Nick Oliver

Professor Posig
26 February 2016
Coaching Paper
In this paper I will be comparing and contrasting Coach Jack Menard of whom coached me
all four years in high school for the Carmel Icehounds Hockey club. Coach Doug Bruno is the
coach of the DePaul University Womens Basketball team. I will be incorporating my
experiences with both (including my experience with Coach Bruno in a previous class where we
heard him lecture on experiences and coaching) into different pieces and practices of coaching.
The Kouzes and Posener leadership model believe that leadership is earned and not inherited
or born with. The leadership model is composed of five practices, with each practice given a set
of standards to follow. I would like to emphasize only three of these principles for the sake of
length. The first step being modeling the way carries two important aspects to it being
clarifying values by finding your voice and setting the example. Bruno demonstrates this with his
history of success. He does not need to explain himself constantly with strategies or values
because they have been demonstrated for years with previous teams. Players come to him
knowing what his values are. I had the great opportunity to listen to Coach Bruno with one of
Professor Clarks courses and should admit by the time he finished his lecture, I was well aware
of what his ideals and values were for his players. He also acts on what his values are. He noted
how he wants his players to develop as women and have tools to lead a life after basketball. He
exemplifies this by creating an atmosphere of academics are key. He talked about how he wanted
to recruit kids that even though they werent the top of their basketball class or most flashy
player, they had a great I.Q. and sense of the game. It was their intellect that would give them the
ability to become great players from Coach Brunos teachings and lessons. Comparing this to
Coach Menard is sort of similar but on a smaller scale. Coach Menard every year would hold a
team meeting for our team and lay out the goals and expectations for us. He was a bigger guy

and came off as someone with a strong voice and also shared the same lessons of becoming
better people than just better players. Coach Menard had the experience but nothing close to
Coach Bruno, but that should not take away from what they both stood for. The third step of five
in the leadership model I feel the need to highlight is to challenge the process. In this step,
leadership should search for opportunities and experiment and take risks. Coach Menard in my
experience always searched for new opportunities and ways to improve because of his knack for
changing systems and lines frequently. In due time we finally came on a set course but for the
first few months of the season, it never seemed Coach Menard was ever content with the lines.
He was an observant coach of who had much intellect in each players strengths and weaknesses
which was good for all of us because it would mean he could dial everyone in to make us reach
our full potential. He experimented a lot and I did not have much of a problem with it. When
watching Coach Bruno coach over the course of the season I see for the most part the same
starting five. I understand basketball has fewer players than hockey but it seemed to me even
during the latter part of the game he had in the back of his mind which player fit which situation.
This is an incredible trait for a coach but in my instance with Coach Menard, I enjoyed playing
with other forwards on my team and gained a sense of comfort and trust among all of us. I
admired Coach Menards way of being innovative, with lines and plays; it kept the game
interesting. It may be Coach Bruno knows his players so well that he does not need the time to
experiment and I can understand that this being an NCAA sport with only a handful of games.
Finally, I want to touch on the last practice of the leadership model, which is encouraging the
heart. In this step, it is the recognition of contributions and celebrating the values and victories
that are included. From my perspective Coach Bruno had that recognition but did not display it
often. On the court, Coach Bruno was whenever a big play happened or a huge three was made,

Oliver 2

he never showed any exuberance. He always had that questioning look on his face I always seem
to notice. I admire this too. I do not think a coach should be all-joyful and in high spirits
whenever the game is going on. I have the opinion of the coach should be cool, calm and
collected until the final whistle blows. A game can turn at any moment where you need someone
to turn to who isnt in awe of the situation of the game like I was. I know Coach Bruno does
bring in the positive attitudes post-game as I have come to find out from listening to him,
especially with the major wins he has had in his career. On the other hand, Coach Menard
displayed a greater attitude during the game that seemed to counter Coach Bruno. Each goal
scored was followed by a fist pump or a tap on the helmet and I enjoyed that. It was not only the
players who were celebrating in the glory of the moment but also our coach. I never once
doubted his passion or commitment to us, which was supported by his recognition and
celebrations constantly.
Another coaching model I would like to discuss is of being directive and nondirective. Being
directive means the coach takes on the role of the expert; (s)he explains what needs to be done
and how to do it. On the contrary, a nondirective coach will take a partnership with the
player/coacheee to solve problems and develop skills. The coach will also take on the position of
a facilitator to accomplish the outcomes, as well as, the player decides on the goal. I brought up a
point during class how professional tennis relates to this nondirective coaching style where the
player and coach work to beat the competitor by developing skills and so forth, but ultimately it
is the player who decides on the what tournaments to play and what goals to put in place. Here,
Coach Menard was a nondirective coach. As noted before about how we met for him to set goals,
he first wanted to hear where we were on what can we achieve. It was our influence that guided
the direction of the team. As a captain for two years, he always faced me with what I thought

Oliver 3

about a certain strategy or a line pairing. It was a unique relationship I have never really come
across. I admired that he cared about my opinion and even implemented what I had to say. This
nondirective approach work well for me for the communication between us was fluent. For
Coach Bruno, by definition I see him as a directive coach; one who takes on the role of expert
(But not to the degree of Coach Knight from Indiana University who we talked about in class).
Who could argue how Coach Bruno is not an expert at the game of basketball? With all the
accolades and medals earned, Coach Bruno provides the successful framework for his players,
which in turn, provide the expectations and, hopefully, outcomes of winning. After observing
Coach Bruno, his tactics seem to be pre-calculated and knows exactly what he is doing. I did not
notice anything from watching him that he would go to his players and ask for input or help.
The performance pyramid has 4 parts starting with the Physical Capacity as the foundation.
Between the two coaches, it would be Coach Menard who carried more of this mentality. Being
from western Pennsylvania, Coach Menard is a hands-on guy who uses his voice a lot to convey
messages, some less congratulatory than others. But that caters to his style of coaching and
works for him. The second piece to the performance pyramid is the Emotional Capacity. Each
coach in my understanding carries this piece with them but more so Coach Bruno. Referring
back to the time when I listened to Coach Bruno talk about past experiences and coaching, he
eventually came to tears talking about former players he had. This struck me as someone who
cared more about the sport of basketball but the development of his players on and off the court.
The third stage in the performance pyramid is the Mental Capacity. It is Coach Bruno who I
think has more of a mental aspect to his players. Through observation, he talks to his players in a
more so calm tone without any harsh breakouts. This is mental to me because he knows that in
any state of the game, a player can break down or heat up. It his responsibility for the player to

Oliver 4

reach full potential and when talking to a player, being relaxed and providing unnecessary stress
is a way to mentally affect the player. Lastly, the Spiritual Capacity peaks the pyramid. This
capability is not found in all coaches but come to the understand in my comparing of both Coach
Menard and Coach Bruno they both earn this spot on the pyramid. Both coaches have an
uncanny ability to speak and teach a player without disrupting their state of mind. Somewhat
similar to the mental capacity, both coaches demonstrated to me how they could affect the things
that are intangible in a player. This is the spiritual ability of affecting the human spirit. A great
example was Phil Jackson and his uncanny ability to tap into a players spiritual state of mind
through yoga or meditation. With Coach Menard it was his real-life examples he learned from
experiences that touched me spiritually. It was not about the game, but myself and how I can be a
better person. Coach Bruno noted the same thing when talking about old players he coached back
in the day. He talked how he would sit his players down individually and get to know them,
understand their background and what makes them tick. This is a critical characteristic to have as
a coach and implement it into a game.
The ideal performance state (IPS) for athletes is the maximized physiological and also
psychological level of stimulation that is stemmed from heart rate, blood pressure, brain waves,
breathing and muscular tension. IPS includes competencies including endurance, strength, selfcontrol and focus. The key component to utilizing IPS is the ability to mobilize energy on
demand. Oscillation and routines are components of IPS that will help with building a strong
foundation. For IPS to occur, all levels of the pyramid need to be working in sync. When
watching Coach Bruno and his team against St. Johns, the scoring margin was constantly tight,
keeping the team operating at an ideal performance state. All competencies through the whole
game were being met as they kept in the zone with full-court pressing and quick fast breaks. As a

Oliver 5

high school team, our IPS sometimes was not always existent. Many factors such as the
opponent or score would deter us from IPS. It was not more so on Coach Menard we were not
operating at IPS but when we were, I feel a little more stepping back and re-evaluating would
have been appropriate. The ideal performance state maximizes teams potential from many
different aptitudes and in result, can have high performance over a period of time.
From the standpoint of both teams and coaches, yes, flow has been achieved. Flow is the
shared mental state which one performs and/or learns to the best of ones ability. I believe I
performed my best under Coach Menard and I see Coach Brunos team also performing, if not at
their best, at a very high level. Players from either teams one way or another characterized
intense focus and became immersed in it. Flow is what brings a team or individual to a continual
mindset of play where actual play becomes automatic and without thought. Coach Bruno and
Coach Menard have both demonstrated with their respected teams the ability to create flow and
be successful.

Oliver 6