Win More Games By Changing Bench Seating/Responsibilities

Note: This article is directed at head coaches but should be of value to any coach, whether you file it away until you get your own team, use it as input for your next staff meeting or simply think about it and see if you feel it has any merit.
Every head coach is looking for an edge; anything to maximize winning. However, this usually requires change and change is something most people resist. As the popular speaker from Orange County, Jim Madrid, says, “You better take change by the hand before it takes you by the throat.”

One change you might consider is where your coaches sit during games. After coaching and watching hundreds of games, one observation I’ve made is that most coaching staffs sit together, as close to midcourt as is allowable. There is no rule that mandates this seating order, simply “that’s how everybody has always done it.” The following are some, but certainly not all, of the possibilities that exist for seating plans with the reasoning for each one.

First and foremost, the assistant coach who scouted the game, or who put together the game plan, probably should sit next to you or, if you rarely sit, in the chair closest to where you normally prowl – usually nearest to midcourt. If not the coach who scouted the opponent, that seat should be occupied by the coach whose main purpose is to assist you with in-game strategy, i.e. the veteran assistant if your staff contains such a coach. If you’re more comfortable with both the scout and your veteran guy together, have them sit next to each other – or possibly have a chair in between them should you want to sit. The other coaches can be split among the players – with varying strategies used.

Should there be players who are prone to not paying attention and/or screwing around during the game, this move should eliminate that problem. Quite possibly, these players act in such a manner because they don’t know what they ought to be doing during a game – especially if they don’t get significant minutes.

Splitting up the assistants in similar fashion would also work well if you group the perimeter players in one area of the bench (with the assistant they spend the most practice time with) while having the bigs sitting together (with their main assistant). If your team has another assistant, the point guards could sit with that coach. Using coaches to explain what is, or should be, happening in the game to the players would definitely be time better spent and be certain the players are ready to play when they enter the game. (It could be used with veterans and young guys but with more and more teams playing youth immediately, this idea might be outdated). Care should be taken so as not to create cliques with a group of players spending so much time with a certain coach. Just make sure you keep an eye on any coach-player relationship behavior out of the ordinary.

Some teams use an empty seat for the player who has just been taken out. The assistant next to that seat would communicate with that player, e.g. a mistake the player just made (after a brief cooling off period for certain players), an observation to be used later on, giving kudos for doing exactly what was needed at the time, etc. Which assistant is assigned this duty is crucial as personality conflicts between certain coaches and players would tend to cause dysfunction on the bench. If you’re going to change, make sure it improves your chances of winning.

Possibly, the only improvement your team needs might be to have one coach sit next to your most volatile, immature, head case, whatever term is used. Naturally, the player must be someone who brings positive production that you don’t get from anyone else (otherwise, why would he/she be on the team?) The end of the bench is a good place for this player, with the coach in the next-to-last seat.

In order to make certain everyone is constructively adding to the team effort, all non-playing personnel need to be assigned to some type of in-game duty. When watching game action today, it seems as though the coaches are there to exhort the players to do their best. That’s the cheerleaders’ job! It would be more beneficial to have your staff contribute to victory in other ways, i.e. take their emotion out of the game.

The coach(es) in charge of game preparation, i.e. the one who scouted the opponent or the coach you lean on most for assistance with in-game strategy, is/are the only one(s) who have no additional duty. Every other coach, manager, redshirt, injured player not dressed out, even the trainer, should be keeping some type of chart. If you tend to blurt out things during a game, “Gee, we need to work on closeouts!” or “We’ve got to change our zone offense,” someone should be in charge of writing down every comment and all should be on your desk the following morning titled “Items you mentioned during last night’s game.” Possibly they were said out of frustration, in which case you can dismiss them. It’s been my experience head coaches’ in game comments are genuine concerns, even though they usually can wait until practice the next day or in the future, e.g. the next time you play a team that plays zone.

Even though improvements have been made at the scorer’s table to eliminate mistakes that have occurred in the past, it’s still a good idea to have one coach (many levels or leagues only allow a coach at the scorer’s table at a time out) check team and individual fouls (both teams), as well as number of times out left (both teams) and be certain the possession arrow is correct.

The other charts that need to be kept must have relevance to your philosophy, e.g. deflections, hustle plays, etc. An example would be for a team that places emphasis on offensive rebounds, a list of missed shots that aren’t rebounded but kept alive and eventually become offensive rebounds. An example of another “stat” is one I had to keep during one of my graduate assistant years. We had a 6’11” freshman who was the league’s leading scorer. My job was to keep track of how many touches he got and, if we went more than four possessions without him getting the ball, I had to tell our head coach. (By the way, the head coach was none other than George Raveling).

With the addition of the media time out, there are additional opportunities for coaches to communicate with their teams. One assistant needs to say, “Time out next dead ball!” The ability to disseminate as much pertinent information during the beginning of the TO as possible, then communicate the proper adjustment to the team may very well decide who wins. Examples to discuss are: do you have a foul to give before the bonus (do they?), is there a player you need to get out in the final 30 seconds of the half (quarter) because you’re on defense and he/she has two (or three) fouls (do they have a similar player you can to attack?), is there a player in the game who’s a below 50% FT shooter, above 90%?

You’re going to win some games big, you’re also going to lose big, but the overwhelming majority of your games will be decided by two or three buckets. During those close games and overtimes, the staff needs to make sure they’re all cool, calm and collected. The message must be, “We’ve got it under control. Just listen and we’ll give you something so we can win. We believe in you. Just believe in us.”

Currently, there’s more money given to coaches and because of that, there are greater expectations, more professionalism is expected and more questions will be raised. The administration and fans should never doubt your knowledge, preparation or organization. Have answers. During the recent NBA playoffs, the Spurs didn’t foul when they were up three late in the game. When Gregg Popovich was asked about it, his response was, “You do. We don’t.” Maybe people didn’t agree but there was no doubt the situation was discussed and an ideology had been decided upon. A response that evokes hesitation conveys uncertainty. A well-coached team knows what they’re going to do, whom they’re going to (and not) foul in certain situations. You need to make sure that – during the enthusiasm of the moment – you’re never surprised.

As far as assistants’ job during a game, the number one goal is to make the head coach look good.

Jack has coached 27 players who have played or are playing in the NBA and four of his former bosses won coach-of-the-year honors while Jack was in their employ. In addition, the last two head coaches Jack worked for are being inducted into the National Hall of Fame in Springfield, MA in September of 2013 (Jerry Tarkanian in the “Coach” category and George Raveling in the “Special Contributor” section.

Leave a comment