Coaches often suggest that we in the United States should develop players as they do in Europe. What does this mean? What outcomes would they like to see changed?
I currently coach in a European city of 100k people in a country with a rich basketball history. There are 2 basketball clubs in the city; however, the other club does not have a boys team between u14 and u18, whereas our club does not have any girls over 12 years of age. Therefore, at nearly every age group over 13, there is one club, and one team, for each age group.
My u16 team has 14 players representing 11 middle schools (9th graders in an educational system with 3 years of high school); they will attend 6 high schools next year.
Fewer than 20 15-year-old boys playing basketball in a city of 100k people!
Our coaches are licensed by the basketball federation, and our youth players lift with a strength & conditioning coach 2-3 times per week. We have university-level facilities. These are the positives.
Are the licensed coaches, an S&C coach, and great facilities worth limiting the sport to 15-20 players at 15 years of age? 11 middle/high schools likely would mean 110-200 15-year-olds playing basketball on school teams. Is it better for 15 players to have a licensed coach or to have 150 players on teams?
Because we are the only team in our age group, we travel 1.5 to 2.5 hours to road games. There are no local rivalries or even local opponents. The advantage is all games are played on Saturdays, which affords the opportunity to have 4 good practices during the week, plus an off-day. The disadvantage, of course, is that games are an all-day endeavor, and our 14-game regular season starts in October and finishes in April with playoffs reaching into May. With the length of the season, one player competes in another sport (biathlon).
The season's length (preseason games in August, Final Four in the last week of May) prohibits the need for other teams. Players play with one club year-round, and some play with the youth national team over winter and summer breaks.
To get more games for our players, due to the limited game schedule, we also play in an older division (u18s), an international league, and some players play for our 2nd Division men's team. Through these games, some players will play as many as 60 games from August to May, while some likely play as few as 20 due to vacations, injuries, team selection (12 players on a game roster with 15 potential available players), and other conflicts. The advantage is these various teams and games are within one club and managed by one group of coaches, as opposed to players playing for a high school team and multiple AAU teams with no communication between coaches/teams.
When coaches suggest a more "European model" of development, is this what they mean? Should we send high school players to men's leagues at the local Parks & Recreation to get more games? Is traveling more than 90 minutes to all away games a positive? Is reducing the influence of the school sports system, and thus privatizing youth sports, a positive outcome when it reduces participation so drastically and eliminates opportunities to play multiple sports?
Are there positives? Yes. Our practices are competitive because there is little difference between our top 10 players. Our practice to game ratio is better. Everything is organized through a single club/group of coaches. We have communication between our team physios, coaches, and S&C to monitor injuries and growth-related pains.
However, we miss the neighborhood rivalries. Nobody plays more than 22-25 minutes in a 40-minute game. Participation is reduced drastically. Players play mostly with the same group for the entire year and potentially for their entire careers. Players play under the same coaches; we nearly lost a youth national team player because of a previous coach. With nowhere else to play, his option was to play for the same club with the same coach or to quit; he could not transfer high schools or play for a different club unless he moved 2 hours from home (which another player did).
Of course, this is not the situation in every city. Every city, every country, every community is different. There is no singular model of European development. However, every change (requiring licensed coaches) has unintended consequences (fewer coaches, meaning fewer players). Whenever coaches make a statement about longing for the "European way", they should define or explain the desired outcomes, and also the acceptable sacrifices to reach these outcomes.
