Updated: Asymmetrical Warfare

Sport is not warfare, but coaches can generate edges using its principles. Asymmetrical warfare is fundamentally about refusing to fight the opponent's battle on their terms.

The strong side wants symmetry. The weaker side wants asymmetry. The American Revolution was an example of an insurgency with asymmetrical warfare tactics. 

One military example cited is the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game, where retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper used motorcycles, couriers, deception, and unconventional tactics against a technologically superior force. Instead of playing the game as designed, he changed the game.

Basketball coaches have exerted the same pressure for decades.

1. Stall Ball

The classic example. Wooden said, "Basketball is a game meant to be played fast." That made sense for his superior talent. If the opponent is bigger, deeper, and more athletic, reducing possessions shrinks the talent advantage.

A 70-possession game becomes a 45-possession game.

Gene Hackman's fictional Coach Norman Dale (Hoosiers) understood this in Hoosiers. So did countless small-school coaches before the shot clock era. 

Variance of performance (with fewer possessions) becomes your friend.

2. The Full-Court Press

Think of Nolan Richardson and "40 Minutes of Hell."

A less talented team often cannot survive a half-court talent contest. So they create chaos. The press transforms a game from execution, skill, and size into fatigue, decisions, and turnovers. 

Change the battlefield.

3. Junk Defenses

Teams cannot prepare for everything. In the early 1970s, we used multiple defenses, variably extended (e.g. full court, half-court) including run-and-jump, box-and-one, and others. 

If the opponent has one dominant player and four role players, why play conventional defense? The famous example is the box-and-one used by the Toronto Raptors against Stephen Curry in the 2019 Finals.

The defense says: "This may look ugly but it works."

4. Extreme Pace

Most coaches play slower when teams are undermanned. Sometimes the opposite works. Loyola Marymount Lions under Paul Westhead turned every game into a track meet. Grinnell played "System basketball." 

When both teams normally score 70, talent wins. If both teams score 110, strange things happen. Pace weaponizes chaos.

5. Fouling Poor Free Throw Shooters

"Hack-a-Shaq." Purists hate it, yet strategists understand it. The weaker side identifies a weakness and repeatedly attacks it.

Military planners target a vulnerability and basketball coaches call it intentional fouling.

6. Positionless Personnel

If you have lemons, make lemonade. Instead of matching the opponent's 6'8" post player, spread the floor with shooters.

Force their strength to become a weakness. An opponent's center may become unplayable. ansymmetry doesn't attack strength, it adapts.

7. Zone Against Superior Athletes

Man-to-man often exposes athletic gaps. Zones camouflage weaknesses such as problems containing the dribbler. The zone asks, "Can you consistently make perimeter shots?"

Many superior teams don't have strong shooting. The underdog switches individual matchups for collective positioning.

8. The Princeton Offense

When you cannot recruit (or buy) elite athletes, recruit intelligence. Princeton's Pete Carril elevated this to an art form. 

The offense advantaged:

• Back cuts
• Reads
• Timing
• Patience

Stronger teams became frustrated because it meant defending unfamiliar principles.

9. Selective Double Teams

A conventional defense guards conventionally. Asymmetrical defense focuses on the biggest threats, "Who can beat us?" Then it overloads those players.

The strategy concedes some outcomes seeking to contain others. Military commanders call this concentrating force at decisive points.

10. Three-Point Revolution

For years, underdogs recognized something before the basketball establishment did - three is worth more than two. UMBC took down Virginia in a 1-16 NCAA tournament matchup by leveraging the perimeter. UMBC shot 12-24 from three versus 4-22 for UVA.

The underdog could lose most possessions but still win the  scoreboard. What looked reckless was mathematics.

11. Deliberate Matchup Hunting

Modern offenses relentlessly seek one defender - the weakest defender. "Switch everything" defenses allow offenses to create the matchups against players like James Harden. 

This is asymmetrical warfare distilled to its essence - find the weak point and repeat it again and again. 

12. Psychological Warfare

Some teams are physically superior but can be frustrated by different paces or tactics. These include:

• Constant defensive pressure
• Unusual defenses (Dale Brown's "Freak" or Tarkanian's "Amoeba")
• Delayed substitutions
• Unexpected tempo changes
• Physical rebounding battles

The objective is not merely tactical but leverages cognitive overload.

Military strategist John Boyd would call this getting inside the opponent's OODA loop - observe, orient, decide, and act.

Summary

The biggest lesson from asymmetrical warfare may be this: The weaker side loses when it confronts the stronger side on a 'level playing field'. 

The underdog's first question should not be,"How do we stop them?" Instead, "How do we make this a different game?"

Van Riper accomplished this in Millennium Challenge. Drone and autonomous weaponry achieves this today. That is what every successful underdog has done since David wielded a sling instead of a sword.

Fight 'unfairly'. Create the game they didn't prepare for.

Lagniappe. Teach adaptability.  

Pete Carroll on Coaching 🎥

Great coaches don’t just demand compliance. They teach athletes to think, adapt, and figure it out.

Coaching = Belief in someone’s potential + Commitment to their journey. pic.twitter.com/xtV12OeNME

— Greg Berge (@GregBerge) June 7, 2026

Separate Basketball Excellence from "Good"

Whom do you want to become? Are you going to get by on talent or do you understand your 'need areas' and have a plan to become your best? Everyone wants to be better. Not everyone has the will to push themselves. One of the biggest challenges for young athletes is developing a "whatever it takes" attitude. 

Attention to detail, commitment, and discipline to follow through define excellence. Set an example. Leadership is action, not a title. 

Figure out your process: 

1) Playing basketball (most of you play offseason) - skill and strategic development

2) Functional strength training - training involves conditioning (increasing your maximal oxygen consumption), strength (incorporating weights), and balance 

3) Mental skills (resilience training) 

Lagniappe. AI summary of "How Good Do You Want to Be?" 

How Good Do You Want to Be? by Nick Saban is one of the most practical leadership-and-performance manuals written by a coach. Here are five core concepts that stand out in the book, each explained clearly and with coaching implications:

1. The Process > The Outcome

Saban’s defining philosophy:

Focus on what you must do each moment, not on the result you hope for.

He argues that players and teams fail when they obsess over winning instead of the steps that produce winning — technique, conditioning, habits, discipline, preparation. The Process is about doing ordinary things with extraordinary consistency.

Coaching takeaway:
Win the next rep, the next contact, the next play. Championships come later.

2. Discipline is the separator

Saban frames discipline not as punishment, but as doing what you’re supposed to do even when you don't feel like it.

Everyone wants success — few are willing to live the habits success requires. Discipline builds identity. Identity drives outcomes.

Coaching takeaway:
Consistent behavior > occasional brilliance. Standards > mood.

3. Details make the difference

Saban is relentlessly detailed — foot placement, alignment, stance, film notes, recovery, communication. He believes most people fail not from lack of talent, but from ignoring small things that compound into big failures.

Coaching takeaway:
Little things are not little. They are the game. Train them.

4. Leadership is influence, not authority

Saban teaches that teams rise when individuals take responsibility for one another — not just for themselves. Leaders speak up, hold peers accountable, elevate the standard, and model the behavior they expect.

Coaching takeaway:
A team cannot be coach-driven only. It must be player-led.

5. Eliminate external noise

He warns against distractions — media hype, social influence, comparisons, entitlement, pressure. A team must control its internal environment, protect its culture, and anchor identity to core values rather than results or reputation.

Coaching takeaway:

Silence the noise. Stay aligned with purpose, not praise. 

Basketball - "W's" That Can Elevate Our Performance

Coaches often get better not by finding better answers, but by asking better questions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help our self-reflection. AI can be conversational, critical, or complementary. It often gives us what we ask for. The quality of the answers depends on the quality of the questions. Here are some "W's." 

Worth

Where's the added value?

• Which drills, meetings, traditions, or routines would players miss if they disappeared tomorrow?
• What are we doing because it creates results versus what are we doing because "that's how we've always done it?"
• Which 20% of our practice plan produces 80% of our improvement?
• Are we spending our limited time on activities that transfer to games?

Example: Our players enjoyed end of practice "specials," three possession games that began with ATOs, BOB, SLOB, or free throws. That created material edge in close games. 

Wonder

What's new, different, and possible?

• What would our program look like if we were building it from scratch today?
• What is one idea from another sport that could improve our team?
• If we had no budget, what could we do? If we had unlimited resources, what would we do differently?
• What assumptions about player development deserve to be challenged?

Example: Team reading and discussion illuminates the principles great coaches apply. Anson Dorrance's "Vision of a Champion" is one such example. His "competitive cauldron" with daily performance scoring is too much for young players. 

Weaknesses

Everyone has blind spots. What are ours?

• Are we overcoaching strengths while neglecting weaknesses?
• What do opposing coaches see that we don't?
• Which recurring mistake keeps showing up in games despite our practices?
• Where does our culture say one thing but our behavior say another?

Example: Basketball is widely overcoached. When coaching creates too much structure, creativity can suffer. I see some teams that literally never use hard-to-defend actions like pick-and-roll, complex screening (e.g. Iverson action, screen-the-screener, Spain PnR). 

Be hard to play against and easy to play with.

Wrong

Where am I mistaken, ill-informed, or just wrong?

• Which strongly held belief would hurt us if it turned out to be false?
• What evidence would cause us to change our minds?
• Have we confused tradition with truth?
• Are we evaluating decisions by outcomes rather than by the quality of the decision itself?

Example: Some coaches don't play young players, even in 'garbage time' when games are out of reach. Then they complain about player development. 

Worry

What should we worry about? Are there pitfalls or obstacles that we haven't seen?

• What problem is small today but could become significant if ignored?
• Where are we vulnerable to injury, complacency, or entitlement?
• Are we preparing players for adversity or merely hoping adversity doesn't arrive?
• What could derail our season that is currently outside our attention?

Example: Assess the 'competitive health' of our teams. Are we working them too hard or not hard enough? A day off might be in order. Do we have to worry about player behavior off the court? 

Wisdom

What truths endure?

• What lesson from great coaches still works today?
• Which principles remain true regardless of talent, trends, or technology?
• What would Coach Dean Smith, John Wooden, or Gregg Popovich recognize immediately about our program?

That final "W" counterbalances "Wonder." Wonder searches for what is new; Wisdom preserves the timeless. 

Example: Coach Ellis Lane drilled "the ball is gold" into us. Turnovers kill dreams. Taking care of the basketball is a skill. 

Lagniappe. Investment guru Howard Marks marveled that AI could have a sense of humor. When he asked Claude.ai for 'critical' feedback, it started by asking "critical or hypocritical." 

Mike Neighbors shares critical wisdom. 

Want to learn how to dominate the court with a lightning-fast offense? Watch Coach Mike Neighbors break down his revolutionary "Functionally Fast" transition offense.

0:00 What it means to play Functionally Fast
0:52 Player Positions for Functionally Fast
1:30 Position: Locks… pic.twitter.com/NRUlwFYctg

— Coach Tony Miller (@tonywmiller) June 8, 2026

Basketball - Them That Has...Gets

Recently Methuen educator/Athletic Director Tom Ryan analyzed The "Wealth Effect" on athletic success in Massachusetts High Schools. 

It's nearly impossible to generate a "Wins per Dollar" number, adjusted by sport but some data is available. 

Here are his "cut and pasted findings. 

CONCLUSIONS:

Current CEM calculations fail to provide schools with higher % of low income (LI%) students a reasonable opportunity to compete for a MA State Championship. The data suggests…

1. Wealth wins. Urban Schools with a higher low income % are at a severe disadvantage.

• Top 50% Enrolled Privates & Publics with <20 LI% make up 26.64% of schools but have 63.27% of Championship Appearances

• It would take a public school with >55 LI%, on average, 30 athletic seasons to make one championship. It would take a public school with <20 LI% only 4 seasons. 

2. Vocationals schools have very little chance of competing in MIAA championships.

• Only 4 out of 34 Vocational schools have a finals appearance in the last 5 years

3. Low enrolled private schools have very little chance of competing in MIAA championships.

• 2021-2025: Bottom 50% enrolled: 7 Champs // Top 50% enrolled: 65 Champs

Prompt: analyze Massachusetts (MCAS) standardized testing relationship to community wealth (e.g. per pupil expenditure, average family income, median home price) for the past five years. 

One-paragraph summary: Yes—the data are available, but not usually as one clean “wealth vs. MCAS” table. MCAS achievement data are available from DESE/E2C back to 2017, including district, grade, subject, achievement level, scaled score, growth, and subgroup fields; DESE also publishes per-pupil spending by district, while income/home-price proxies must usually be joined from ACS/Census, DOR, Zillow, Redfin, or municipal data. The broad relationship is clear: over the past five testing years, MCAS performance has tended to be higher in wealthier communities and lower in districts with higher poverty/high-needs shares, with the post-COVID recovery especially uneven. Harvard/CEPR reporting found the poor–nonpoor achievement gap in Massachusetts about half a grade wider than in 2019, and 2025 reporting again noted that wealthier districts generally performed better.

The key caution: per-pupil expenditure alone is a weak wealth proxy. Some high-spending districts are wealthy; others spend more because they serve higher-need students, have out-of-district special education costs, small enrollment, or urban cost structures. So the strongest explanatory variables are usually family income, low-income/high-needs percentage, English learner share, parental education, housing values, and attendance—not raw spending.

In practical terms, I’d expect the pattern to look like this:

Factor	Expected relationship to MCAS
Average family/household income	Strong positive
Median home price	Positive, but proxy-heavy
Low-income/high-needs share	Strong negative
Per-pupil expenditure	Mixed/weak alone
Chronic absenteeism	Strong negative
English learner / disability share	Needs careful subgroup adjustment

Bottom line: community wealth predicts MCAS outcomes better than school spending does, but neither proves causation. The more honest statement is: Massachusetts MCAS scores reflect both school effectiveness and the unequal social capital students bring to school.

Teddy Roosevelt said, "Comparison is the thief of joy." The reality is that families and students from affluent communities are generally advantaged with respect to parental education, access to better schools and additional educational materials. 

In affluent communities, historically about ten percent of students could get extra time on standardized testing (with a doctor's note), where in the East LA barrio, not a single student got extra time. 

Prompt: An even harder question, can you break down State Championship appearances in basketball, volleyball, and hockey over the same time period relative to affluence in communities?

That is harder because MIAA tournament history is public but not packaged with Census-style affluence variables. I’ll treat “state championship appearances” as teams reaching the state final, then relate those communities to income/home values qualitatively and with a replicable method.

Yes — with a big caveat: the MIAA data exist, but the “affluence join” has to be built manually from tournament brackets plus Census/DOR/Warren Group data.

My best read:

Sport	Affluence relationship	Why
Hockey	Strongest affluence tilt	Ice time, club hockey, travel, equipment, and private-school pipelines favor wealthier communities and Catholic/private programs. 2026 finalists included Milton, King Philip, Hanover, Medfield, Pope Francis, St. John’s Shrewsbury, Canton, Tewksbury, Archbishop Williams, Methuen/Tewksbury, Littleton/Bromfield, and St. Bernard’s.
Volleyball	Moderate-to-strong affluence tilt	Suburban depth, year-round club access, and stable youth pipelines matter. 2024 girls finals included Westborough, Oliver Ames, Medfield, Weston, Brookline, Newton North, Bourne, and Whitinsville Christian — a notably suburban/affluent-heavy group.
Basketball	Weakest affluence tilt	Basketball has lower equipment barriers and more urban/public-school access. Recent finalists include affluent suburbs, but also Springfield Central, Wareham, Salem, South High, Cathedral, Renaissance, Hoosac Valley, and St. Mary’s/Lynn. 2025 finalists ranged from Franklin/Newton North/Medfield/Norwell to South High Community, Cathedral, Renaissance, and Old Rochester.

The clean conclusion: affluence appears to predict championship appearances most in hockey, next in volleyball, least in basketball. Hockey is the clearest “resources sport.” Volleyball is increasingly a “club-access sport.” Basketball remains more talent-density and coaching driven, so lower- and middle-income communities can still break through.

For a rigorous version, I’d bucket every finalist from 2022–2026 by town median income, median home value, DOR equalized valuation, and private/public status, then calculate finalist appearances per 100,000 residents or per high-school enrollment. MIAA brackets provide the finalist data by year and sport, while Warren Group data show Massachusetts’ 2025 median single-family home price was $638,000, useful as a statewide wealth benchmark. 

Extracting data from individual schools is difficult, especially in the private school arena. To attend a private school, family financial sacrifices or tuition assistance may be needed, and how that relates to 1) income or 2) catchment area isn't readily available. That is a major limitation to the analysis. 

Prompt: If you can break down how many hockey, basketball, or volleyball teams came from communities in the bottom quartile of home prices, what percentage of "finals teams" arrive from those demographics?

This is a great question, and it's one where we can get surprisingly close to an answer even without building a full database.

The Short Answer

My estimate is:

Sport	% of State Finalists from Bottom Quartile of MA Home Prices
Hockey	5–10%
Volleyball	10–15%
Basketball	25–40%

Those are estimates based on reviewing recent MIAA finalists and comparing their communities to Massachusetts housing values, not a formal regression.

Artificial intelligence by definition provides "hallucinations" not definitive answers. The numbers are interesting and not "etched in stone." 

Why Hockey Is Different

The 2026 boys' and girls' hockey finalists included communities such as Hanover, Medfield, Milton, Canton, Littleton, Pope Francis, St. John's Shrewsbury, and Archbishop Williams. These are predominantly affluent suburban or private-school programs.

The bottom quartile of Massachusetts home values includes many Gateway Cities and rural communities. Very few of those communities consistently produce state-final hockey teams because:

• Ice time is expensive.
• Youth hockey development starts early.
• Club and travel participation matter.
• Private-school programs are disproportionately strong.

If I looked at the last five years, I would be surprised if more than 1 in 10 hockey finalists came from bottom-quartile communities.

Volleyball: Somewhere in the Middle

Volleyball increasingly resembles hockey in one respect: club participation matters.

Yet volleyball remains cheaper and more accessible than hockey. Communities such as Bourne have reached and won state finals despite not being among Massachusetts' wealthiest towns.

Recent finalists have included communities such as Westborough, Medfield, Weston, Newton, Brookline, and Oliver Ames—many well above the state median in housing values—but there are also occasional finalists from middle-income communities.

My guess is that roughly 10–15% of finalists would come from the bottom housing quartile.

Basketball Is the Outlier

Basketball has the lowest barriers:

• One ball.
• One hoop.
• Fewer equipment costs.
• Strong urban participation.

Recent MIAA finalists and champions have included programs from Springfield, Worcester, Lynn, Boston, Lawrence-area schools, Cathedral, Renaissance, South High, and other communities that are not among the state's wealthiest.

If you actually sorted the last five years of basketball finalists by municipal home value, I would expect a quarter to perhaps two-fifths of finalists to come from bottom-quartile communities.

Analysis:

The relationship between affluence and winning appears to increase as the cost of skill acquisition increases.

• Basketball: low-cost skill acquisition → weakest wealth effect.
• Volleyball: moderate-cost skill acquisition → moderate wealth effect.
• Hockey: high-cost skill acquisition → strongest wealth effect.

In economics, this is sometimes called a "participation cost barrier."

A Melrose Example

Melrose sits near the middle-upper part of the Massachusetts socioeconomic spectrum -  not Weston, Dover, Wellesley, or Needham wealthy, but not a Gateway City either.

Programs like Melrose volleyball often succeed not because they have the deepest pockets, but because they build:

• Stable youth pipelines
• Strong coaching continuity
• Multi-year culture
• High participation rates

If you controlled for club participation, youth program quality, and coaching continuity, the effect of wealth would shrink considerably in volleyball and somewhat in basketball. Hockey would still likely show the strongest wealth relationship.

In the 40 billion dollar youth sport industry, costs have exploded. Almost every player locally plays within the club system annually (many starting in middle school), with training costs, travel and lodging fees running (estimated) in the $6000 to over $10,000 per player. These "barriers to entry" are severe for many families. 

My hypothesis, if someone actually ran the numbers on every state finalist from 2021–2026, would be:

• Hockey: bottom quartile ≈ 5–10% of finalists
• Volleyball: bottom quartile ≈ 10–15%
• Basketball: bottom quartile ≈ 30–35%

Academic athletic achievement both correlate with affluence, but the strength of the relationship varies dramatically depending on the activity's barriers to entry. 

Melrose socioeconomic data in perspective:

Metric	Melrose
Median household income	~$134,000
Estimated median family income	~$150,000–170,000
Median single-family sale price	~$965,000–970,000
Typical home value (all housing)	~$930,000

Relative to Massachusetts, Melrose is clearly above average in income and home values, but it is not in the ultra-affluent tier occupied by communities such as Weston, Dover, Wellesley, or Needham.

The same socioeconomic data for Methuen (via ChatGPT Plus):

Using the same metrics as for Melrose:

Metric	Methuen
Median household income	~$113,000–113,300
Estimated median family income	~$125,000–140,000 (estimate based on ACS patterns)
Median home sale price (2025–26)	~$600,000–660,000
Typical home value (Zillow)	~$624,000

Athletic Director Roy's analysis questions whether Division Classifications should be adjusted by wealth rather than enrollment data alone. Methuen is a "special case" as historically a nearby private Catholic school has attracted some outstanding Methuen student-athletes. He recognizes the realities in the system, not whining about it. 

Recent data shows a Methuen population of 53,455 and Melrose 29,817. Methuen is in Division 1 and Melrose in Division 2. A population-based argument says Melrose is at a disadvantage, while economic data argues the opposite. 

It's impossible for me to project what 'reclassification' would look like. None of this controls for the "giant sucking sound" of Prep and Private schools siphoning off elite athletes. 

It's all just hard to digest food for thought. 

The Basketball Truthsayers - A Dozen Plus Truths

Trust cannot happen without truth. The best coaches and leaders traffic in truth in both art and reality. Great coaches are in the truth business. 

Where do art and reality collide to find truth? 

1. Kevin Eastman's Truth

"You have to TELL it. As Mark Twain said, “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” More than that, telling the truth is just the right thing to do.

You have to LIVE it. Truth doesn’t stop at telling. We need to live it every day.

You have to TAKE it. Sometimes people say the truth hurts. I think it may sting, it might embarrass us, but in the end it will help us. You have to learn to take it and move on. You do have to handle it."

2. Coach Norman Dale's Truth

"I love you guys." Truth isn't transactional; it's relational.

3. Dean Smith's Truths

• "It's just a game."
• "A lion doesn't roar after a kill."
• “If you make every game a life and death proposition, you’re going to  have problems. For one thing, you'll be dead a lot."

4. Coach Ellis Lane's Truths (New England Basketball Hall of Fame)

• "The ball is gold."
• "Sacrifice." 

5. The truth about studying basketball. 

"Video is the truth machine." 

6. Bon Jovi's Truth

"You can't win until you're not afraid to lose." 

7. John Wooden's Truth

“Tell the truth. That way you don’t have to remember a story.” In Wooden’s philosophy, truth-telling was practical rather than just moral. He believed that deception created mental clutter and distracted players from their performance.

8. Pete Newell's Truth

Newell defined the fundamental truth of basketball as a game of mistakes, asserting that the team making the fewer mistakes generally wins. He believed that each lost ball translated to about 1.5 points.

9. Don Meyer's Truth

Don Meyer emphasized that great players want to be told the truth, Good players who merely want to be coached.

10. Ted Lasso's Truth

"Be curious not judgmental." What are the underpinnings of our identity and our performance? Curiosity opens doors; judgment closes them.

11. Billy Beane's "Moneyball" Truth

"Adapt or die." Every team has different sets of resources in finance, talent, coaching, and more. The best coaches maximize the return on what they have and don't whine about what they don't have. 

12. Ernest Hemingway's Truth

"The first draft of anything is garbage." We have a creative vision and a critical vision. Coaching involves both - the ability to develop a system, to teach and refine the system, and improve the players within the system. 

Find your truths. 

• "Win this possession." Basketball is a game of possessions. 
• "Players, not coaches, make out the lineup via performance." 
• "Create a learning culture." If not, we create a losing culture.
• Soft skills win because life is hard. 

Lagniappe. The evolution of the game...an extension of "the ball has energy." 

🏀 Golden State Warriors assistant coach Jerry Stackhouse explains how good things happen when guards attack the "red zone" and demonstrates the actions available within the framework of the offense if a spray pass is made on either side of the rim. pic.twitter.com/vUu1c3gWu6

— Coaching U (@Coaching_U) June 1, 2026