is in the “mid west” along with Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa (out of order from memory – did I mention I live in Ohio?).

    FWIW: There were (*cough*) rumors (*cough*) of Notre Dame football “flirting” with the Big 10 in the early 1980s – I honestly don’t know how close Notre Dame Football came to joining the Big 10, but that would have felt like “organic growth’ as well. Notre Dame “athletics” joined the Big East (everything except football) in 1995 and then made the same deal with the ACC in 2013.

    “The Big 10” remained 11 teams as a conference took a little risk by starting the “Big 10 Network” in 2006. Ok (pun alert) it may not have been a “big risk” but is also was a guaranteed success.

    The problem with running any “television network” is content. ESPN had successfully launched “ESPN classic” in 1995 – which had proved that there was a market demand for “classic sports coverage.”

    “ESPN Classic” shutdown in 2021 – probably in part because of the success of “conference television networks” – but that is just me guessing. I wasn’t a huge fan of “ESPN Classic” but I remember watching a rebroadcast of a “game from the 1980s” and getting drawn into the broadcast like it was a live event (since I didn’t remember who won the game).

    The Next Big 10 addition was Nebraska in 2011 – again still felt like “organic growth” – but by this time the “Big 10” network was a success and my guess is that “folks in charge” started seeing the possibility of a truly “national conference” – but I’m just guessing again.

    The Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 only really makes sense if you have “coast to coast” conference aspirations.

    btw: I am not criticizing either school. I was stationed in Maryland when I was in the Army – I like Maryland – e.g. The Maryland Terrapins beat Indiana to win their National Championship in 2002.

    I’m just pointing out that they may not be on the same “major sports” level as the other teams added to the Big 10 but their addition makes sense if you are building a “national conference.”

    The “Big 10 Network” was a joint venture (51% for the conference and 49% for Fox) with Fox Sports in 2006. In 2022 the conference signed a $7.5 billion deal that was described as using an “NFL approach” i.e. with multiple networks not just Fox Sports.

    With all of the above in mind – well, adding USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon in 2024 begins to look like “part of a plan.”

    In the “just my opinion” category ‘super conferences’ have become easier to manage/pull of because of modern technology. With 18 teams it really becomes a “League” with two “conferences” – which is a time tested formula for pro-sports in the U.S. – I’m not in the “predictions” game so I’ll wait and see how they implement the 18 team “B1G” conference …

  • Simple Fitness part 2 – the interval trainer

    Google tells me that the “fitness industry” was forecast to pass $32 billion in 2022. Which means that “personal fitness” is more than a New Year’s resolution for a large number of people.

    Elite Athletes

    “Exercise Science” has become a more rigorous academic discipline than the old “physical education” catch all. My guess (100% me guessing – just my opinion) is that most “high schools” now have a “strength and conditioning” coach of some kind – at smaller schools it might be a part-time supplemental job held by a teacher/coach of another sport (probably football).

    All of which means that there is a vast amount of “information” out there. If you are an “elite athlete” or if you are responsible for training “elite athletes” there are a lot of factors to consider when designing a “training program” for competition. Much of that information is “sport specific” — e.g. training for “golfers” is much different than training for “marathon runners”.

    The days of athletes “reporting to training camp” and “getting into shape” DURING “training camp” are long gone. The average “elite” athlete probably treats their sport as a year round obligation – and might spend hours everyday “working out” in the off-season to prepare.

    General Fitness

    But wait – this isn’t an article about “elite athlete training.”

    A large amount of research has been done confirming that a “sedentary lifestyle” is actually a health risk. The good news is that recommendations for “exercise for general health” haven’t changed much.

    It would be “best” to get 30 minutes of low to moderate exertion level exercise most days of the week. The exercise doesn’t have to come in one continuous 30 minute period – again the “best” option would probably be multiple 10 minute periods of exercise spaced out over the day.

    Which means if you work in an office building and can make the walk from “car” to “office” take 10 minutes (park at the end of the parking lot, take the stairs) – that would have SOME health benefits — but that is just a made up example, not a recommendation.

    If you are sitting in front of a computer all day – then you should (probably) also stand up and move around a couple minutes each hour. Again, your situation will vary.

    Interval Training

    If you hate to exercise (or if you have trouble finding the time to exercise), but recognize that you “should” exercise – “interval training” might be a good option.

    The idea of “interval training” is that you alternate periods of “high exertion” with periods of “low exertion.”

    Runners might be familiar with the idea of “fartlek training” (Swedish for “speed play”) – where periods of “faster” running are alternated with periods of “slower” running. Google tells me the practice goes back to the 1930’s – and I’m going to guess that MOST “competitive” runners are familiar with the concept.

    From a practical point of view the “problem” becomes keeping track of “rest” and “relief” times.

    With a “fartlek” run in the U.S. you might be able to alternate sprints and jogging between utility poles — assuming your running path has “utility poles.”

    In a “gymnasium” environment “circuit training” becomes an option — e.g. 20 second “work” times followed by 10 second “relief” times (when exercises could be changed if using resistance training or calisthenics.

    Personally I get bored doing the same routine, don’t really want to go to a “gym”, have an abundance of old computers, and some “coding skills.” SO I wrote the little application below.

    Download

    Interval Trainer start screen
    “Select Workout”
    Workout selected

    workout started with a 1 minute “warm-up”

    Since I designed the application of course it seems “obvious” to me — just a simple countdown timer combined with “work” and “rest” intervals.

    Specific “work” and “rest” periods can be entered — e.g. if you wanted to do a “boxing gym” workout you could set the “interval” count to 15, “Work Time” to 3, and then “Rest Time” to 1 – and you would get 1 hours worth of “rounds.”

    The very generic “General Fitness” workout is 5 intervals consisting of 1 minute of “work” and 2 minutes of “active rest” periods — there is a “clacking sound” at 10 seconds remaining and a “bell sound” between periods.

    Exercises

    I like using an exercise bike or a “step” for my intervals – but you can do whatever exercise you like. e.g. Jumping rope or “burpees” would also be good options.

    For “beginners” doing calisthenics for 1 minute is probably not realistic – but it would be a good workout for a college wrestling team.

    You will get more out of the workout if you “walk around” during the “Active Rest” period.

    Core Strength

    There is a “20 second work/10 second rest” option under “Select Workout” – which is a good example for a “planking” type exercise for “core strength”/calisthenics intervals.

    e.g. As an “ex-athlete” over a certain age – the 20/10 intervals are surprisingly tough. But again “currently a competitive athlete” could start with the same workout – they would just get more repetitions done in the same amount of time (and would recover faster).

    If you are looking for something tougher/more challenging – there are a lot of “High Intensity bodyweight” exercise routines out there on the interweb – but again, be careful. Going too slow at the start is MUCH better than “jumping in head first” and getting injured …

    Simple – not easy

    If you do the General Fitness intervals three days a week (ideally with a day in between workout days – e.g. Sunday – Tuesday – Thursday, or Monday – Wednesday – Friday) and then some 20/10 “planks” for core strength (or do push-ups for 20/10 intervals) that is a “not bad” beginner workout.

    Do that workout for six weeks and then maybe think about upping the “intensity” – or start doing the workout 4 or 5 days a week.

    Coaches

    I wrote this application for myself – and it could obviously be improved. I could add a “save custom workout” option with a little effort if there is an interest.

    From MY point of view “coaches”/personal trainers are the folks that would find a “save custom workout” option useful — and there would be “time and effort” involved.

    Download

    The download has been tested on 64 bit versions of Microsoft Windows. I have a “Mac mini” so compiling a OSX version might be an option (if someone actually needs it). Same idea for Linux …

    Download Here

  • talkin football

    The NFL “divisional playoffs” were this weekend (January 22, 2023) – I thought the “better teams” all won today (Cincinnati beat Buffalo, San Francisco beat Dallas)

    Bengals

    The final score was Bengals 27 – Bills 10. To my eyes the Bengals are playing like a championship team – I’m not predicting anything, just saying that they are doing a lot of the things that championship teams do.

    Of course the Bengals continue to be disrespected by the “experts” simply because, well, they are the Bengals.

    e.g. The “spread” was Bengals +6 – which means that the Bills were a 6 point “favorite.”

    Sure the Bills were the home team, and they are obviously also a very good team composed of professional athletes – but a 6 point favorite?

    Well, you see the “line”/”point spread” in a football game is about getting equal money bet by both sides – then the “house” is guaranteed a % of the money wagered – no matter who wins.

    The “spread” isn’t about which team is actually better – it is completely about how money is being wagered on the game. Which again comes back to my point that the Bengals are being disrespected by the “experts”

    Experts

    Full disclosure – I don’t enjoy “picking” football games. Just in general I don’t bet on sports.

    As a “seasoned fan” I don’t bother to watch much “pre-game” coverage. I’ll turn on the game just before kick-off and usually mute the ‘announcers” and listen to music during the game.

    HOWEVER – when I was a “not so seasoned fan” I would sometimes watch ALL of the pre-game coverage, then the games, then watch the highlight shows. SO I’ve listened to a lot of “television experts” predict football games.

    There was an old “football expert” by the name of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder who used to predict NFL game scores back in the 1970s/80’s.

    Now, ol’ Jimmy was probably wrong more than he was right – I don’t remember ever hearing his “correct/incorrect” numbers – but he was also a “Las Vegas bookmaker” so his win/lose record was MOSTLY irrelevant.

    Again, if you are a “bookmaker” you just want a lot of money bet ON BOTH TEAMS – so then you are guaranteed to make money not matter who wins.

    ANYWAY – at the end of his career (before he said something inappropriate and got himself fired in 1988) ol’ Jimmy loved himself some Dallas Cowboys (and in his defense the Cowboys were very good in the late 70’s and early 80’s).

    The problem was that the Cowboys as a franchise had some problems in the mid 1980’s (which culminated in a change of ownership in 1989), and were just not a good team – but ol’ Jimmy kept on picking them to win

    from a “psych 101” point of view ol’ Jimmy “The Greek” was suffering from a bad case of “confirmation bias” in regards to the Cowboys — i.e. he keep expecting them to be championship contenders because they had been championship contenders for so long.

    And that brings us to the 2022 Dallas Cowboys. They lost to the San Francisco 49ers today 12 – 19. The line was Cowboys +4.

    My guess is that the “betting public” made the “point spread” smaller in the Dallas game and larger in the Bengals games because of “confirmation bias” — i.e. the general public expects the Cowboys to be better than they are and for the Bengals to be worse.

    Which is why they play the games …

    My opinion on the Bengals win is that the Bengals were the “better team” today. The Bills certainly didn’t “quit” or “play poorly” so much as the Bengals played very well as a team and were in control from start to finish (they looked like “Champions”).

    ‘dem Cowboys

    The Cowboys had another “golden era” in the early-mid 1990’s – winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. But haven’t been back to a Super Bowl or Conference championship game since 1995.

    In that 27 year “championship game” drought they have only had 7 losing seasons. Team Owner Jerry Jones is willing to invest money in the team, they have a state of the art stadium, and a large passionate fan base – i.e. if there is a “recipe for success” the Cowboys have been following it.

    Watching the game today – my opinion was that the teams were “physically equal.” It was a close, entertaining game but I would describe it as the “Cowboys lost” just as much as the “49ers won.”

    No disrespect for San Francisco – they are another “doing things right” franchise (but they have made a couple Super Bowl appearances since their “golden era” back in the 1980’s/90s).

    But the Cowboys continue to make “small mistakes” that are hard to justify/explain.

    The Steelers Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Knoll once said that “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    Chuck Knoll

    Yeah, it is a great “football coach” quote – what he (probably) meant is that more games are “lost” because of players making (self-inflicted) mistakes than are ‘won” by players making great plays.

    SO the Cowboys have a lot of very talented players – that managed to find a way not to win. I have an opinion on the “why” of the Cowboys continued “non championship” run – but it is just an “opinion” and it isn’t important or useful at the moment …

    To the 49ers credit, they let the Cowboys make those mistakes, took the win – and will play next week against the Eagles.

    BUT I didn’t get that “championship” feel from the 49ers – that doesn’t mean they won’t win against the Eagles. The Eagles are very good and were dominant in their win – but the Giants had that “happy they won last week” look – so the game will be interesting …

  • Simple Fitness

    “Fitness” does not need to be complicated and time consuming. The amount of exercise required to “prevent disease” is relatively small – but there are enough variables to make the subject confusing.

    SO I’m going to try to boil the subject down as much as possible.

    I will start by saying that I am NOT a “fitness professional.”

    Once upon a time I thought of myself as a competitive athlete (a LONG time ago). Also “once upon a time” I earned the CSCS from the NSCA (“Certified Strength Conditioning Specialist” from the “National Strength and Conditioning Association”), and passed the ACSM (“American College of Sports Medicine”) “personal trainer” exam about that same time.

    All of which means next to nothing.

    HOWEVER – I’ve looked at the current research, have an “informed opinion”, and might be “certified” again if I make the effort.

    The problem is that there is a LOT of “fitness” information in the marketplace – sorting through the irrelevant information can take some effort.

    First things first

    FIRST we must distinguish between “fitness for health” and “sports conditioning.”

    There is no consensus on the most effective way to train competitive athletes. There are just too many variables.

    Obviously “sports conditioning” is going to be “sport specific” – the “best” workout for “long distance runners” will look almost nothing like the “best” workout for “NFL offensive lineman.”

    Then “great athlete’s workout plan” isn’t going to work for everyone in that sport. No, I’m not saying that “great athlete” shouldn’t write a “workout book” just that the athlete’s individual workout plan PROBABLY won’t “translate” to the general public. Again, too many variables – so those type of books become “fitness memoirs” much more than “books on fitness.”

    To be honest – since the field of “exercise science” has developed over the last 40+ years, the number of “celebrity workout books” has declined. Of course being a “trainer to the stars” is probably still a good “blurb” for a fitness book – i.e. the celebrity’s “personal trainer” might write a book.

    However, having six-pack abs and great genetics does not equal “source of good advice.” Particularly with “sports conditioning” – great athletic ability tends to cover up a large number of “workout flaws.”

    Consider the myth of an ancient Greek wrestler named “Milo.” Milo supposedly trained by picking up a newborn calf and carrying it around all day. Milo continued to carry the calf around as it grew, until eventually he was carrying around a full grown cow. Obviously he would have had to be incredibly strong – and was unbeatable as a wrestler.

    I’m not sure Milo’s workout method would work for “non myths.” (but if you know someone training that way – I’d love to meet them)

    SO a lot of “fitness books” make that some error. They prescribe “what so and so likes to do” as opposed to “what will work for the general population.” I’m not saying all “celebrity workout books” are useless – but let the buyer beware.

    The point is that “fitness for health” can be very simple. The consensus is that “doing anything is better than doing nothing” and then doing “more” UP TO A POINT is GENERALLY better.

    Benefits of exercise

    I’m not going to give you a long list of benefits of physical activity. The “long term” benefits all revolve around increased “quality of life.” You are NOT going to live forever in this human body, but you will feel better and be able to function better as you age if you engage in regular physical activity.

    Again, anything is better than nothing. The “minimum recommendations” is still 5 days per week of 30 minutes of “moderate intensity exercise” or 20 minutes of “vigorous intensity exercise” 3 days a week. Doing “strength training” a couple times a week is also recommended.

    The big danger is being “sedentary” for long periods of time. It would be “best” to spread out activity during the day than to do one long exercise session and then sit all day.

    Why people don’t exercise?

    The “fitness industry” recognizes the “New Year’s resolution” market – i.e. every year a large number of folks make a “resolution” to “exercise more”/”get in shape” in the coming year.

    Obviously that means that people are aware of the need to/benefits of exercise. Why do so many not follow through on their “fitness resolution?”

    Well, why any one person isn’t exercising is probably due to a combination of factors.

    As a long time observer of “human nature” my guess is that the average “new year’s resolution” to exercise is unrealistic.

    Notice that I’m not saying “insincere” – i.e. they honestly intend to try and will make a genuine effort.

    No, I’m saying “unrealistic” in the same way that trying to replicate Milo’s workout is “unrealistic” for ordinary mortals.

    Ok, say that “apparently healthy” individual has made a resolution to “start exercising.” Our sincere individual makes a plan to get up at 5:30 in the morning, run 2 miles, go to the fitness center and do 30 minutes of weight training, then go to work all day.

    If our individual normally sleeps until 7:30 and has to rush to get to work on time – they may set the alarm for 5:30, but hit the snooze button multiple times. They skip the run, and go to the fitness center, which is packed with other resolution makers – so they decide to skip the weight training until next week when it will be less crowded … and then they slide back into their normal routine and the resolution isn’t kept.

    OR – if the “resolution maker” does get up and go for that 2 mile run, and then lifts those weights – they are so sore the next day that they have to call in sick.

    Well, since “delayed onset muscle” soreness tends to be worst 40 hours after exercise – maybe our resolution keeper makes it 2 days, and THEN they can’t move.

    Plan for success

    I’m not criticizing anyone, just pointing out that if you want the “fitness resolution”/any change in behavior to become permanent we need to gradually make small changes.

    Goal 1 should be “setting yourself up to succeed.”

    Remember “anything is better than nothing.” Just making “physical activity” a part of your daily schedule should be “Step 1.”

    Logically “Step 2” should then consist of “time and activity.” If you haven’t been physically active this might translate to “activity you hate least” – but you can always change your workout activity, establishing a routine is the point.

    There was a study a few years back that came up with a “15 minute drive” number – if a person has to drive more than 15 minutes to the gym, then they won’t stick with their program.

    I think they were trying to get more fitness centers built, but the point is obviously worth considering. If you don’t have facilities near by, recognize that you might be setting yourself up for failure IF your plan involves driving over 30 minutes to and from the gym.

    Home Gym

    A sure way to get around the “drive time” problem is a home gym. There are numerous “home workout” options – ranging in cost from “inexpensive” to “wow.”

    The obvious problem is that the “home gym” can become a clothes hanger and not used just as easily as the gym membership can be abandoned.

    There is no “best exercise device” – treadmills, rowers, stationary bikes, and “climbers” can all provide great workouts – but if you don’t like the exercise then the machine will just be an expensive place to hang clothes.

    You always tend to get what you pay for – so try before you buy if possible.

    Know Yourself

    Generic advice time: Any “change” is easier if you have a “support group” of some kind.

    A secondary benefit to joining a “fitness facility”/rec center is “group exercise” classes. If you have a workout partner that also commits to the class then you are both more likely to continue.

    Again, if you hate the exercise and/or aren’t motivated by the group – then just because you have spent money on a class doesn’t mean you will attend.

    If you enjoy the social aspect of “exercise classes” then there are other health benefits – but if you want/need to minimize your workout time because of schedule restrictions “classes” probably aren’t for you.

    There are low cost, fast, and effective exercise routines that can be performed at home. One of these is “interval training”/”circuit training.” Which I will discuss in another article…

  • “Leadership”, “Teaching”, and “Education”

    Just some random thoughts – Starting off with a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein –

    If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough

    Albert Einstein

    Leadership

    The Einstein quote came to mind for a “2 drink story” reason that I will not relate here.

    I’ve been a “student of leadership” going back to my days playing “high school sports.” Athletics can become a “leadership classroom” – with “wins/losses” providing feedback – and obvious “leadership” lessons involved in “team performance”.

    If a team is going to be “successful” then the “coach” needs to tailor their “coaching” to the level of the athletes. e.g. Coaching a group of 10 year old athletes will obviously be different than coaching a group of 20 year old athletes.

    SO in “leadership education” they might call this “situational leadership.” In coaching this is the old “you need to master the basic skills first” concept.

    You need to master crawling before you learn to walk. You need to master walking before you can run. Then riding a bike might take care of itself when/if you are ready – assuming you have “learned how to learn.”

    Teaching

    The task facing the coach/teacher/leader becomes helping the athletes/students/employees “master” the required skills.

    The thought on my mind is that how much the coach “knows” isn’t as important as how much they can help the athlete learn.

    “Playing” a sport requires different skills than “coaching” a sport. Just because someone was a great athlete does NOT mean they can teach those skills to others. Just because someone wasn’t a great athlete doesn’t mean they won’t be a great coach.

    (… examples abound of both “great athletes” becoming great coaches, “great athletes” becoming “meh” coaches, as well as “average athletes” becoming great coaches – but that isn’t important at the moment)

    Of course having great athletes can make an average coach look like a great coach – but that also isn’t my point today.

    I’ve watched a lot of “video lectures” given by highly qualified instructors. Occasionally I run into an instructor/presenter that the only thing I get from their presentation is that THEY appear to know a lot – i.e. they didn’t “teach me” anything.

    e.g. one instructor seemed to be reading from the manual – I’m sure in their head they were “transferring information” but the lessons were unwatchable. IF I want to read the manual – I can find the manual and read it. What I want from an instructor is examples illustrating the material NOT just a recitation of the facts.

    Again, a presenter/teacher bombarding the audience with the breadth and width of their knowledge might be satisfying to the presenter’s ego – but not much else.

    I’m a an of “storytelling” as an instructional tool – but that means “tell relevant stories that illustrate a point” NOT “vent to a captive audience.”

    Education

    Tailoring your message to the audience is probably “presenting 101.” It could also be “coaching 101” and “teaching 101.”

    “Education” then becomes the end product of coaching/teaching/leadership and is ALWAYS an individualized process.

    The worst coach/teacher might still have the occasional championship athlete/high achieving student. My experience has been that the “bad” coach/teacher tends to blame the athletes/students when things go wrong but takes all the credit if something goes right.

    MEANWHILE – the “good” coaches/teachers are tailoring their instruction to the level of their athletes/students and recognize that, while getting an education is always an “individual process”, the “process of education” is a “group effort.”

    Even if you go to the library and get a book on a subject – someone had to write the book for you to learn the material.

    Learning to Teach

    Those “bad” coaches/teachers PROBABLY don’t really understand their sport/subject – which is part of what Mr Einstein’s quote points out.

    I have had “not so good” teachers tell me a subject is “easy” and that the class needs to memorize the textbook. Yes, the subject might be “easy” to some students – but not ALL of the students – and rote memorization as a means of mass instruction isn’t a particularly effective use of time.

    I have also had excellent teachers tell me THEY learn something each time they teach a class. They don’t try to impress with their “vast knowledge.” They will try teach the students what is “important” (some memorization might be required but not as the major form of instruction). These instructors tend to be realistic about how much can be “taught” and emphasize the individual effort required to “learn” anything.

    “You will get out of it what you put into it” is imprinted in my mind for some reason. This has morphed into my personal philosophy that “grades in a class tend to be an indication of effort and interest NOT intelligence.” Not everyone can get an “A” in every class, but if they put forth the effort everyone can “pass” the class.

    ANYWAY – If someone teaches for 5 years and then looks back at their first year and DOESN’T see improvement in both teaching skills and mastery of the subject – well, they have 1 year of experience 5 times NOT “5 years” experience.

  • statistics vs analytics, sports in general and bowling in particular

    what a title – first the youtube video demo/pitch for the “bowling analytics” product …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JKbL4_UEwc&t=1385s

    statistics vs analytics

    Yes, there is a difference between “statistics” and “analytics” – maybe not a BIG difference but there is a difference.

    “Statistics” is about collecting and interpreting “masses of numerical data.” “Analytics” is about logical analysis – probably using “statistics”.

    Yeah, kinda slim difference – the point being that there is a difference between “having the numbers” and “correctly interpreting the numbers.”

    “Data analysis” becomes an exercise in asking questions and testing answers – which might have been how a high level “statistician” described their job 100 years ago – i.e. I’m not dogmatic about the difference between “statistics” and “analytics”, just establishing that there are connotations involved.

    Analytics and Sports

    Analytics as a distinct field has gained popularity in recent years. In broad strokes the fields of “data science”, “artificial intelligence”, and “machine learning” all mean “analytics.”

    For a while the term “data mining” was popular – back when the tools to manage “large data sets” first became available.

    I don’t want to disparage the terms/job titles – the problem is that “having more data” and having “analysis to support decisions” does not automatically mean “better leadership.”

    It simply isn’t possible to ever have “all of the information” but it is very easy to convince “management types” that they have “data” supporting their pet belief.

    e.g. I always like to point out that there are “trends” in baby name popularity (example site here) – but making any sort of conclusion from that data is probably specious.

    What does this have to do with “sports” – well, “analytics” and sports “management” have developed side by side.

    Baseball’s word for the concept of “baseball specific data analysis” dates back to 1982 – about the time that “personal computers” where starting to become affordable and usable by “normal” folks.

    My round about point today is that most “analytics” fall into the “descriptive” category by design/definition.

    e.g. if you are managing a ‘sportball’ team and have the opportunity to select players from a group of prospects – how do you decide which players to pick?

    Well, in 2022 the team is probably going to have a lot of ‘sportball’ statistics for each player – but do those statistics automatically mean a player is a “good pick’ or a “bad pick”? Obviously not – but that is a different subject.

    The team decision process will (probably) include testing players physical abilities and watching the players work out – but neither of those 100% equates to “playing the game against other skilled opponents.”

    That player with great statistics might have been playing against a lower level of competition. That player that has average “physical ability test scores” might be a future Hall of Famer because of “hidden attributes”

    i.e. you can measure how fast an athlete can run, and how high they can jump – but you can’t measure how much they enjoy playing the game.

    MEANWHILE back at the ranch

    Now imagine that you are an athlete and you want to improve your ‘sportball’ performance. How do you decide what to work on?

    Well, the answer to that question is obviously going to be very sport AND athlete specific.

    However, your ‘sportball’ statistics are almost certainly not going to help you make decisions on how/what you should be trying to develop – i.e. those statistics will be a reflection of how well you have prepared, but do not directly tell you how to prepare.

    Bowling

    Full disclosure – I am NOT a competitive bowler. I have participated/coached other sports – but I’m a “casual bowler.” i.e. if I have misinterpreted the sport, please let me know 😉

    Now imagine that someone has decided that they want to improve their “bowling average” – how should they approach the problem?

    • Step 1 would be to establish a baseline from which improvements can be measured.
    • Step 2 would be to determine what you need to “work on” to improve your scores from Step 1.
    • Step 3 would be to establish a session of “practices” to work on the items from Step 2.
    • Step 4 would be to re-test the items from Step 1 and adjust steps 2 and 3 accordingly.

    Sure, I just described the entire field of “management” and/or “coaching” – but how well a manager/coach helps athletes through the above (generic) process will be directly reflected in wins/losses in competition.

    Remember that the old axiom that “practice makes perfect” is a little misleading:

    Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

    -Vince Lombardi

    Back to bowling – bowling every week might be fun, but won’t automatically mean “better performance.”

    Keeping track of your game scores might be interesting, but also won’t automatically mean “better scores.”

    I’m told that the three factors for the “amateur bowler” to work on are:

    1. first ball pin average
    2. single pin spare %
    3. multipin spare %

    In a “normal” game there are 10 pins possible each frame. The bowler gets two balls to knock down all 10.

    If your “first ball pin average” is 10, then you are a perfect bowler –and knock all the pins down every frame with your first ball.

    To be honest I haven’t seen any real data on “first ball pin averages” – it probably exists in much the same manner that “modern baseball statistics” can be derived from old “box scores” – but I’m told that a first pin average around 9 is the goal.

    If you consistently average 9 pins on your first throw – then you have a consistent “strike” delivery.

    Which then means that IF you consistently knock down 9 pins – you will have to pickup “single pin spares” on a regular basis.

    Then “multipin spares” are going to be an exercise in statistics/time and fate. Obviously if you average 9 pins on your first ball, the number of “multipin spare” opportunities should be relatively small.

    SO those are the data points being tracked with my “bowling analytics” application.

  • leadership is communication, “winning”

    I wrote a long post that either needs editing or deletion – but at least it served as “pre writing” for this post.

    status quo

    If you want to be precise the “status quo” is simply the “current situation.” Which technically means that whatever is happening at the moment is the “status quo.” Usually the term implies the “normal” and ESTABLISHED state of affairs.

    “Organizational behavior 101” is that “organizations” of any size tend to work to maintain the “status quo.” This “active desire to maintain the status quo” might be called “culture” or “tradition.”

    Whatever we call it – changing the “status quo” will take conscious effort. First it has to be recognized, and then the process of change can begin.

    In a larger organization there will be written/documented procedures that formally maintain “situation normal.” In a smaller organization there are (probably) fewer “rules” but a “status quo” has been established. Then in a “startup” organization the “status quo” has to be created.

    Of course a “startup” is rarely actually starting from scratch – the folks starting the company are bringing all of their previous experience (positive and negative). e.g. If you have heard the saying “you’ll find it the same wherever you go” – that is sorta the same idea …

    change

    Also true is that “change” happens – whether we want it or not. If an organization fails to adapt to change – then EVENTUALLY it will cease to exist.

    Which means that the “status quo” of “long term successful” organizations incorporates responding to change.

    The term “learning organization” was popular a few years back. The phrase might be a meaningless management buzzword in 2021. Back in the early 1990’s the “learning organization” was probably focused on implementing relatively new technology (i.e. that “interweb” thing the kids are using). In 2021 the “learning organization” should be focused on being an “effective communication” organization …

    communication

    If you are in a “leadership” position then you are always “communicating.” The only question is “how” and “what” you are communicating.

    Communication styles can differ greatly based on individual leader preferences. HOWEVER – one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to “assume” that “employees” understand “leadership’s” reasoning/expectations.

    This is particularly important when a leader is trying to change company culture. In a “change” situation it is probably impossible for a leader to overcommunicate – i.e. “change” will still happen if leaders “under communicate” BUT the change will almost certainly NOT be the desired change.

    The concept of “leader intent” comes to mind – i.e. leaders should communicate the “why” as well as the “what” behind their directives. If the desire if to cut waste and be cost effective – then expressing the desire to find ways to cut waste and encourage cost effectiveness will (probably) more accurately meet “leadership’s intent” than ordering people to count sheets of paper and track paper clip usage …

    Sports ball

    The same rules apply to sports teams. Of course it is much more common for “sports philosophy” to be used in the “business” world than the other way around.

    Teams/leagues are simply organizations that have agreed to compete based on a specific set of rules/standards. The big difference being that telling “who won” and “who lost” is much easier with a scoreboard.

    Obviously with “professional sports” the only metric that matters is “winning contests.” Professional coaches and athletes are paid to win. There are no “moral victories” in pro sports.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that “losing professional sports franchise” is actually “losing money”/unprofitable OR that “championship sports franchise” is actually “making money”/profitable. But that is a much different subject.

    Winning

    “Winning” always implies a competition of some kind. In “sports ball” the rules of competition are clearly defined. e.g. You can take a look at the NFL rulebook or download the MLB rules

    But is “winning the only thing?” Or is “just win baby” a functioning philosophy? How about “if you ain’t first, you’re last?”

    If you ain’t first, you’re last

    Reese Bobby

    Well, with all due respect to Vince Lombardi and Al Davis – both of their quotes have been taken a little out of context – as is true for a lot of “motivational quotes.”

    The quote from Talladega Nights humorously illustrates the “out of context” nature of most “win at all costs” quotes.

    Vince Lombardi was also quoted as saying that he wanted his players to place “professional football” third on their “life priority” lists – with God and family being in the first two spots.

    I never heard Al Davis try to explain his “just win baby” quote – beyond being a condemnation of other teams “player conduct” policies. In context he was asking for the same sort of commitment as Mr Lombardi. Mr Davis described that commitment as a “commitment to excellence” – which has also become a management buzzword in its own right (feel free to google the term).

    Meanwhile a lot of well-meaning coaches/managers have misinterpreted the “search for high performance” as a requirement for monastic dedication.

    As always the unexamined life is not worth living – but my point today is that in “non professional sports”/the real world there is ample room for “moral victories.”

    From a practical standpoint – being focused on the end product at the expense of the process that generates that product is counterproductive.

    Yeah, that is not very quotable – the idea is simply that if you take care of the small things along the way, the end result will take care of itself.

    From a sports ball perspective – that is why Vince Lombardi started each season showing the team a football and saying “Gentlemen, this is a football.” Mr Lombardi also pointed out that “Football is a game of blocking and tackling, block and tackle better than the other team and you will win.” First master the fundamentals, and then winning will follow.

    There is a famous story of John Wooden (UCLA’s 10x NCAA basketball championship coach) starting each season by teaching players how to put on their socks. Mr Wooden would explain that if a player put their socks on wrong, then the sock would “bunch-up” and the player would get a blister. If the player got a blister they couldn’t practice/play. So spending time at the beginning of each season to teach new players (and remind returning players) how to put on their socks was worthwhile.

    A stitch in time — something, something …

    Continuous improvement

    Saying that the focus should be on “continuous improvement” implies that the “learning organization” infrastructure is in place.

    If you are coaching “non professional sports” then the primary focus should be on “learning to prepare” much more than “winning.” The entire point of “non professional sports” should be as part of the “educational” process NOT as a developmental program for the next higher level of competition.

    I’m not saying that a “pro coach” can’t have a positive impact on player’s lives/character – I’m just pointing out that the primary focus of “pro sports” is NOT “character development.”

    “Big time” college football and basketball are both money making machines – but obviously tend to be “coach centered.” The most successful coaches tend to be very good at recruiting talented players to come to their school.

    Which means that there also tends to be a huge difference in “player talent level” between the “Big time” college athletic programs and everyone else.

    Meanwhile in “professional sports” ALL of the players are “professionals” – as obvious as that sounds, the difference in “physical ability” between the “elite” players and the “average” players is minimal.

    SO what distinguishes the “elite” pro players from the “average” players? Preparation.

    Of course “avoiding injuries” becomes a part of the story for any longtime successful player – and “offseason preparation” becomes part of the “avoiding injuries” story.

    But time and fate will always play their part 😉

    oh yeah, one more thing

    All of which means a high school wrestler could go winless and have a “successful” season – assuming that they improved over the course of the season.

    A high school football team could be “successful” but lose more games than they win – that 4 win 6 loss team might be setting the stage for future success.

    Successful companies and “sports ball programs” will pass along a culture of continuous improvement and positive change management – the profits in stakeholder pockets or wins on the field of competition will follow a focus on fundamentals and individual development.

    thank you very much and I hope we passed to audition

  • programming, teams, and the limits of automation

    It is always worth pointing out that (as a general rule) human beings are terrible at predicting the future. This isn’t a harsh condemnation so much as recognition of the human condition.

    It wouldn’t take much effort to fill up a small book of quotes/proverbs/sayings that all boil down to “it is out of our hands – we can’t guarantee what will happen.” A personal favorite:

    “If the good Lord’s willing and the creeks don’t rise”

    –Jerry Reed

    Of course that doesn’t stop folks from making predictions – which is what I’m getting ready to do …

    Career Training

    Historically the entire concept of “career training” is something that most folks didn’t have to worry about. For most of human history “subsistence farming” has been the “career” for most of humanity.

    The entire idea of needing to be specifically trained for a profession probably only goes back a couple hundred years. What often gets called the “oldest profession” didn’t require any “training” at all.

    Even what modern folks would call “professionals” – people like doctors and lawyers – didn’t require a great deal of formal schooling/training until the 20th Century.

    The reasons “why” this is true becomes a lesson in the development of human civilization – so I’ll just say that the AMOUNT of human knowledge has grown at a great rate due in large part to improved technologies.

    Obviously first you need a writing system – then you need materials to write on and create “tomes of knowledge” – then you need a way to reproduce those “tomes”, etc.

    So if we did a poll on the “most influential invention in the history of humanity” – the “moveable type printing press” would easily be near the top – metal working, gun powder, domestication of animals, fishing/boat construction would probably make the list – but being able to record and transmit knowledge over time and space (i.e. what books allow) was obviously kind of a big deal.

    Of course none of these “inventions” developed independently of the others – that isn’t the point. At some point the accumulation of “knowledge”/”skills”/”expertise” made the concept of “job training” a reality.

    Upward mobility/Job satisfaction

    MAYBE in an ideal society individuals would be able to choose the work they perform.

    Of course there aren’t many “ideal societies” – so I’ll just point out that the worker makes the work “honorable.” How a society tends to reward different professions says a great deal about that society not the workers/profession itself.

    In general people can put up with almost any “how” as long as there is a good enough “why.” (I’ll mention/recommend “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl for the curious).

    ANYWAY – for better or worse, most folks don’t “choose” a profession so much as “wander into one.” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – e.g. once again, the unexamined life is not worth living. Yes, there is a larger plan being worked out here on earth – but one way or the other:

     Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

    Ecclesiastes 9:10

    ANYWAY – wrong predictions

    I’ve spent a lifetime in “technology” almost by accident. I picked up some “personal computer repair” skills when the ‘personal computer” was a new thing – then moved into “computer networking” partially because it paid more AND an opportunity presented itself.

    During that 20 year period I tended to “buy a book” and read up on the latest technology. While I’m “naturally curious” and enjoy learning – most of the time my motivation for learning was a larger paycheck/$$.

    There was a point in the early 1990’s when the expectation was that “computer programming” would be outsourced to lower cost workers “overseas.” Which did happen – but then those jobs ended up coming back when the “theoretical cost savings” were consumed by “real world communication issues.”

    Now, I don’t think anyone ever officially stood at a podium and said “don’t go into computer programming” – but the trendy concept at the time was “globalization” – and if you wanted a job “safe from globalization/outsourcing” then maybe you should avoid “computer programming” as a career choice.

    The end result? Well, there are a LOT of “coding boot camps” out there trying to fill the the need for trained “computer programmers.” Ok, the “Interweb” kinda happened in the same time period – which changed a lot of things, not just the computer programming field …

    More predictions

    Now (written in 2021) everyone is expecting driverless cars and trucks to make “truck drivers” obsolete.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Either way – the immediate need for “truck drivers” isn’t going away anytime soon.

    Would I suggest “truck driving” to someone looking for a “lifelong career?” Probably not – but that requires context.

    In general I try to stay away from “giving advice” – particularly “career advice.” The problem is that there are just too many variables – e.g. “should someone pursue THIS field or THAT field?” – I have no idea, it depends on the person.

    I tend to say “know yourself” in those situations. HOWEVER – just for fun – “should someone become a truck driver in 2021?”

    Well, relatively short training time, relatively high wages, in demand skill set that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon – might make the job of “truck driver” a good choice for a large number of people.

    If we divide the “supply line” into “long haul”, “medium routes”, and “the last mile” – the sweet spot for HUMAN truck drivers (as in not easily replaceable by automation or crowdsourcing type apps) is the “medium routes.”

    e.g. a “shipment” might come in on a big boat in a large container, get unloaded and placed on a train where “X” miles and then gets “dispatched” to a truck that takes it to a local warehouse, where it gets unloaded and (maybe) delivered to “customers” by someone using “crowdsource delivery app.”

    Automation isn’t free …

    The problem with trying to automate any process is that then the “automation” needs to be maintained.

    Which means the “processes” best suited for “automation” have a few simple steps.

    e.g. if the process is “place a box (that is always the same size) in the same spot (that is also always the same size)” – automate away. BUT if the process is “make hundreds of smaller decisions along the way to an uncertain destination” then automating (and maintaining) the process will probably be extremely expensive and error prone

    … which means that training human drivers is gonna be cheaper than automation for the “foreseeable future.”

    Yes, the technology for “driverless cars” is available in 2021 – the problem is the variability of the deliveries and routes and the cost of constantly updating/maintaining those routes.

    e.g. GPS is great – but if it goes down, then what? Well, the automated system probably completely ceases to function – while the “human driver” might be unaffected or just slowed down.

    I know the “automated workforce” always sounds great to “upper management” types – and I’m not saying that drones/driverless cars aren’t going to change/improve the supply chain EVENTUALLY. Just not in the next couple years …

    Teams

    Imagine that you have “human like devices” that can be trained to play “sports.” Which sport would be easiest to “automate?”

    Well, we would want the sport that has the least amount of interaction between “devices.” Maybe an individual sport like golf? then maybe something like tennis?

    When the “devices” have to work together as a team – then things get complicated. So then the sports with the fewer “players” would be easier to automate – basketball? hockey? Both fast paced, hockey (usually) has a dedicated goalie – I’m not sure if that would make it easier or harder to automate – not important at the moment.

    Both hockey and basketball lack unique “offense” and “defense” players – sure, some players are expected to perform different functions but in theory all of the players are on both “offense” AND “defense”

    Baseball has a kinda complex set of 9 players on defense that we might be able to subdivide into “outfielders”, “infielders”, “pitchers”, and then “catchers.” Maybe the “hitter” and “baserunner” functionality can be 1 generic “offensive player.” still MORE complex in theory (harder to automate) than either basketball or hockey.

    What gets called “soccer” in the U.S. has 11 players on each side (including a goalie) – but from a “theoretical automation” point of view (POV), those 11 players are NOT supposed to run into each other. Coordinating passing of the ball would be a challenge – but from a “team complexity” POV probably somewhere between basketball/hockey and baseball.

    (remember I’m not rating the “sports” – I’m estimating the complexity of automating)

    Then we get to “football” – or more precisely “American football.” We have 11 distinct players on offense AND defense with “collisions” between players/devices on every play. Maybe the players on defense don’t require as much “unified precision” as those on offense but a very high level of “interaction” between all of the devices.

    Obviously the devices on “defense” are working together to try to stop the devices on “offense” which are also working together in a coordinated manner … and don’t forget the “kicking” game … ANYWAY

    SO “in theory” American football would be the hardest sport to “automate” because it requires the most “teamwork.”

    Again, this is about one sport being “superior” to another. In the real world this difference in “required team coordination” is seen in pro-sports on a regular basis.

    Every once in a while some wealthy owner will try to “buy” a championship by spending a lot of money acquiring great individual players.

    This seems to happen in the NBA on a regular basis.

    The NY Yankees have been doing it in MLB since 1923.

    Hockey has had great NHL franchises win a lot of championships in a row – but I don’t know enough about the history of the sport to comment on ownership $$ spend. The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups – but I don’t know if I would compare them to the “NY Yankees” from a player acquisition POV …

    I’m told that the successful “European football” clubs tend to be the same each year because of $$ spent on players – again, I don’t know the sport well enough to make comparisons.

    HOWEVER – anytime a franchise is extremely successful over a long period of time – they are doing something “right” besides spending a lot of money. I certainly don’t want to imply that just because the owners spend a lot of money, AND win championships that they are “cheating” in some form – and moving on …

    … and then we have the NFL. Forbes estimates the “team value” of the Dallas Cowboys (in 2021) at $5.7 billion. The Cowboys are always near the top of the list – and last I checked EVERY NFL franchise had a $billion+ valuation.

    Then as I was writing this an article on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers ownership came up – they guaranteed Tom Brady $50 million to come to Tampa Bay. Does that constitute “buying a championship?”

    Ok, obviously you need great players to win a Super Bowl – and those players are gonna cost $$ – but then those players need to work together as a team to win. You can’t just go out and spend a lot of money on free agents and expect them to automatically win championships.

    I’m guessing that Tom Brady saw a potential championship in Tampa Bay, or he would have gone somewhere else.

    The Cowboys and the “whatever we call the franchise in Washington DC” (last Super Bowl win 1992) both have owners that are willing to spend a massive amount of cash to win a championship – and are still searching for that right combination of talent and then something that money can’t buy “team chemistry.”

    ANYWAY – What makes football fun to watch is that the team with the “best players” doesn’t always win –

    As always – I’m just making observations – if I actually knew the secret ingredient to “winning” in the NFL/pro sports, I’d be making a lot more money 😉

  • situational leadership, reciprocity, football?, Hamlet?, random thoughts …

    Random thoughts …
    I find myself wondering this morning if saying “I’m a proud Gen Xer” is an oxymoron. Kind of like saying someone is enthusiastic about apathy. hmmm – I’m usually TRYING to be funny when I say “proud Gen Xer” – a line from “Chinatown” comes to mind

    “’Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” 

    Noah Cross – Chinatown”

    Maybe add – “generations” to that list as well – umm, if you haven’t seen “Chinatown” it isn’t one for the little ones to watch, great example of the “noir” genre though.

    ANYWAY
    I have been find of collecting “quotes” as long as I can remember. I recently stumbled across a “pre 1920’s joke” that went:

    “I just read Hamlet. I don’t know what all the fuss is about – it is just a collection of famous quotes”

    (pre 1920’s joke)

    Which I thought was funny because it reminded me of how I first ended up reading Hamlet – i.e. I had a “famous quotation” book that had numerous quotes from Shakespeare’s play – so in the “pre web” days I actually went to the bookstore and paid $2 for a copy of the play.

    (really random thought: if you watch “old” tv shows occasionally someone will hold up a skull and say “Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well” – when they want to appear to be ‘acting’ or show a knowledge of Shakespeare.

    I won’t bother explaining the quote – but it shows the “intended funny” in the “Hamlet” joke – i.e. the subtext to Hamlet can be “complicated” (extreme understatement), but there aren’t many sections of the play that don’t have a famous quote –

    since I’ve wandered into the subject – the BBC did a very good “traditional” version of Hamlet back in 1980 with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 version is a beautiful movie – but 4 hours long. Mr Branagh received an Oscar nomination for “adapted screenplay” – he kept all of Mr Shakespeare’s words, but updated the location to the 19th century, and there is a nude scene as I recall (which obviously wasn’t in the “text” as it were).

    Oh, and if you don’t mind black and white movies – Hamlet (1948) with Laurence Olivier is a decent version that covers the story very well (in 2 hours 30 minutes) and showcases Mr Olivier’s acting prowess (he won an Oscar in 1948 for his performance)

    The Team …
    Legendary football coach Bo Schembechler gave a famous speech about The Team

    (*cough*) great speech, of course Illinois won the Big 10 that year, Michigan’s only conference loss was to Illinois (16-6) – I’m sure they were both very good teams – which is why they play the games (and why “sports” is the original “reality tv”).

    The point I’ve been building up to is that “teams” will always consist of individuals with different abilities, motivations, and/or desires. To a certain degree the individual agrees to sacrifice some of that “individual desire” in service to “the team.”

    The beauty of “team sports” is that the ‘scrappy team of less talented individuals’ can beat the ‘big team of skilled competitors’ IF that ‘big team’ doesn’t play as a “team.” (but of course the “smart money” will be on the team with the talent – cliche: “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”

    Reciprocity
    Sports at all levels illustrate how “team building” tends to be self- fulfilling to a certain degree. We see this when we talk about a school/team as having a “good program” – e.g. “such and such school always has a good X team.”A very important part of that “program” is coaches and administrators. But you also obviously need athletes. SO which is more important “coaches” or “athletes” – well, you need both.

    “Teams” don’t instantly form – I know there are the inspirational stories of “teams coming out of nowhere” and winning a championship going from “worst to first.” BUT those are extremely rare (which is probably why they are “inspirational stories” – i.e. they had most of the coaches and players equation and find the “missing part” needed to succeed).

    Much more common is the story of building a program bit by bit – continual slow improvements, and then suddenly (after 10 years of work) they become an “overnight” success.

    SO where does reciprocity come into play? well, the team members have to all believe that the team IS a team – and not just a collection of cliques.

    e.g. the person with the whip, might think he and the galley slaves are a “team” – but the galley slaves probably don’t (“motivational speech” from ‘guy with whip’: “We keep you alive to serve this vessel, row well and live!”)

    Back to Bo Schembechler – he was well known for his integrity. e.g. “You may not have liked him, but you knew where you stood with him” is a famous quote from a former Michigan player.

    I always like the idea that “you don’t have to like the coach/leader, but you should RESPECT the coach/leader” – and if the coach/leader is routinely lying and/or forming groups of ‘preferred’ players that get “special treatment” (e.g. “the rule is X for everyone except that small group over there that has done nothing special except ingratiate themselves to the coach by kissing his posterior”) then that becomes a recipe for “team destruction.”

    Once again …
    So once more time – all human relationships are based on ‘trust.’ All of the above about ‘sport ball teams’ applies to interpersonal relationships in general. Marriage, ‘work groups’, ‘project teams’ – whatever … all founded on “trust” that the individual is going to be valued for their contributions and not treated like a disposable “cog” in the machine …

    Arguably, in a “healthy society” the first team someone belongs to is the family unit – with “marriage” being the formative act in starting a “family” — but that gets complex fast – so another “football coach” story …

    Good ol’ Woody Hayes (he coached at one of those schools in Columbus, Ohio) wrote a book titled “You Win With People.” (used copies available on Amazon).

    While all the general public saw was Mr Hayes tearing up his hat and acting wild on the sidelines – by (most accounts) Woody Hayes was respected by his players – i.e. they trusted that he was “fighting for them”, and they had the same mission.

    Fwiw: Bo Schembechler retired from coaching when he got tired of begging 19 year olds to come play at Michigan (my words, but he said as much in his 1989 autobiography – still in print). He stayed at Michigan as the Athletic Director for a number of years.

    Saying that Woody Hayes had a “colorful” career is an understatement – but both men are worth a little bit of study from a “leadership” point of view. The end of Mr Hayes career almost falls into the “urban legend” sort of thing. He was fired for APPARENTLY punching an opposing team player on the sideline – the video is out there on the interweb. There are still plenty of “Woody Hayes defenders” but maybe the “big picture” lesson is that nobody is perfect.

    For the most part Mr Hayes is remembered for the 28 years BEFORE the incident – which is probably as much as you can ask/expect …

    Situational Leadership
    Pop quiz: What is the most effective way to lead a group? Answer: it depends on the group.

    This is one of those “incredibly obvious after it is pointed out” concepts – i.e. you can’t lead every group the same, because not every group is the same.

    Just like you can’t treat everyone in the group exactly the same, simply because they aren’t all the same.

    Individual members of the group should expect to be treated with respect, as well as held accountable for their duties within the group. Beyond that nothing is carved in stone.

    To continue my football theme – you can’t “coach” a group of 3rd graders that have never played organized football the same as you might coach a group of high school athletes that have been playing football since the 3rd grade.

    Not only should the high school athletes know more “football” than the 3rd graders, they (should) also be more mature. If you treat those 3rd graders like high school athletes you probably end up with chaos and a lot of unhappy athletes/parents – OR if you treat those high school athletes like they are supposed to be “professional athletes” you aren’t likely to have sustained success …

    If you happen to have the luxury of picking all the members of your team – then you should pick folks that mesh with your preferred leadership style. (which is why successful NFL coaches sometimes end up as both “coach” and “general manager”).

    But if you have to ‘work with the athletes that show up’ – then you need to adjust to the athletes. That doesn’t mean the coach “coddles” the athletes – but trust has to be established AND THEN MAINTAINED.

    Both Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes were good at “yelling at players” when they needed to be yelled at and “patting them on the back” when they needed encouragement.

    (… and that is “situational leadership” based on the individual athlete – btw I don’t think insults and/or profanity are ever productive leadership tools, what the athlete will remember is that the coach insulted them or cussed and not much else …)

    Mr Hayes was also famous for being a great recruiter – his tactic was to “recruit the family.” Stories were told of Mr Hayes on recruiting trips essentially “recruiting the mother.” The story usually goes that before the visit the mother would say “MY son isn’t going to play for that mad man” – then Woody would come in and charm the mother and afterwards the athlete was committed to Ohio State.

    (I also love the story that Woody Hayes said that the difference between him and the faculty at Ohio State was that HE could THEIR job, but THEY couldn’t do HIS job. The legend is that Woody was “well read” and also a “full professor of physical education” or something – )

    ANYWAY – It can take years to build up a program, but then that program can appear to disintegrate almost overnight. Though (most of the time) the decline from “top program” to “used to be a good program” is a gradual process …

    Did I have a point?
    No, not really – football season is starting, random thoughts 😉

    I will point out that an “average coach” can have “above average success” if they master the “integrity” and “motivation” parts of coaching. i.e. it is easier for a coach to improve their “football knowledge’ than it is for them to change their character.

    Maybe the “least effective coach” is the one that coaches exactly the way they were coached (if/when they played) – without understanding “why” they were coached that way.

    e.g. if the ONLY reason a team does “whatever” is because “that is what my coach used to have us do.” Maybe this explains the scenario where the “star athlete”/high performer isn’t a very good “coach” when they get the opportunity.

    More effective is the coach that consciously chooses a style based on their preferences/coaching strengths. Then the challenge might be finding a “place to coach” that “fits” the coach.

    Then the “superior coach” would be the one that “can beat you with his athletes, or take your athletes and beat his with yours.” Sun Tzu comes to mind – “Know your opponent and know yourself and you need not fear the results of 100 battles”

    (… of course if faced with a “superior force” Sun Tzu would advise “not engaging that force” – so the coaching applications become a little limited – i.e. you gotta beat the “best teams” to win a championship at any level …)