The Cross Over Movement Blog

A couple years ago I published an article about the value of summer camps for basketball development. Yesterday, on a basketball forum, I made a very unpopular comment about basketball camps, as I asked why parents and coaches so favorably support camps.

In a school environment, do you learn more by studying and reading throughout the semester or by cramming for the final? If you have a student who is struggling and needs additional development, do you send her to a new setting with a higher student to teacher ratio for a couple days?

Camps remain popular because they were a vital part of the old way players developed. In the old days, kids played three sports. During the summer, they attended camps to play against other players and refine their skills before the next season. Today, kids play year-round and play in multiple settings, from local leagues to school teams to traveling teams. In the old days, kids had time to learn something at camp and then spend the rest of the summer perfecting it. Today, kids fit in a camp between summer tournaments and summer leagues and move from one basketball event to the next.

I believe the typical basketball camp provides a poor learning environment. The typical camps are either a 5-day day camp where campers go from 9:00AM - 4:00PM or an overnight camp which usually lasts +/- 4 days. The overnight camps are geared toward more competitive, serious players and market the number of hours kids spend on the court, advertising anywhere from 10-14 hour days.

I believe these overnight camps are poor learning environments for several reasons:

1. After one day, kids are mentally and physically exhausted from sun exposure, dehydration, energy expenditure and not sleeping. For players to improve, they must have a concentrated effort toward a goal with immediate feedback. I have never seen such an environment.

First, the coach to player ratio varies from 1:8 to 1:20 - now, if you count only qualified coaches, as opposed to high school or college players acting as counselors, the ratio worsens considerably. With such a poor ratio, it is hard for every player to receive useful and immediate feedback. I would say Snow Valley Basketball Camp is the best camp I have worked because they have the best evaluations at the end of camp to try and offer valuable feedback, even if it is not immediate. I was involved with specialized post play sessions at the camp which offered a good learning environment because the goal was specific and the numbers much smaller, so players received more repetitions and feedback. The optional sessions were basically mimi-clinics within the camp and had value surpassing the rest of the camp environment, as players who attended all the optional sessions received two evaluations, one from their camp team coach and one from their position-specific coach. At UCSB’s women’s camp, they too had optional specific work. I had the point guards and only three players showed up. So, for those three players, they received a lot of value from that extra hour per day. However, it also shows that most of the players were either not point guards or not really that interested in developing their skills.

Second, in 4 days, coaches do not have time to get to know each player to structure his comments and teaching to meet the players’ individual goals. Camps teach to the middle ground, which often leaves behind the players who are not as good, while failing to challenge the top players. Groups are typically based on age, not skill level, the skill discrepancy between teenagers can be huge depending on previous experience. Often, players do not have goals. If the player does not have a specific goal, how is he supposed to improve? Specific camps, like a 3-day shooting camp, have more success because there is an implied goal to the camp. However, what is the goal for a generic camp? to play games? to improve? Different kids have different goals. In such a setting, how do you meet each kids’ goals?

At several camps, I had kids ask me to work with them at breaks or lunches. They wanted to improve their shooting, their 1v1 moves or their ball handling. During these 30-minute to 1-hour sessions, we could work on skill development because they had a specific goal and motivation, were able to concentrate fully for the short time duration and I offered the immediate and specific feedback. However, these were the rare campers and I was one of the few coaches at the camps I worked spending extra time, as usually these were players not from my camp team.

Third, due to the exhaustion, how much concentration do players have to give to skill development? Or, do they fall back on their habits? In the afternoon of the third day, are players developing new skills or simply doing it the way they have always done it to just make it through the session and get to dinner?

2. Concentration is demanding. There is no way anyone can make a concentrated effort for 10 hours per day. This means that much of the time is wasted, developmentally-speaking. If players lack concentration, they are not going to improve. They are simply going through the motions and doing what they already do. Doing what you already do does not create improvement.

I ran a camp in Skopje, Macedonia. We woke up early, before it was too hot, and did our intense skill work in a 3-hour morning session. After lunch, we had a 2-hour session where we trained the skills from the morning and used them in team competition, usually transition drills and games. We took naps during the hottest part of the day. In the evening, we played pick-up games, the Greeks vs Macedonians. We spent about six hours per day on the court, but had a lot of quality. Most camps advertise their quantity, but not quality. Quality is far more important than quantity.

3. Different campers attend camp for different reasons. Some want fun, some want to meet friends, some want competition and some want to imrpove. However, all these players are mixed together in the same camp, which makes it difficult to meet everyone’s needs. So, camps try to meet their needs at different times. They offer additional on-court time for the serious players and pool time for those that want to have fun. This makes for longer days and wasted time during the camp, as a serious player may not want to have pool time, while the kid there for fun may just sit in his room while the extra training takes place.

4. There are almost no standards for hiring coaches. I never met or knew the camp director at any camp I worked until I arrived for the start of camp, except Sly Park, where I went as a kid. Often, a camper’s experience is directly related to his or her coach. Many great coaches work camps and work tirelessly. However, I worked the UCLA boys’ camp when Steve Lavin was the HC and watched as a “coach” left his team in the middle of a game to flirt with a co-ed who walked past the game. At Stanford’s women’s camp, I yelled at a coach because she couldn’t keep her attention on our game for more than a minute before she started chatting up another coach on another court.

I worked many camps on the West Coast and had a variety of experiences. Some parents send their kids to college camps so they work with college coaches. However, rarely do the college coaches spend considerable time with the players, unless the player is being recruited by the school. I respect former UCSB Women’s Coach Mark French because he led all the post stations at his camp. I also respect former Santa Clara University Head Coach Dick Davey because he ran the snack bar and swept the floors at his camp. Cal’s women’s staff under Caren Horstmeyer were very involved with the teaching of each of the sessions, which was rare. At Cal’s men’s camp, I saw Ben Braun one time all week. At UCLA’s camp, I saw Steve Lavin one time all week. At Gonzaga’s camp, Mark Few gave one speech to the kids.

Parents also send their kids to these camps so their kids can meet and be motivated by college players who work as coaches and counselors. However, at the Stanford girls’ camp, Arizona Girls’ Camp and Superstar Camp, I had players tell me that I was the only coach who talked to the players off the court. At Superstar and Arizona, the counselors drove their cars from the gym to the dorms to avoid the 10 minute walk with the players. At Arizona’s Camp, a little girl nearly got lost because nobody escorted the campers from the gym to the cafeteria and one little girl just stopped by a bush and started crying. Fortunately, I was one of the last ones out of the gym because I had been working out a player and found her because none of the counselors bothered. I worked a Stanford girls camp where I know three of the coaches (out of six) in my division did not know more than one player’s name at the end of camp. They were coaching games on the last day yelling “Hey you,” at their own players.

Some of the coaches in charge of the camps are great: Ryan Hansen and Josh Pastner (now at Memphis) at Arizona; Dan Shell (now at St. Mary’s) and Ray Lopes at Oklahoma; Scott Garson (now at UCLA) and Erik Jackson (now at Portland) at Utah; Mike Wolff (now at Portland) and Dave Hopla (now with the Wizards) in the Poconos; Barb Smith (now at Minnesota) at Cal; Tommy Lloyd at Gonzaga.

I actually loved coaching camps. I spent consecutive summers where I worked 8-10 camps each summer. I went one summer wehere I spent a full month either coaching at a camp or traveling to or from a camp without a single day off. It was awesome. I love being on the court and teaching. However, my experience tells me that many of the other coaches at these camps work them for other reasons. Many work the college camps because they think they are going to get connections to get a job. They spend more time schmoozing than coaching. Others work them because they are college players and they want to play pick-up games in the evening against the other players and get a little cash, too.

I stopped working camps because I lost respect for the college coaches who could not be bothered to show up for their own camp, because I tired of listening to coaches whine about having to coach stations or skill sessions, because I tired of making $250/week while the camps grossed five and six figures and because I realized there was a better way to help players than working camps with hundreds of kids. When camps started putting 12 and 13 kids on a team to make more money, I had enough.

When I made my comment on the other board, it offended coaches. While I said that the camp did not provide a good learning environment, the other coaches took it personally. I do not think it is the ability of the coach; I think the entire set-up limits a camp’s effectiveness. I just don’t think a camp provides the environment necessary for true skill development regardless of the effort or experience of the coaches. The times when I had success with players at camp are the times when I did individual workouts during breaks to give players who had the desire the individual and immediate feedback necessary to improve one’s skills.

Camps still have a place, but it is a limited one. I think camps can be good for young players just starting to play, as they offer another environment beyond the local recreation league and some camps have value for college evaluation purposes. I think camps can be fun, social environments for players. However, with the proliferation of year-round basketball, I don’t know how many players really need to search for new competition, as in the old days, and I believe there are better methods for skill development.