"The more they're getting there, the angrier Michael got" - How Bulls ignited Michael Jordan's competitiveness ahead of his NBA debut
As a result, the coaching staff developed unique strategies to prepare Jordan for the physical demands of professional basketball and the mental challenges that come with it.
Advertisement
This holistic approach ensured that the UNC alum was equipped to excel in the competitive landscape of the NBA, laying the foundation for a career that would eventually redefine the sport. Their commitment to nurturing his skills and enhancing his mental fortitude was pivotal in shaping Jordan into the legendary player he became.
One of the things the Bulls coaches did during practices was to make MJ switch sides in the middle of scrimmages once his team was already winning and he was already in his rhythm. Renowned NBA author Roland Lazenby noted that the Bulls coaches thus succeeded in bringing out the best in Mike as a competitor.
"It was the coaches, you know, when you coach a team, and you're assessing talent, you do things like this. They're playing to 10, they get to seven, and suddenly he flips him [Jordan] to the other side. Michael is a competitor. He's getting infuriated by this," Lazenby said on "We Study Billionaires" by The Investors podcast in 2017.
"They were witnessing this for the first time, and they were just doing an evaluation of this," he continued. "I mean, they've never seen anything like this competitiveness, and the more they're getting there, the angrier Michael got, because he would take the game to one lead and then they would flip him to the other."
MJ learned to love it
Jordan himself once reflected on the impact of his first Bulls coaches, especially the team's head coach, Kevin Loughery, whom MJ credited for making him an ultimate competitor.
Advertisement
Jordan greatly valued Loughery's impact on his development as a player, attributing much of his success to the coach's influence during his formative years in the league. While the scrimmages and drills often felt exhausting and, at times, frustrating, MJ realized that these challenges were instrumental in shaping his ability to compete at an elite level.
"His Airness" expressed gratitude for how Loughery pushed him to test his physical and mental limits. The latter's coaching style helped him recognize that striving for excellence and winning at all costs were essential principles that would define his career.
While Jordan understood what competition means growing up, through his battles with his older brother Larry, the foundation laid by Loughery became a cornerstone of his relentless drive on the court.
"You know, my competitive nature went right into the pros; I get to the Bulls, which I was very proud that… And Rob Thorn drafted me. Kevin Loughery was my first coach," Jordan said during his Hall of Fame speech in 2009. "Kevin used to take practices and put me in the starting five, and he'd make it a competitive thing where the losing team would have to run."
Advertisement
"So, now I'm on the winning team, and halfway in the game, halfway in the situation, he would switch me to the losing team," the six-time champion continued. "So, I take that as a competitive thing of you trying to test me – and nine times out of 10, the second team would come back and win no matter what he did. So, I appreciate Kevin Loughery for giving me that challenge – you know, providing that type of fire within me; He threw another log on that fire for me."
Related: "When I needed cash, he said, 'how much?'" - John Salley says Shaquille O'Neal loaned him $70,000 when he was broke and didn't want it back
Jordan's competitiveness never fades
Coach Loughery's approach pushed Jordan to confront his weaknesses, encouraging him to improve continually. The environment he created taught the legendary guard the importance of hard work and dedication. He also learned that success in sports, much like in life, requires resilience and a commitment to pushing beyond one's perceived limits.
Advertisement
Through Loughery's guidance, Jordan ultimately developed a fierce competitive edge. He understood early on that to win, one must be willing to compete hard and face challenges head-on. This mentality would become a hallmark of his illustrious NBA career, influencing his approach to games and practices alike. It allowed him to thrive under pressure and emerge victorious in critical moments.
The lessons Jordan learned during those challenging practice sessions with Coach Loughery went beyond basketball. They instilled values of perseverance, discipline, and relentlessness that Mike carried with him even off the court and in retirement.
MJ's extreme competitiveness is well-known among those who have had the privilege of knowing him. Numerous firsthand accounts emphasize a singular truth: Jordan's entire essence revolves around competition.
They concluded that MJ's relentless drive and commitment to winning are not just characteristics — they define who he is. Whether on the basketball court or in any other aspect of life, Jordan embodies a spirit of rivalry that inspires and captivates everyone around him.
Related: "A game for sissies" - Wilt Chamberlain admitted he only started playing basketball because he was from Philadelphia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The $62m question: does a high school really need a professional-style stadium?
When the television cameras pan around the US's newest sporting temple to show the cavernous stands, elegant brick exterior, VIP suites and massive video board, viewers might believe they are looking at a professional venue. Yet the occupants of Phillip Beard Stadium, the Buford Wolves, are not a professioanl team or even a college one. They are high-schoolers. In the exorbitant world of high school football, Buford's $62m, 10,000-capacity arena is not the biggest or most expensive taxpayer-funded student stadium in the US. But it may be the most luxurious. The Wolves host the Milton Eagles on Thursday in the stadium's first regular-season game, which will be broadcast nationally on ESPN. With 13 Georgia state championships from 2001 to 2021 and a long record of players progressing to college scholarships and, eventually, the NFL, Buford is a football powerhouse – and the new stadium is a loud statement of the school's desire to keep it that way. Related: 'The stadium is secondary': how US sports teams became real-estate speculators If it feels like half of Buford is at the big game … they probably are. The Atlanta-area city has roughly 19,000 residents and the well-regarded high school (rebuilt in 2019 for $85m) has about 1,900 students. In 2010, another educational institution in the Atlanta region, Kennesaw State University, built a smart 10,200 capacity multi-use stadium for $16.5m. In the past 15 years, however, construction costs have soared, fan expectations have evolved, streaming and social media have changed how we consume sports and college athletes are now allowed to earn significant sums by monetising their personal brands. The trend is clear: newer, fancier, costlier. Phillip Beard Stadium has the typical uncovered benches familiar to anyone who's seen Friday Night Lights. Yet it also boasts more than 1,500 premium seats, 15 suites, a 3,600 sq ft double-sided video board and a 10,500 sq ft event space with a trophy wall. Buford City manager Bryan Kerlin told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the stadium had been paid for by the city general funds and its funding 'had no impact on teacher salaries, classroom resources, or any educational funding'. Still, there may well be other parts of the city the money could have been diverted to. Besides, blending spartan spaces for students and high-end facilities for corporate clients and rich alumni is increasingly common. It could make financial sense for schools aiming to maximise revenues and claw back some of the construction and operating costs, according to Victor Matheson, an economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts. 'The economics term is price differentiation,' he says. It's long been common in professional sports as teams adopt a strategy beloved of airlines, with their myriad fare classes and options: charging wildly different amounts for the same product based on variations in the customer experience. As the masses in the cheap seats generate the noise, corporate boxes can deliver thousands of dollars in income per event, giant video screens appeal to advertisers, and perhaps former students who've been wined and dined in air-conditioned comfort and enjoyed a perfect view of the action will be inspired to make generous donations to the alma mater. Upscale new arenas are also a way to entice fans off the couch in an era when it seems like almost every sporting contest, no matter how obscure, is streamed. 'Everyone knows their biggest competitor is being able to watch on TV,' Matheson says. Climate-controlled facilities mitigate against extreme weather, and with gargantuan video boards, televisions on concourses, myriad food and drink options and glitzy graphics on LED ribbon displays, fans can go to the stadium, experience the live atmosphere and still gaze at screens. Northwestern University in Illinois is building a privately-funded new stadium guided by the principle of 'premium for everybody,' reports Front Office Sports. At a projected cost of $862m it will be the most expensive college stadium ever, yet with only 35,000 seats it will hold 12,000 fewer people than the venue it is replacing. The theory underpinning the design is that modern fans want a more intimate and luxurious experience, with changing tastes – and a changing climate – rendering even relatively recent venues obsolete. In 2020 Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers quit their open-air 48,000-capacity ballpark, which opened in 1994, for a new 40,000-capacity building with a retractable roof. This season a minor league baseball team, the Salt Lake Bees, moved from Smith's Ballpark, which also opened in 1994, to a new home, hiking ticket prices and halving their seating capacity in the process. The concentration on high-end customers, of course, prices out fans who cannot afford to spend heavily on a night out at the game. 'In all, premium seating makes up one-sixth of seats at the new ballpark, whereas it contributed to just 3% of Smith's Ballpark's capacity,' the Salt Lake Tribune reported. 'The seats closest to the action aren't available for sale on a per-ticket basis; instead, those are field-level suites that must be reserved in their entirety.' Sports' growing focus on premium customers mirrors a shift in the American economy as a whole: this year a Moody's Analytics study found that the US economy is now deeply reliant on the richest households, with the top 10% of earners accounting for 50% of consumer spending, a sharp rise from recent decades. Logically, better facilities should breed better players, with victories leading to bigger attendances, swelling civic pride, adding to the appeal of the fast-growing suburbs where large high school stadiums are often located and boosting the prospects of the kids who dream of reaching the NFL. The trickle-down effect from the professional and college ranks to high schools isn't only a matter of swankier facilities. It's also visible in the potential financial incentives. College players have been permitted to make money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights since 2021. In June this year a former high school player filed a class-action lawsuit in California challenging restrictions on the ability of the state's high school student-athletes to profit from their NIL rights. It could pave the way for high school stars across the US to earn income and to transfer to other schools for sporting reasons. 'Corporations see a lot of untapped economic value in high school athletics,' Yaman Salahi, an attorney representing the player named in the suit, said in a statement to Front Office Sports, 'and we want to ensure that value is shared equitably with the athletes that create it.' Like teenaged soccer starlets at professional clubs in other countries, 16- and 17-year old American football players might one day be wealthy and famous, with a status to match the grandeur of their home stadiums. 'The difference here is that it's the local public school that's doing the development,' Matheson points out. For now, stadiums as sizeable and expensive as Buford's remain rare outside Texas, the state that is the epicentre of the high school football infrastructure arms race. In 2017 the independent school district in the Houston-area suburb of Katy opened a $70m, 12,000-capacity stadium adjacent to its existing and still operational 9,800-seat venue. According to the website more than a quarter of the 1,267 high school football stadiums in Texas can hold over 5,000 people, with eight seating at least 16,500. The combined capacity of 4.4 million is larger than the populations of 24 states. About a quarter have video scoreboards and 27 high school stadiums have opened in Texas since 2020. A $56m multi-purpose venue in the Houston-area city of La Porte is set to host its inaugural match this month. Texas produces more NFL players than any other state, found a study by the data analysis firm Lineups, with Houston the leading city. On the other hand, Texas is ranked 34th for educational attainment by US News & World Report, is far below the national average for teacher pay and expenditures per student, and according to one study, this year Texas teachers expect to spend on average $1,550 of their own money on classroom supplies. Many would argue there are better things to spend money on than school sports.
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can the Boston Celtics shock the NBA's Eastern Conference this season?
Can the Boston Celtics shock the NBA's Eastern Conference this season? After the Celtics gutted their 2024 title core in the wake of star forward Jayson Tatum's Achilles tendon injury and impending repeater tax and second apron team building penalties, the general consensus on how Boston will play in the 2025-26 NBA regular season has been a borderline playoff ball club at best, and a lottery team at worst. But is there a chance that the current iteration of the Celtics could surprise people and comfortably make the postseason, followed by a multi-round playoff run? Or is that asking too much of a stripped down Boston roster with a number of young and rookie players? The hosts of the CLNS Media "First to the Floor" podcast, Jake Issenberg, Ben Vallis, and Wayne Spooney, took some time on a recent episode of their show to talk it over. Check it out below! If you enjoy this pod, check out the "How Bout Them Celtics," "First to the Floor," and the many other New England sports podcasts available on the CLNS Media network: Listen to "Havlicek Stole the Pod" on: Spotify: iTunes: YouTube:
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
8 factors that predict potential underdog College Football Playoff contenders
The AP's preseason poll dropped on Monday afternoon, and tucked inside were a list of the most obvious contenders to make the 2025-26 College Football Playoff — names like Texas, Penn State, Clemson, Georgia and last year's title-game combatants, Ohio State and Notre Dame. The Athletic's own Matt Baker recently disproved the notion that ranked preseason teams have an edge because they're ranked; rather, these squads are ranked highly because they're also the most likely playoff frontrunners, with more talent than anybody else in a sport where that tends to matter a lot (and in an era when it matters more than ever). Advertisement Either way, those 25 teams aren't necessarily going to sneak up on anyone. But we're also interested in teams from outside the preseason ranking who might still crash the playoff party. So I combed back through data since 2000 (the earliest season of turnover-margin data in Sports-Reference/CFB's database) for indicators that might predict an unranked AP preseason team's ability to still finish within the top 12 of the final pre-bowl poll — a general proxy for being in the playoff mix going into the committee's final weekend of decision-making. Many of these elements relate to the concept of regression toward the mean: the idea that teams tend to revert in the direction of longer-term norms over time, especially when we account for more volatile or luck-driven stats. It's useful to be able to create a hierarchy of those types of factors to look at — or regress away — when trying to identify playoff-worthy dark horses. With that in mind, let's run down the key questions to ask around any potential surprise contender — and the potential beneficiaries of those variables in 2025 — in order of predictive importance. This factor is not necessarily a surprising consideration — good teams tend to stay good going forward, especially in college football — but it's the most important metric for determining whether a team from outside the preseason top 25 will break through in spite of the pollsters' concerns. Of the 66 teams in our dataset that made the leap from outside the preseason poll, more than half (35) were coming off a season with a +5.0 Simple Rating System (SRS) score, which puts a team as roughly a top-50 team in the previous year's pecking order, and more had a previous rating of +10.0 or better (12) than were negative the previous season (nine). It's not impossible for a surprise team to really surprise, rising from a poor previous rating to crack the top 12, but it's rare. More often, those teams come from the top ranks of the prior year, which means BYU and Louisville get the most credit in this category, followed by USC, Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia Tech. Many of these teams suffered key personnel losses to some degree or another, so caution is advised, particularly before we get to the other indicators. Situations like Florida State last year — whose SRS declined by a shocking 21.7 points year-over-year — can happen. But as a baseline, the clear majority of teams stick within a touchdown of their previous SRS, for better or worse. Advertisement The second-most important predictor also involves SRS — but it concerns whether a school was abnormally good (or bad) by its own standards a year ago. In the spirit of regression to the mean, if a team has established a particular long-term level of play, then deviates from that level in one season, it is likely to return or at least move back to the long-term norm the following year. That means we're looking for squads whose 2024 ratings were far worse than usual. Newer FBS teams like James Madison (and Delaware, Missouri State, etc.) were excluded from consideration because they lacked a five-year sample of previous seasons. Tulsa and Kent State top the list, but are usually just mediocre and were among the worst teams in FBS last season. They are good candidates to improve, but not to make the CFP. More realistically, Air Force, Oklahoma State and Florida State all have the potential to improve quite a bit through a combination of regression, the portal and recruiting (in the case of OSU and FSU), and the other built-in ways that prevent competitive programs from staying down for too long. Much to the chagrin of mid-major fans across the nation, the college football power structure favors elite teams in elite conferences whenever it can. So it makes sense that a potential dark-horse candidate from a more prestigious conference is going to get the benefit of the doubt in the rankings before a team trying to make their bid from a smaller conference. In terms of our 2025 candidates in the categories we've looked at so far, that big-conference bias is good news for Iowa — who has the best combination of 2024 SRS and the potential to regress toward an even higher rating based on its previous norms — plus Louisville, USC, BYU, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the rest of the power-conference teams we've discussed. Meanwhile, the American and, to a lesser extent, Sun Belt are the epicenter of teams that have solid indicators, but their conference might get held against them, barring an automatic bid. Advertisement Though it sometimes gets mentioned in betting circles, one of my favorite semi-hidden stats remains 'yards per point' (YPP). At its core, YPP measures how efficiently a team converts yardage into points on offense — and how inefficiently it forces opponents to do the same on defense. Teams with a lower YPP than their opponents are essentially turning field position into points at a better rate, which translates into a higher scoring margin and, usually, more wins. Like turnover margin (more on that stat later), it can be volatile from year to year, bouncing around with red-zone execution, third-down conversion rates, special teams performance and 'bend-but-don't-break' defense. But when a team consistently posts a strong YPP differential, like the New England Patriots did throughout their dynasty, it's often a sign of something more sustainable. In our historical sample, teams that had lower YPP differentials between offense and defense in the previous season — negative numbers are better because they mean you traded fewer yards for the same points than your opponent did — tended to be more likely to make the leap from unranked to the top 12 after controlling for everything else. Our group of historical surprise teams had an average prior YPP differential of -1.3 and 62 percent of them were negative in the previous season. That's a bit counter to the usual wisdom that YPP is heavily luck-based and likely to regress against teams who relied on it. In this case, it may be picking up on a team's strengths that don't always show up in other conventional stats, like situational execution, special teams efficiency and a general ability to squeeze more points out of opportunities. If that holds true, Army and Iowa stand out among the unranked masses for their efficiency on offense and ability to bend, not break, on defense. In a less contrarian statistical finding, we won't be surprised to learn that teams that won fewer games than we'd expect based on their points scored and allowed — via the Pythagorean Formula — tend to be more likely to bounce back the following season. More importantly for this exercise, they are also prone to being overlooked by the preseason pollsters, who may tend to judge a team off of its standard win-loss record without digging into extenuating stats like its point differential. That could give a boost to teams like UCF and especially Auburn, plus Virginia Tech slightly lower down the list, each of which was unlucky with close games compared to blowouts in 2024. Like with Pythagorean luck, another well-known factor that regresses to the mean for football teams over time tends to be turnovers. Yes, there are some notable exceptions — we go back to Bill Belichick's Patriots for an example from the NFL — but generally speaking, a team with an outlier turnover margin in either direction has a tendency to move toward the middle the following season. That means for breakthrough candidates, we're looking for teams coming off poor turnover differentials in 2024. Most notable here is Florida State, whose uncharacteristically awful 2024 was driven at least some by that minus-16 turnover margin. Plus, lurking just at the periphery of this list are Auburn, UCF, Oklahoma State, Arkansas and West Virginia — all were at minus-eight or worse and have a number of additional factors pointing to better days in 2025. Advertisement One of the interesting philosophical arguments around preseason polls is what exactly they're attempting to rank. Most view them as an accounting of top-to-bottom roster talent on paper going into the season, which incidentally is why their basketball cousin is a good predictor of March Madness results even after controlling for season-long performance. However, they're not necessarily trying to peg where a team will end up by season's end. In theory, the two rankings ought to be correlated, but differences come about because of scheduling, which is an area we can project in our search for surprise playoff contenders. In our historical dataset, teams that went from a harder schedule (in terms of opponent SRS ratings) during one season to an easier projected schedule (based on a weighted multi-year average of SRS for its opponents) in the following preseason tended to be more likely to catch the initial polls by surprise. Factoring in schedules, teams like Virginia Tech, USC, FSU, Kansas and Washington (among others) are being underrated in their playoff potential. This might be the most fascinating result in our entire experiment. In the historical data, there was a real effect where unranked teams whose coaches were in either their third or fourth season at a particular stop (consecutively, not overall) were more likely to finish among the top 12 in the pre-bowl rankings even after controlling for everything else. Why might this be? My theory is that those seasons come in the sweet spot of a coach's tenure. By that point, they've had enough time to install their systems, bring in players who fit their style and establish the culture they want — but at the same time, their message is still fresh, morale is still high and opponents may not have fully adapted to their tendencies yet. Among our common dark-horse candidates from the rest of the factors above, teams with coaches in the third or fourth year with their current program include USC's Lincoln Riley, Jeff Brohm with Louisville, Hugh Freeze with Auburn, Brent Pry with Virginia Tech and Matt Rhule with Nebraska. This is the least important factor. It's not impossible for a newer — or older, in the case of Kirk Ferentz in his 27th year at Iowa — coach to also surprise from unranked territory, but there does seem to be something about that sweet spot that makes a team more primed to break out. Now, we combine all of the predictive factors from above into a single ranking, weighted by the importance of each sub-category: Based on past trends, we would expect USC to be most likely to rise from outside the top 25 to serious playoff contention by the end of the regular season, followed by Louisville, Auburn, Virginia Tech and a bunch of Big Ten and Big 12 schools. Not all of these teams jumped off the page in every category, but most were coming off a decent SRS season and/or had a subpar season by their standards. They're all in power conferences. The highest-ranked non-power candidate was Tulane at No. 27. Advertisement The odds are that at least a few of these teams — or teams like them a bit further down the ranking — will make the jump into the playoff conversation, as an average of 2.75 teams per year started unranked and finished 12th or higher in the pre-bowl AP poll each year in our sample. We've trended toward even more of that chaos in recent years; four teams have done that per season since 2021. So if you're thinking about this week's polls, remember that while the AP's preseason top 25 is stacked with the sport's most obvious playoff threats, history says the field won't be limited to just those hyped-up names. Every season brings a few gate-crashers from outside the group of teams we thought we knew to watch, and our list is full of schools that check the right boxes to be those spoilers in 2025. (Photo of Lincoln Riley: Kirby Lee / Imagn Images) Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
