The WNBA: Coaching’s Last Frontier – July 2007

Linda Hill-MacDonald joined the WNBA as head coach of the Cleveland Rockers in 1997, the league’s inaugural season, in spite of historical precedence. “I knew that there had been many other attempts at the professional level in the past, and there was a risk involved,” acknowledged Hill-MacDonald, now head coach at Buffalo. That the league was backed by the NBA helped counter fears she might have had about its longevity, but history told her the leap to the professional world could be temporary. So what exactly drew her to the pros?

“I’ve coached at every level,” she explained. “I started at high school where, if you’re fortunate, you have one or two good athletes on your team and you try and build a successful program. Then moving on to the college level, where you have to fight for the athletes and you have to build a team through the recruiting process. But in the WNBA, the best of each of the colleges [were] going to make up these teams. That was something that really appealed to me. Would coaching at that level be different because of the level of talent?”

For Carolyn Peck working at the professional level was part her long-term career plans. “When I started coaching,” explained Peck, now an ESPN analyst, “Pat Summitt gave me my first opportunity. She sat me down and she said, ‘Carolyn, where do you see yourself in the next five to ten years?’ And I wanted to be the first female assistant on an NBA staff. It wasn’t one of those things where [I was there] ‘just because I was a woman.’ I was looking at it from being a coach. I felt if you could turn around an 84 game season, the preparation and the games you were going to see and the basketball you were going to learn…it felt like getting your Ph.D. in basketball.” When Orlando decided to commit to a WNBA franchise, she believed in the organization and accepted the role of coach and general manager of the expansion Miracle in 1998, and began the job after her Purdue team won the 1999 NCAA championship.

Hired by the New York Liberty in 1999 as an assistant to Richie Adubato, Patty Coyle was elevated to the head coach position mid-way through the 2004 season. When she decided to make the jump, she’d been coaching college for 16 years and was starting her seventh year as head coach at Loyola. “I felt a little stagnant in college,” she admitted, and “I just felt intrigued by this opportunity. More importantly,” Coyle explained, “to come in and work for someone like Richie Adubato, who had 40 years of coaching experience – 20 years in the NBA – I just felt like he had a wealth of knowledge. Learning from someone who had been in the game for 40 years was an opportunity I couldn’t pass up.”

ISN’T BASKETBALL JUST BASKETBALL?
Now in its 11th season, the WNBA coaching pool has been through its fair share of growing pains, much of it having to do with mastering the differences between the college and professional game. While it almost universally agreed that there’s a willingness to learn at both levels, it should come as no surprise that the WNBA game is faster and more physical one, played by players with good basketball I.Q’s.

“At the college level,” said Dawn Staley, who played in the WNBA while coaching at Temple, “if you don’t have the talent you may have to explain every option of every play. At the WNBA level, they see those options plus more. They’re able to create their own shots.” Also, noted Connecticut Sun coach Mike Thibault, “in the college game, I always felt like you could kind of lose somebody defensively and help somebody else. In the pros, there are so many good players it’s hard to do. You could say, ‘Well, that’s their weakest link.’ But their weakest link was a college First Team All-American.”

In terms of X’s and O’s, WNBA coaches have more control over time outs and, said Thibault, “there are a lot more pick and rolls in the game — probably double the amount than are in college. The footwork is different than what [the players] ran when they ran just a motion offense in college.” Playing four quarters with the 24-second clock mean more possessions, and the shot clock, plus the new 8-second backcourt rule, has sped the game up a notch.

“You have to be able to prepare more quickly,” added Hill-MacDonald. “There’s no doubt about that. With the onslaught of games once the season begins (34 games in three months), it comes fast and furious. It demands of you long hours, a lot of perseverance, and working through a lot of fatigue. I don’t think it’s for the faint hearted. If you’re not prepared, you’re not going to succeed. That’s the bottom line.”

Something a coach has no control over is the ridiculously short preseason and the fact that many veterans arrive late to camp because of overseas commitments. “There’s no time to develop chemistry and to me that’s the one thing that hurts the league more than anything else,” reflected Nell Fortner. Now the head coach at Auburn, after spending three years coaching USA basketball (culminating in an Olympic gold in 2000), Fortner became the Indiana Fever’s head coach and GM in 2001.

“It’s not the talent,” continued Fortner, “the talent is there. It’s the lack of time to develop your chemistry. And you only get chemistry through going through a preseason: you’re working hard, you’ve got the two-a-days and you’re suffering and,” she laughed, “you hate the coach. They don’t have the time to go through the fire. And then all of a sudden, bam, you’re playing games. And let me tell you something, those early games? They mean something when you’re fighting for a playoff spot.”

POINTS OF CONTACT
“I’d say to coach at the WNBA level, it’s more about managing people than it is about the actual X’s and O’s,” reflected Hill-MacDonald. “Managing the professional athlete is challenging because they come in and you spend two to three hours a day with them and they’re gone. It’s a little more difficult to develop that team chemistry that you can develop at the college level because you have more time with those young women and you can do team building activities with them.

“You’re dealing with players who are adults and they are now moving into the adult part of their lives and establishing careers as professional athletes,” commented Fortner. “They’ve got a huge life outside of playing basketball. They might be married. They might have children; they might have family members living with them. They’ve developed who they’re going to be, pretty much, and you don’t have any of that at the college level. Those kids are looking at you and pretty much drawing off of you everyday they’re on campus.”

“I remember a player telling me one time when I coached in the league, ‘I don’t really need to be asked how I’m doing every day. All I want to do is come in here and play basketball and go home. It doesn’t matter to me that you know anything about me.’ Let me tell you something, that affected me,” said Fortner, “because that’s not me at all. But I do know this: I think that being in the league, it’s a great gig. You’re coaching basketball, and if that’s what you want to do, that’s where you need to be. You get to coach basketball, you get to evaluate talent. You don’t have to worry about them off the floor, what they’re doing, who they’re hanging out with. That’s not your job.”

WHO’S THE COACH?
Looking back on the league’s first season, when all eight of the head coaches were drawn from the women’s basketball ranks, it’s no wonder that much has been made of the influx of ex-NBA coaches and ex-NBA players-turned-coach. Some have suggested that the NBA “fraternity” was simply using the WNBA as training ground — ignoring (or discouraging) qualified coaches with roots in women’s basketball — and for some it’s created a disconnect between the two coaching communities.

“I’ve had some heated arguments with people about this discussion,” said Coyle. “When this league started, there weren’t any women coaches that had head coaching experience at the professional level. And I’ve got to tell you, it’s so much different than college. I felt that the men that were hired had been successful at the NBA level, and I thought it was one of the best things that happened to the women’s game. Sitting 11 years later, we’re better for it,” said Coyle. “They brought the approach that it was just about the game. The way you treat the players, it’s just so different. At this level, you don’t have to worry about the kids going to class. You don’t have to worry about parents or recruiting. It’s so much more of a business.”

For Peck, balancing the business side of the General Manager with the coach’s seemed, initially, at odds. “As a coach you develop a relationship to get your players to play hard for you,” explained Peck, “then you’ve got to make a cut or a trade or waive somebody. The women in the WNBA now, because it’s had its longevity, understand that it’s a business. It’s not like college, where you develop that family atmosphere and you go to war together and you play hard for each other. You still are doing that, but if there’s a decision that needs to be made that will make your organization better, that’s a business decision and you leave it at that.”

Intriguingly enough, the newest WNBA coaches seem to reflect a successful professional learning curve. While Minnesota’s Don Zierden traces his roots to the NBA, Chicago’s Bo Overton’s resume straddles both men’s and women’s college basketball. Jenny Boucek, coach of the Sacramento Monarchs, spent seven years as a WNBA assistant, including time with Seattle Storm’s Anne Donovan and Ron Rothstein of the (now defunct) Miami Sol. The Houston Comets’ Karleen Thompson has been with the WNBA since ’97, serving as an assistant since 2002 under Los Angeles’ Michael Cooper and Houston’s previous coach, Van Chancellor.

But there’s no guarantee that trend will continue. “I’ve got to tell you,” said Coyle, “in the last two or three years I’ve had assistant jobs open, and I haven’t had any women apply. Which is shocking.” Though, perhaps, not surprising. “I think this is the root of it,” posited Coyle. “When I decided to make the jump from college to the pros, I wasn’t concerned about whether or not I was going to have security. At this level, you might get a two-year contract. In college, people don’t want to leave the security. The guys are a lot different. And I’m more like a guy in the sense that I’m thinking, if you get the job done, you get rewarded. And if you don’t get it done, then that’s on you. That’s the mentality at this level.”

REAPING BENEFITS
So, what’s at stake for the college coach, and how concerned should they be about the WNBA’s success or failure? “On the whole,” asked Fortner, somewhat rhetorically, “how important is it, really, to the collegiate game? Is it going to affect our game if the league’s not here anymore? No, I don’t think it will, because we’ll still have college scholarships and women will still be playing college ball.” Of course, it would be a basketball tragedy for any fan of the game to never see a 26-year-old Candace Parker, and all the talented players who’ll follow her, play the game on American soil.

That being said, the college game has benefited from the WNBA as a motivation. “Kids coming up today don’t know anything but the WNBA,” said Fortner, “so it’s a tremendous motivational tool for them through the year to stay focused, to become the best they can be.” There’s also no denying the recruiting value of having a player in the WNBA. To that end, Staley believes that “as college coaches we need to know what’s going on at the next level so we can prepare our kids a lot better for what they’re going to face – the physicality, the speed. We really have to do a better job at teaching our kids how to work as a team and to instill individual work ethic. Because once you get to the next level, what you put in to it as an individual is what you get out of it.”

There are growing opportunities for coaches at both levels to meet, exchange ideas about the game and develop a mutual respect for each other’s professions. “I go out and see college games all the time,” said Thibault. “Last year just during our training camp, we had somewhere between 10 and 15 college programs come in to watch our practices and to dialogue back and forth about [different tactics]. You’re seeing more of that, and I think that the perception that the pros just roll out the ball has gone away.”

In the past, several factors have contributed to a lack of collegiality between the two coaching communities. Schedules that were out of sync, disparate backgrounds seemed to discourage connection, and the ever-growing pressure of growing a college program made huge demands on an individual coach’s time. In spite of those realities, Seattle’s Donovan can’t help but feel disappointed in what she sees as a lack of support from the college ranks. “I don’t know how much they watch the game, how much they really play close attention to it. I can speculate about why that is, but I’ll leave that alone and just say it’s frustrating. Because this is a great game. Pity the person that’s still looking at this league ten years ago when it started out. They just gave up on it back then? Where would we be in women’s basketball if we had all done that back then? The game has grown, the talent has grown, the coaching has grown. And it’s a game that needs to be promoted within our own ranks.”

“It’s about supporting the game,” concluded Coyle, “Women have to support women. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else is going to do it.”

Coaching USA Basketball: A Road Paved With Gold? – April 2005

If I asked for a quick show of hands, I bet 80% of the people reading this would be hard pressed to identify what the rather inelegant acronym ABAUSA stood for. Of course, since I wouldn’t want to encourage gambling, I’ll give you a hint: ABAUSA was created in 1974.

Still not sure? Hint two: It was renamed USA Basketball in 1989.

Confused? Well, then, please indulge me in as I share a little back-story.

When the United States joined the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) as a member in 1934, it was the Amateur Athletic Union (a very different beast than the AAU of today) that FIBA first recognized as the organization responsible for USA teams in international competitions. While the AAU had been holding U.S. women’s basketball championships in since 1929, the 1953 World Championship marked the very first time a major international basketball competition was held for women. Until the early 1970’s, staff and players for those teams were drawn from AAU teams, sometimes known as Industrial teams, with names like Nashville Business College, Midland Jewelry, Raytown Piperettes and the Hutcherson Flying Queens. AAU All-Americans like Katherine Washington, Doris Rogers and Colleen Bowser competed under the direction of coaches like John Head, Harley Redin and Alberta Cox.

ABAUSA, or the Amateur Basketball Association of the United States of America, emerged in 1974 after a 10-year struggle between the AAU and other U.S. basketball organizations for control of the USA’s international teams. With the recognition of ABAUSA by FIBA, international teams and coaches began to be drawn almost exclusively from the collegiate ranks. The first team fielded by ABAUSA was for the 1975 World Championships. Though coached by Cathy Rush of Immaculata College, it included none of Rush’s “Mighty Macs,” instead featuring such players as Lusia Harris, Nancy Dunkle, Ann Meyers and Pat Head (later Summitt). Choosing Rush as coach “really was a no-brainer,” admitted Bill Wall, Executive Director of ABAUSA from 1974-1992, “Margaret Wade having retired and Cathy having just won three straight AIAW titles with Immaculata.”

Why this walk down memory lane?

Because in examining some of the concerns around college coaches coaching for USA Basketball — Is it fair for them to be coaching potential recruits? Is the process for being a USA Basketball coach open enough? How does one position your athlete to become a participant in USA Basketball? — it’s obvious these are not new concerns.

“We heard those stories way back,” said Wall, recalling in particular the reaction to the rapid elevation of one young person to a coaching position. “We moved Pat Head up very quickly because of the fact she was an outstanding player and, we all know now, had the making of a helluva fine coach.”

This is not to say these issues are not legitimate and worthy of discussion. But it is useful to put them in context of the very explicit mission of USA Basketball: To win gold medals.

To those within USAB, agendas that distract from that goal, especially the idea a coach coaching the younger teams might attempt to recruit those players, seem incomprehensible. Anne Donovan, who has been involved in USA Basketball since 1983, first as a player and most recently an assistant coach for the Gold medal winning team in Athens, seemed almost stunned at the possibility. “I understand and recognize why they’d be concerned but – and forgive me, but I’ve been so entrenched in USA Basketball for more than half my life – that organization is not run with that intent. You’ve got all these all-stars who want to play, all who have been starters, and now you’re the coach that doesn’t think they’re a starter? You’re going to make five friends – your five starters. And you better win a medal, because that also affects their career. USA Basketball program has been so much about gold and silver medals, that anything less than that is almost unacceptable.”

Virginia coach Debbie Ryan, a five-time USAB coach, response was immediate. “I don’t think it’s an issue, to be honest. USA Basketball is real clear about the demarcations between coaches and players. You’re not supposed to do any recruiting. If you do, you just won’t do [USA Basketball] again. You’re a professional and you need to act like a professional.”

Professionalism was a theme echoed by recently retired coach Colorado Ceal Barry during the USA Basketball panel at the 2005 WBCA convention. “If you go in with the idea that ‘I’m going to recruit this player,’ as opposed to going in with the idea that ‘I’m going to win a gold medal,’ you’re already off on the wrong foot,” explained Barry. A coach for nine different USA teams, she noted her most recent team had several unsigned players. At her first practice, her focus was not on recruiting those seven or eight athletes, but, she said with a smile, getting the entire team into “something that replicated a defensive stance.”

“You can disrupt the chemistry if you’re focusing your energy and time on recruiting,” Barry added. “As a head coach, I expected that from my two assistants as well. If one of my assistants was focusing on recruiting, she lost my respect. You may gain a player that plays at your school for four years, but I feel like you’re asked to do a job as important as coaching a USA Basketball team, and there are a thousand other options to coach that team, you’d be foolish.”

Ironically enough, Barry and fellow panelist Jim Foster, himself a coach of nine USA teams, wondered if coaching the recruitable athlete was actually such an advantage. “Some of these kids have never been through a collegiate practice,” explained Barry. “I told these kids this summer, ‘I’m a college coach, you guys are high school. I’m going to run these practices like college practices.’ I gave them plenty of warning at the trials – told then what to do, how to prepare. And when they showed up, none of them had. In three weeks, you can’t really build trust,” Barry continued. You don’t have that sort of opportunity. When you’re trying to whip a team into shape to get ready for gold medal competition, you have more opportunity to lose them.”

“Every coach walks in to it knowing that the expectation is a gold medal and nothing else is good enough,” said Foster. “You can finish fifth in the league and get into the NCAA Tournament. [For USA Basketball] you’ve got to win the games to get to the medal round, and then you’ve got to win the games in the medal rounds just to know you did what was expected of you. So, when you see a coach, you see them in real time. And they’re not recruiting, believe me.” As an example, Foster recalled the questions raised after University of Connecticut’s Geno Auriemma coached Ann Strother, who later signed with UConn. Foster, a good friend of Auriemma’s said, “If you spend three weeks with him and you still want to go play for him, you’ve seen the whole package. I don’t think it’s an advantage at all.”

USA Basketball is well aware of these concerns, explained panelist Carol Callan, who’s been involved with USA Basketball since 1989, and has been Assistant Executive Director of Women’s Basketball since 1996. “We’ve had many discussions on what we could do to try and make this right.” This past summer, for example, because Barry was practicing during the recruiting time, she was required to open up practices half time so other coaches could attend and observe. But that had it’s own unexpected repercussions. “If you’re the coach trying to get on a kid and they’re sitting there wanting to be recruited, you can imagine what kind of disaster that can be in terms of getting your team together,” said Callan. Additionally, it didn’t really “solve” the problem since observing can’t match the interaction between coaches and those players. A coach spends more time with the team just because they are the coach. And, to be honest, as three-time Olympic medalist and fellow panelist Dawn Staley pointed out, “coaches who are coaching these high school players [are] showing them why they’re one of the best coaches in the country.”

“But I have to say, from a USAB stand point, is it fair to have your best players and not give them the best coaches?” asked Callan. “You want to have the best coaches with the best players. You want Candice Wiggins to become Dawn Staley. But, I don’t know the answer the other than what we’re doing, which is to continue to try and make sure that we select coaches that are the best coaches and will not [recruit]. I can’t say that it doesn’t happen, but we certainly watch it. We discuss it on the front end quite a bit – but if it comes to me during, we’ll confront it. Keep offering suggestions,” she added. “We’re open to them, but I don’t know that it’s going to be resolved in what people might classify as a “fair” situation.”

Issues of “fairness” swirl around the coach selection process because, and somewhat truthfully, it seems that positions are always staffed by the same names. While there is an online application form at the USAB website, it is a committee that chooses both the coaches and players for the Cadet/ Youth, Collegiate and Senior teams. The members of that committee (also available online) evaluate applicants that must meet some basic criteria and fit into limited opportunities. Consider, there are 320 Division I coaches, and in any given summer there might be six USA coaching opportunities, and within each team’s staff, there must be a minority. You must already be a head coach and be willing to commit to a two-year stint. That means giving up summers, being away from your family, adjusting your recruiting schedule, and being part of an institution that is willing to allow you to be away from the program you’re being paid to run. “And frankly,” explained Foster, “the objective is to win a gold medal. It’s not a situation where we want someone to try out for that position. You want somebody who can get the job done.” That often translates into experienced, established coaches who feel pretty secure in their jobs and can afford to take the time away.

Oh, and did I mention coaching USA Basketball is not a paid position?

So, if after all that, you’re still interested, what can you do to be part of USA Basketball? Well, first and foremost, understand that it can take a long, long time.

“The main thing is to be successful in your own program,” advised Ryan. “That’s where you draw attention to yourself. I think they watch very closely your demeanor. They watch the way you develop your players. They watch your players and how they act. All those things matter to USA Basketball because you can’t send kids over there who are going to be flamboyant, use bad language. It’s a very different culture. Very different realm of competition. It’s not about showmanship, because it’s not about the coach. It’s about the players. They’re looking for mature people that can coach the game – but that’s only a small part of it. A lot of it is how they would handle the changes of playing internationally.”

Volunteering is always an option. Some coaches are identified by committee members and are charged with ‘scouting’ players and coaches from different regions around the country. Barry, for instance, volunteered for eight years as a floor coach. Currently, when team trials are held, the coaching staff for those teams are the court coaches, but they’re supplemented with other court coaches from other levels of the NCCA, NAIA or Junior Colleges. Donovan points to being on a committee as another option. “Just get your name out as being someone who wants to be involved at any level,” she suggests. “That’s the start. It’s just like any other elite field. A lot of people assume, ‘They need to call me.’ Well, that’s not necessarily the case. If you’re very interested, that should be made known.”

Notre Dame coach Muffet McGraw, who’s just finished a four year tenure as the WBCA representative on the Collegiate Committee, understands the frustration of those looking to break in to the USAB ranks. “I don’t think the problem of USA Basketball is we’re not getting great coaches. We’re getting the best coaches, so we’re doing something right. The thing I look at is how can we get the young people in there with out them having the political clout or the feeling, “Well I know someone on the committee so maybe I’ll get a look. Maybe my player will get a look.” It’s still political, and that’s where you want to fight it. That’s what the coaches who don’t get in think. That perspective, that, ‘You know what, I’m not one of the “in” coaches, so I guess I’ll never get there.'”

Interestingly enough, when McGraw reflects on the make up of her committee as well has her own challenge to wear a “USAB” hat as opposed the more familiar “Big East” hat, she recognizes an intriguing paradox inherent in the overall discussion. “We’re torn constantly in our game. No matter what we’re talking about – everybody’s always trying to be fair. And when you’re trying to be fair, some people get hurt by it.” Consider the collegiate committee is made up of NAIA Appointee, NJCAA Appointee, a WBCA Appointee, four NCAA Appointees, and two Athlete Representatives. Depending on a member’s geographical location, and their overall exposure to coaches, it’s can make the selection process daunting. When picking High School teams, it’s even harder. “If you don’t recruit nationally, you may be sitting in the room with eight people and six of them have never seen 90% of the kids you’re talking about play,” says McGraw. “But, again, you don’t want to say, ‘OK, only schools who recruit nationally can be on this committee.'”

“It’s a difficult task,” acknowledges Callan. “At the Cadet/Youth level, representatives are selected regionally so they have all the bases covered somewhat. (USAB) sends out a letter to 30 colleges and universities asking who they think are the top 12 players in each region.” Based on those responses, as well as the committee’s networking with their High School and AAU people, they try and identify the top 36. “Is it perfect? No,” says Callan. “I think we get the top 30. There’s always argument on #31-36.” The process is somewhat similar at the collegiate level. “In the past,” says Callan “we’ve assigned committee members two or three conferences they pay attention to. We prepare a spread sheet of every school in every conference and we have looked at last year’s post-season’s honors, this season’s pre-season honors and this year’s post-season honors.” Letters are sent to every Division 1 coach and to the National Federation of High School and AAU for distribution so others may have input. The Committee will meet to discuss and then, after talking to colleagues and other people, begin to revise and pare down that list. Once they come to trials, 15 or 16 finalists will be brought to training camp where a sub-committee of the collegiate committee to come to the first couple of days of training camp and identify who’s going to be on the 12 member team.

“If you’re trying to position an athlete to at least get a look, you should go back to who’s on our collegiate committee and talk to them,” suggests Callan. “Let them know and tell them why. We try to be as inclusive and perfect as we can be.” (There is an application form on the website.) Of course, as with coaching, the opportunities are very limited. “When you look come down to the Olympic team, they range over the years – from ages 23-33. There’s 12 players, so you’re looking at probably the NCAA player of the Year for ten different years. So, any given year if you have three players who are the same age on our Olympic team, that’s a lot.”

As Women’s Athletics Director for the University of Texas, Collegiate Committee chair Chris Plonsky has a new worry concerning access to players. “The game is changing at our institutions,” says Plonsky. “Today, if Dawn was a freshman in college, in order to play her season, she has to have 40% of degree program in place by her fifth semester. That’s a big ole semi in the middle of the road compared to everything our head caches in our sport are dealing with. If you think about USA Basketball, it’s in the summer. And what the NCAA rule system has done is make summer part – truly part – of a regular academic semester for our kids. Not only do I think a lot of men and women basketball players are going to school routinely in the summer, now our kids are being allowed to come in early and get summer school so they can get ahead. That will change the access to those young ones, and depending upon how the kids on your own teams are doing [academically], it could change USA’s Basketball access to them. USAB needs to be in step with what’s going on in the college platform. [College administrators] are paid to get young men and women through our system, with a degree within a five-year track, and we are being judged semester by semester.”

“I think the biggest thing,” added Staley, “is I don’t want to detract from is us winning gold medals. If everybody would look at that – all the coaches – look at that, that is the standard that USA Basketball has set. We must not lose sight of that – even with all the other stuff that enters into that. We don’t want to take away that part of USA Basketball, because that’s what makes it special. If you’re fortunate enough to coach, or fortunate enough to play, you’ll know what I’m talking about, and you won’t see it as that kind of advantage. We need to continue to be representatives of the best teams and coaches in any country.”

To that end, Callan encourages open dialogue. “Ask us anything. Tell us anything. And let’s work together, because that’s the only way it’s going to work.”

Athens 2004: US Basketball Gold

At the end of the gold medal game between the United States and Australia, there was a moment that captured the sense of history and respect that is the very essence of the United States Women’s National team. The US had just put the finishing touches on a thrilling 74-63 victory, and was 17 seconds from clinching the gold medal. The subs, Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Diana Taurasi and Ruth Riley, all under 25-years-old and all in their first Olympics, entered the game leaving three-time Olympian Dawn Staley as the sole veteran on the court. With time running out, the noise crescendoing as the crowd stood on its feet, the ball ended up in Bird’s hands, then back into Staley’s. It looked as if Staley was about to pass the ball back to Bird, an almost instinctual move, when Bird pointed emphatically at Staley and shouted, “You keep the ball!”

The final buzzer sounded and the diminutive point guard, playing in her last Olympics, was swarmed by her teammates and lifted into the sky.

It was only fitting.

In an Olympic run that raised so many questions — How would sandwiching the games within the WNBA season impact the players? Could the veterans incorporate the incoming rookie super-stars? Would the US women’s basketball dominance continue in the face of the men’s struggles? — it was team’s undisputed leader who put the exclamation point on the entire experience. In the final 1:37 Staley, not known for her offensive prowess, hit two free throws, scooped in an underhanded lay-up and then stroked the game’s two final free throws.

“I still have a little bit of offense left in me,” said Staley, 34, whose 14 points complimented Tina Thompson’s 18 and Lisa Leslie’s 13. “My teammates found me. Lisa even gave me the ball down in the low post for the first time in 16 years,” she added with a sly grin.

So Staley, Leslie and Sheryl Swoopes, the core of a team has dominated international basketball since a disappointing bronze medal in the 1992 Olympics, left Athens with their third gold medal. Their legacy? A mere 25 straight Olympic victories, three Olympic golds, and two World Championships.

“Some people said that we couldn’t do this, myself, Lisa and Dawn,” reflected the 33-year-old Swoopes, whose smothering defense and clutch shots were key in the semi-final game against Russia. “We were too old or it was time for the younger players to move in. But when it came down to it, regardless of who had gotten the job done, we definitely turned to the veterans. We knew we had each other’s back and we got the job done.

“It’s an amazing feeling to have these two players out there on the court,” said tournament MVP Leslie, 32. “I don’t think there was ever a time in my mind when I thought I’d lose a basketball game. That’s a credit to both of them, their heart and their fight.

Credit is also due to two-time Olympian Yolanda Griffith, who became synonymous with gravity defying offensive rebounds, and USA Basketball vets Pee Wee Johnson and Tina Thompson, whose years of commitment finally resulted in Olympic gold. “For over a decade now this was something I wanted to be a part of,” said Thompson, whose all-around game earned her all-tournament team honors. “I’m here in this moment and right now, it’s where I’m supposed to be. It’s a blessing.”

While 2004 is the end of the Olympic story for Staley – and perhaps even Swoopes and Leslie – Athens underscored how committed both the veterans and newest Olympians are to continuing the US women’s legacy. The learning happened because the youngest stars were more than willing to sublimate their own egos for the benefit of the team. Consider Bird, Cash and Riley, go-to players on their WNBA teams, averaged only about 11 minutes a game. Even Taurasi, thrust into a more active role because of a knee injury to veteran and three-point specialist Katie Smith, only averaged 19.3 minutes a game.

“I came in knowing what my role would be,” explained first time Olympian and starter Tamika Catchings. “Having Sheryl and Lisa, Tina and Dawn, I knew they weren’t looking for me to score.” Instead, Catchings become a ruthless defensive pest and lead the teams in steals. “In ’96 they were the young pups learning from all the greats that came before them,” she added. “They realize we’re doing the same thing now — trying to reach up and grab what they have, so when we come back in 2008, hopefully we’ll have learned enough to win another gold medal.”

“Who better to learn from than Dawn Staley,” said Bird, who at 23 is the defacto point guard of the future. ‘I love playing with her and I love watching her. The way she can control a game without scoring a point – the way she leads everybody, no matter who you are or what you are doing. She is a true point guard – a coach on the floor.”

“They’re hungry,” acknowledged Staley. “They’re like sponges. You just take them, put a bug in their ear here and there, just so they’ll know, they’ll remember these situations, when it’s time for them to lead.”

They’ll need to be ready, because the young and feisty Australians and Russians have served notice, and it would be foolish to ignore an up and coming Czech team, and the forever pesky Brazilians, who host the World Championships in 2006. There’s talk of encouraging the younger Americans play abroad to gain international experience, despite the temptation of endorsements and work opportunities that might keep them stateside, a luxury the earlier generations didn’t have.

But despite questions and concerns, there is a sense of confidence in the future. “I thought the greatest thing about our team,” said head coach Van Chancellor, “[was] we had experienced players, [and] we had young players getting ready to do it the USA way. When you look at Ruth Riley, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Swin Cash, we’ll be fine.”