Quote by: DManHere's another interesting one from Daniel Coyle:
The Power of Crumminess
Dave - good one! Here it is... Thanks for alerting us!
Dean
--------
THE POWER OF CRUMMINESS
Here’s a little-appreciated fact about talent hotbeds: their facilities tend to be rundown. Rusty. Makeshift. Overcrowded.
In a word, crummy.
Exhibit A could be the North Baltimore Aquatic Club, which has produced Michael Phelps and a squadron of other top national swimmers despite its considerably-less-than-lovely setting. Or Anand Kumar’s tin-roof math class in India where an astounding 78 percent of the students are accepted to India’s Harvard, the Indian Institutes of Technology. Or any of another dozen other hotbeds where this precise atmosphere is repeated so often that it stops feeling like a coincidence, and starts to feel more like a fingerprint, or a mathematical equation: Crumminess + Crowdedness = Beautiful Talent.
This strikes most of us as surprising, because to the modern American/European mind, crumminess and crowdedness are considered deeply undesirable. We instinctively strive for groomed fields, top-level technology, comfortable surroundings — and enough space where each age group can gather in splendid isolation.
The question is, is talent developed better in roomy, well-appointed facilities? Or is there something else going on in these remote hotbeds? To put it simply, are there any advantages to being crummy and crowded?
We get an interesting data point from Vermont’s Burke Mountain Academy, a bona fide hotbed of downhill skiing talent (it’s produced 40-plus Olympians in its 30 years). Burke’s facility is far from rundown (though the classrooms and dorms tend toward the spartan), but it has two features that set it apart: an undersized ski hill, and an ancient, creaking beast of a ski lift that, by all appearances, should have been replaced long ago. It’s an old-fashioned poma lift, and it works like this: you stand on the snow, grab onto a bar/seat contraption, and get dragged uphill.
Most visitors who come to Burke see the old poma lift and presume that it’ll be replaced soon by something faster and more efficient. But the teachers and coaches of Burke would never think of it. To their minds, the poma lift might be their most valuable resource.
From the poma lift, young skiers get a catbird seat to watch the older, better skiers make turns. That physical closeness transforms the small ski hill into a rich kingdom of watching and learning, not to mention motivation. Kids on that poma lift receive the privilege of seeing up close who they might become, if they work hard.
We’re all acquainted with the phenomenon of the scruffy underdog from the remote country who rises up and defeats big, rich Goliath — we see it all the time in sports, music, and business. And we naturally interpret their success as evidence of the superior hunger of poor countries. They want it more. They’re tougher. They’re quintessential underdogs.
But I think Burke and the other hotbeds gives us a new way to think about underdogs. Crumminess and crowdedness, used properly, can be advantages. The skiers from Burke only look like underdogs — in fact, they’re the overdogs, because they’ve designed the perfect space to create deeper, better practice and ignite more motivation.
So what do the rest of us do? Should we demolish our good facilities and replace them with crowded, tin-roofed structures? Well, not quite. I think it’s more useful to look closely at the useful elements from the hotbeds and try to copy them. A few ideas:
* 1. Find ways to mix age groups. Isolation diminishes motivation. Nothing creates effort and intensity like staring at older talent, someone who you want to become. Putting groups together — even in passing, as on the poma lift — injects a burst of motivational electricity.
* 2. Aim to make facilities spartan and simple. Research shows that luxurious surroundings diminish effort — and why not? It’s a signal to our unconscious minds that we’ve got it made — why should we keep taking risks and working hard?
* 3. When given the choice, invest in people over facilities. Teachers are the real engine of the day-by-day learning process that drives any hotbed. The addition of one master teacher creates more talent than a million dollars’ worth of bricks and mortar.
P.S. — Okay, what do you think? What would you do if you received a check for $50,000 tomorrow to help develop talent in your team/school? Please rank the following possibilities from most-effective to least-effective:
* 1. Pay for new facilities/equipment
* 2. Hire the single best teacher/coach you can find
* 3. Bring in a top-notch series of camps/seminars for students and teachers
* 4. Pay existing teachers/coaches more
-----
Dean's rankings (assuming I had primarily average teachers / coaches and one or two whom were above average; assuming I had the basics so far as equipment; knowing $50k would be a mere drop in the bucket so far as a new facility):
1. Hire the single best teacher/coach you can find. (Release those who are average.)
2. Pay the two above average existing teachers/coaches more. (#1 & #2 - It is about identifying, recruiting and retaining GOOD PEOPLE first.)
3. Bring in a top-notch series of camps / seminars for students and teachers
4. Pay for new facilities/equipment (if I didn't NEED new stuff.)
Both sides resort to myths in the debate over fighting
By PAT HICKEY, The Gazette February 15, 2011
Fighting in the National Hockey League has been in the news in the past two weeks and it's time to look at a couple of myths and misconceptions.
Myth No. 1 is that the NHL is only major professional sport that allows fighting.
In fact, the NHL rule book devotes 51/2 pages to the definition of fighting, the circumstances surrounding fights and the sanctions that result from a fight.
But, while the NHL rules say that fighting is unacceptable, the reality is that the league tolerates fighting. Players who are involved in fights seldom face any consequences.
When a player takes a penalty for hooking, interference or for something as benign as jumping on the ice too soon giving his team too many men, he may incur the wrath of his coach for leaving his team short-handed.
That doesn't happen with fighting. While there is a provision for extra penalties for a player who instigates a fight, this infraction is seldom invoked. When a fighter goes to the penalty box, he usually takes an opponent with him. In these cases, a coach may actually praise the player for giving his team a lift or sticking up for a teammate.
A straw poll of the Canadiens' players yesterday provided a consensus that fighting is part of the game and will never be eliminated.
Captain Brian Gionta fell back on Myth No. 2, which stipulates that fighting serves as a safety valve for pent-up emotions. He played college hockey at Boston College and noted that the NCAA hands out suspensions for fighting and that the result is that there are more stick fouls.
But the pent-up emotion argument doesn't hold to an examination of the facts. Our good friends at hockeyfights.comoffer some interesting statistics about fighting and they show the great disparity between fighting in the regular season and in the playoffs. You would think that emotions would run highest with the Stanley Cup on the line. You would think that the animosity between teams would increase when they face each other up to seven times over a two-week period.
The reality is that fighting practically disappears during the postseason. Over the past five seasons, there has been at least one fight in 40 per cent of the games in the regular season. That number drops to about 10 per cent in the postseason. In the 2008 playoffs, there were 85 games and only six of them (7.1 per cent) included a fight
Why the drop? It's because coaches and players concentrate on winning hockey games and, with the rare exception, fighting doesn't win hockey games.
One reason the NHL tolerates fights is that some fans like them and that may be necessary to sell the game in a season that is too long and features a product that is too watered down.
When Penguins owner Mario Lemieux went off during the weekend, decrying some of the recent goonery around the league, fans weighed in on chat sites and radio talk shows. They denounced him as a whiner and pointed out that he's hypocritical because his team leads the NHL in fighting majors and employs Matt Cooke, who has a reputation for delivering dangerous hits.
But Lemieux, who expressed his frustration as a player by calling the NHL a garage league, offers some food for thought.
Michael Cammalleri said he had been talking to some friends who said that fighting must be on the rise this season. The reality is that the incidence of fighting has been steady the past five seasons at about .58 fights a game.
But something is wrong when there are three fights in the first four seconds of a game or when two teams rack up more than 360 penalty minutes. Suspensions are up but it's difficult to say whether that's because there's more dirty play or because the NHL is coming down harder on offenders. The anecdotal evidence would suggest there have been more injuries to key players but, again, it's sometimes difficult to separate foul play from misadventure.
The NHL can't afford to lose Sidney Crosby because of a hit from behind, and Matt Cooke should have answered for trying to take down Alexander Ovechkin with his knee. And there should be a way to cut out the overwhelming number of fights that are unnecessary and stupid.
In the meantime, fans can take comfort in the fact that the best is yet to come -the playoffs start in two months.
phickey@montrealgazette.com
Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."