Why 96?

The NCAA in their infinite wisdom has set the stage to expand to 96 teams. Looking at the rationale behind this move, it is pretty clear that this decision is a money grab based on the ability to generate more dollars from television. As a former athletic director, I greatly appreciate the reality of generating more dollars for the member schools so that programs and student-athletes across the board will benefit. Will the leadership take some shots from this decision, of course. Yet this is a case where I believe they have looked at the cost-benefit analysis and determined if the dollars are there, then we need to make the move. I can assure you that some faculty will toss a few grenades at the NCAA for creating a scenario where there will be more missed class time for the players. I would encourage the NCAA then to take a leadership role in encouraging the faculty to create learning models where students can have instruction delivered to them at any time anywhere. Tenured faculty ought to learn these three words—University of Phoenix. Leadership is about developing solutions not about being an obstructionist.

March Madness Biggest Surprise

This year’s NCAA tournament surprise team West Eastern State University provides some great messages for all leaders.  Maybe the best message is that great leaders take adversity and figure out how to turn it into success.  Often the traditional or conventional way of doing things does not work when you are disadvantaged in regards to resources, tradition or talent.  Faced with almost certain failure Coach Holton found a way to be successful by looking for non-traditional recruits and then adapting his teaching style to allow those recruits to use their unique set of talents.  Then figuring out how to fit those skills into the team setting and having all the players buy-in with no jealousy toward the Ivan Brothers was the true test. Remember quite often the axiom of “big risk, big reward” is what makes great leaders great, West Eastern University took a big chance and it paid off with a huge return.  The attached video is a great lesson.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CapitalOne

NCAA expand field to 96???

The NCAA for the first time in a while is seriously considering changing the format of one of the most successful multi-week events in the world.  The growth in interest and revenue in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship has been nothing short of amazing.  Now the question for the leadership is, do you make a significant change and add 32 more teams?  Adding those teams would require another full week of competition.  The format would be the top 32 teams would receive a bye and the remaining 64 would play a first round game.  That change in itself would require 32 more games and probably 8 more sites.  Some folks would say, “Why mess with something that has been so successful?”  The other  school of thought would say, “we have to make change to maximize the revenue potential for not only the schools but our corporate partners.”  My guess is the final determination will be significantly influenced by the type of television (internet, mobile etc.) contract that can be negotiated.  When the NCAA inked their current $6.2 billion deal, the question arose as to would CBS be able to make it work financially.  Clearly the next television partner will look long and hard at the profitability of the numbers and I am sure the NCAA understands the importance of maximizing value to the television partner so they can hang on to the same type of revenue.  With that in mind the NCAA leadership may see a real need to create more value for their broadcast rights holder.  Additionally the NCAA spent a ton to buy the NIT so if the Championship were expanded,  there would be no possibility of anti-trust lawsuit. Understanding how the leadership of the NCAA works I would be surprised if we do not see the demise of the NIT and a much larger NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship.  Being a risk-taker, I would say go for it.  What are your thoughts?

Conventional wisdom and the Jets

Interesting enough this year the New York Jets qualified for the playoffs and made it to the second round.  When comparing this result to last year, one would would have to scratch his noggin and wonder how you could get a better result this year with a rookie quarterback compared to last year with a guaranteed hall of famer.  You have to give credit to the Jets leadership this year as they controlled the situation and developed a system that  uses the talents of Mark Sanchez while minimizing his shortcomings.  They put him in a position to succeed and accepted the responsibility of making that decision.  With Brett Favre last year they pretty much handed over the reins and then sat back and hoped for the desired outcome.   Conventional wisdom is—- rookie quarterbacks don’t win—-reality is—–good leadership wins.

Leaders Have to Step Up to the Plate

Challenge sets the stage for greatness. When Phil Jackson returned to coach the Lakers he had a big challenge. In his book he had indicated the Kobe was “uncoachable” and was not a good teammate. The year before the Lakers had won just 34 games and seemed to be a haven for selfish, underachieving big name players.

Enter Jackson with his unique style and nine world championship rings. Jackson, probably as well as anyone, understands the concept of role players and superstars. The trick was getting everyone to accept and relish their role. While Bryant clearly was the centerpiece, Jackson was able to convince ownership to acquire individuals who could work with the temperamental and sometimes difficult superstar. Derrick Fisher, Pau Gasol, and Trevor Ariza all fit perfectly into Jackson’s successful paradigm of “stars and their helpers”. Clearly the model while sometimes erratic proved to be the format for success. The challenge in the land of movie stars and acerbic media was one that many individuals with Jackson’s previous success would have not even considered. The intense scrutiny and critical fan base that had driven other successful coaches out of the LA sports scene, proved to be the perfect stage to crown Jackson’s leadership greatness. His nine world championship and previous success with Lakers bought him time while he cleverly positioned himself to have the control and resources necessary to succeed.

While the Zen Master was not afraid of the challenge, he also was insightful enough to make sure he had the support necessary to get the job done. GREAT LEADERS ACCEPT CHALLENGES AS OPPORTUNITIES.

They understand that being successful dealing with difficult situations is what makes a leader great and they relish the chance. How do you look at tough challenges? The big market teams are the biggest opportunities for any coach. They also are the biggest chance for failure.

Perez Attempts to Make Real Madrid Real

Florentino Perez might not be a household name in the United States but worldwide he may have proved to be the biggest visionary in the history of sport or the biggest foolhardy spendthrift.  As the president and leader of Real Madrid, Perez has just invested over $222 million for transfer fees for soccer superstars Kaka and Cristiano Ronaldo.   Those dollars do not include salaries for the two players which will probably amount to over $250 million over the next six years.  Will this move elevate Real Madrid to a level that will prove to be a wise investment or will it bankrupt the club?

One thing for sure, Florentino believes in old axiom “big risk, big reward”.   For a leader to take this kind of chance, the upside better be tremendous.  Perez emphasizes, ”I want to recreate a Real Madrid that makes history.”  Without question these financial decisions are going to make history one way or another.  Vision and big picture results are critical pieces to the change that every leader tries to facilitate.  But every leader also has the responsibility to understand the potential pitfalls that can occur when major decisions are made.  In his previous stint as el presidente of Real, he approved the signings of Beckham, Ronaldo (the Brazilian, different from Cristiano Ronaldo), Luis Figo and Zinedine Zidane.  Only time will tell whether Perez goes down as a great leader who positioned Real Madrid to be the preeminent global sports franchise or financially devastated a once proud organization.

Lane Kiffin: Arrogant or Enthusiastic?

Lane Kiffin has hit the ground running as the leader of the University of Tennessee football program and created enough controversy in four months to last a career. He has called Urban Meyer a cheater, said the recruiting class that Nick Saban signed at Alabama was the result of the efforts of Lance Thompson (who Kiffin has since hired at UT), had to apologize to Pahokee High School in Florida and been reprimanded for secondary NCAA violations. Were these gaffes just irresponsibility on Kiffin’s part or were they part of a bigger plan to bring attention to the UT Football?

With the University of Tennessee coming off a 5-7 record, Kiffin understands that status quo is not what the Big Orange family is looking for. He has done what many good leaders do and that is to stir the pot, create an environment where everyone understands that expectations and the way of doing business has drastically changed. Right now the Tennessee faithful are rallying around Kiffin and his new energy. The question is how will this all play out in the long-term and will it result with wins on the field. Right now “the Kiffin style” is generating a great deal of attention which he hopes translates into better recruits, more exposure and ultimately championships. What Kiffin has done that both leaders and entrepreneurs do is take a risk. Great leaders take risk but not foolhardy risks. Is this arrogance or enthusiasm—-time will tell.

Managing the Impact of Leadership Decisions

Don’t think that being in leadership positions is always easy or fun. Take the case of the Atlanta Braves and Tom Glavine. The Braves were faced with the difficult decision as to what to do with the a guy who has won 305 games and was a mainstay of the staff in the glory days of Atlanta Braves baseball. The Braves had already cut ties with another Hall of Famer and Atlanta sports icon, John Smoltz. Clearly the Braves were in a difficult position – suffer the negative public opinion of unloading Glavine or bring him back at a major financial cost with limited long-term contribution on the mound. Whichever decision John Schuerholz and his associates were going to make was going to anger and create some upheaval.

However, as the leader, Schuerholz could not make the comfortable or feel good decision, he had to do what was best for the organization. Leaders have to make difficult decisions that will serve the group the best over the future. While releasing Glavine and low-balling Smoltz’ contract offer were both unpopular at the time, the leadership had to feel for the success of the team over the long haul, the Braves needed young pitchers whose health would hold up. Throw in the big payroll expense of the future Hall of Famers and the decision was really a no-brainer. The bigger question was why even sign the 43 year old Glavine in the first place?

Apparently the handling of the release of Glavine was awkward at best and botched at the worst, yet the leadership showed they understood their responsibility to the team. I wonder if NFL teams are looking at the Glavine situation as a reference on how to deal with the Brett Favre .

Can Ochocinco Still Help Bengals?

Chad Ochocinco (Johnson) has publicly stated that he was not satisfied with his performance last year and is working harder, in better shape and committed to having a great year. This little bit of new attitude has seemed to throw some cold water on some of the heated comments that Bengals’ players, coaches and executives have uttered over the last six months. For leaders, one of the big questions is “how much is enough?”

In many situations the most talented producer is also the most difficult to deal with. Creative, dynamic people often are successful because they do not fit into the mold. They think in their own way and do not feel bound but by arbitrary rules in which they see no purpose. Sometimes these “free spirits” can add to the diversity of an organization and do great things and sometimes these same folks are viewed as disruptive and a deterrent to productivity. Quite often the result is determined by the ability of the leader to figure out how to use the talents of the “free spirit” while having the group realize that this individual is very helpful to helping the team become even more successful.

Dennis Rodman is a perfect example.

With the Chicago Bulls, the Worm was an important ingredient of the Bulls championship years with his defense and rebounding. However, with the Lakers and Spurs he became a distraction and had to be extricated from the team. Why? Because of strong leadership from Mr. Jordan and Mr. Pippin.  All three knew what the desired result was and filled their role. Jordan and Pippin did not let Denis’ idiosyncrasies detract from the championship focus and the rest of the Bulls followed suit. Dennis also respected His Airness and Scotty and realized what the acceptable boundaries were. That respect which traveled both ways was the key.

Is a “green” NBA good or bad?

I just saw yesterday that the Philadelphia 76’ers just hired Eddie Jordan to be their head coach. About a month ago the Washington Wizards hired Flip Saunders to replace Eddie Jordan. And so the NBA coaching merry-go-round continues.

It is interesting to look at the fraternity of NBA coaches and see how often they get recycled. Teams appear to change leadership based on some shortcoming of the leader but after a short period of time it is amazing how the deposed coach has apparently recaptured his leadership skills and is ready for another leadership gig. I guess I always wondered why there is small a small pool of potential NBA coaches. Does the management of the organization really understand what it takes to be successful leading an NBA franchise? Is the skill set so precise and narrow that only a few individuals have the necessary talent to be an NBA coach? My guess is that the answer to that question is no, but the decision makers want a comfortable choice who has some experience.

Don’t be confused, experience is nice but talent is what is going to be successful in the long-term. When I hired Jeff Capel at 27 to be VCU’s head coach, many people who later became big supporters of Jeff, were openly and loudly critical. What they did not know is that at 27, Jeff Capel was an extremely talented basketball mind who understood the big picture and had all the talents to be a big winner.