Thursday, December 29, 2005

Restaurants mix it up with martinis

Des Moines Business Record

Martinis are among the most classic, and simplest, of cocktails – gin and dry vermouth topped off with an olive – and a long-time American favorite. Now, a rebirth of the martini has provided bartenders with a wealth of possibilities to create drinks that sometimes don’t even qualify as martinis.

Read Article

ZAGAT Survey - What the Pros Want in 2006

zagat.com

Resolved: There'll be more space between tables, diners will keep those BlackBerries out of sight and Anthony Bourdain will get his fill of baby cuttlefish. Or at least that's how things would be if certain industry insiders got their wish in 2006. We asked chefs, sommeliers, nightlife gurus and other mavens what they'd like to see more of – and less of – in the New Year.

Read Article

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Consumers get a taste of restaurant food safety online

WorldNow and WOI

DES MOINES, Iowa With a click of a mouse, consumers can get the dish on their favorite restaurant. And so far, a lot of people have been sampling what a new state Web site has to offer.

Read Article

Self-service coming to fast food

The Dallas Morning News

The cashier at your favorite fast-food restaurant may be replaced soon by an order-taking kiosk. But don't worry. It's been programmed to ask, "Do you want fries with that?"

Read Article

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Gift certificates keep on giving for area restaurants

Boston Business Journal

Forty thousand dollars can buy a lot of steak and potatoes. But that's exactly what one company did last year when it purchased $40,000 worth of gift certificates from Grill 23 & Bar.

Read Article

Prime Movers - A survey of culinary trends just around the bend

QSR Online

Despite popular perception, quick-service restaurants have rarely been slaves to fashion. Though they have, over time, adapted to significant changes in the American palate and to the culture’s growing emphasis on convenience, value, and health, they’ve never zealously latched onto every fleeting food fad that whistles down the pike.

Read Article

Friday, December 16, 2005

17,000+ Restaurants Participated in Dine for America

Restaurants across the country banded together October 5 for "Dine for America" day, a national fundraising effort to support the America Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund.

Find out more about the event here.

NRA Releases State-by-State Restaurant Industry Sales, Jobs Forecast

Press Release

The U.S. restaurant industry will have a strong year in 2006, the 15th consecutive year of real growth for the industry, according to the National Restaurant Association's 2006 Restaurant Industry Forecast. Though the growth will be strongest in the West and the South, the restaurant industry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will continue to expand over the coming year. With expected national sales of $511 billion, a total economic impact of $1.3 trillion, and 12.5 million employees in 2006, the nation's 925,000 restaurants are the cornerstone of the economy. On the state level, Nevada is expected to lead the nation in sales growth next year, while Arizona will post the largest growth in jobs by 2016.

Read Article

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Pepsi passes Coke in market value

Bloomberg News

PepsiCo, the world's second-largest soft-drink maker, surpassed Coca-Cola in market value for the first time after beating its competitor in sales growth and diversifying beyond soda.

Read Article

Independent restaurant owners band together

The City Paper

Facing mounting competition from corporate chains, a group of independent restaurant owners in Nashville have banded together in a new association backed by a national organization. The Nashville Originals will be sharing resources to jointly market and advertise independent eateries and boost their buying power among suppliers, said Rick Bolsom, the group’s president.

Read Article

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Legal Grounds - prominent legislative issues facing QSRs

QSR Online

While there are a myriad of legal issues that affect the fast-food industry, a handful faced immediate action in 2005. Obesity lawsuit preemption legislation, minimum wage increases, and mandatory menu labeling are just some of the concerns that have gained political prominence due to related legal action and media attention and could prove contentious for advocates of the industry.

Read Article

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Dining Trends for 2006 - From The Kitchen And Garden To The Table

Hotel News Resource

Robin Uler, senior vice president of food & beverage, spas and retail services, and Brad Nelson, vice president of culinary and corporate chef for Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE:MAR), give their forecast for what's up and coming on the dining front in the coming year.

Read Article

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Pricing.

Getting professional help with your food service operation shouldn't put you in bankruptcy! We know, we used to be you! That's why we at GameOn! Restaurant Coaching Solutions have developed our practice to focus on providing the independent operator a much lower cost alternative than paying thousands of dollars for services from consultants who really don't take the time to understand your individual business. That's where we're different.

We mold our services to fit your individual business needs. And we don't charge thousands of dollars. We work to solve the particular problems you are facing now and charge you only $50 an hour. That's all! Use us as much or as little as you need. After we help you execute solutions for a situation you are facing now, we don't simply pick up and leave either. We follow up with you and your staff for as long as necessary to make sure the solutions we help you execute, stick!

We don't have you sign any 6 month or 1 year contracts either. You decide how much or how little you want to utilize our expertise. One day! One week! One month! It's totally up to you and the needs of your business.

And the initial conversation about your business needs, never costs you anything! So why not give me a call now to talk about how we can take your operation to the next level!

Have Fun Today!
Jeffrey Summers, Head Coach
GameOn! Restaurant Coaching Solutions
jeffrey@getgame.biz
www.getgame.biz

Menu Analysis

Menu analysis has been a really hot topic lately - as well it should be. Independent operators do not utilize this type of analysis as much as they should. One of the offerings at GameOn! Restaurant Coaching Solutions, is menu analysis! And while it may cost you thousands of dollars to submit your menu and have it costed and analyzed, we don't believe it should cost that much for such a basic tool. Our price for a full menu analysis is only $1,250.00. That includes costing using your vendors pricing, a complete engineering analysis of each item's sales and contribution margins and the need to either extend an item further, maintain it or to simply drop it and replace it with something else. We feel this is the best deal out there for independent operators to get a professional understanding of the make-up of the most important part of their business. Contact me to talk about having us do your menu analysis now before the year's end so that you can start planning for 2006!

Have Fun Today!
Jeffrey Summers, Head Coach
GameOn! Restaurant Coaching Solutions
jeffrey@getgame.biz
www.getgame.biz

Coach Leach Goes Deep, Very Deep


December 4, 2005
Coach Leach Goes Deep, Very Deep
By MICHAEL LEWIS, New York Times

7:02 . . . 7:01 . . . 7:00 . . .
It was still ordinary time. The seconds ticked off the digital clock on the locker-room wall. A smell: the acrid odor of vomit. They were still ordinary college football players, and a few of them had lost their pregame meals to a war of nerves. Side by side at their lockers the players sat, silently, almost penitently, stomachs churning, waiting for their coach to show up and to make the place a lot less ordinary.
A muted roar from the other side of the thick concrete walls: that would be their mascot, Texas Tech's Masked Rider, a man on a black stallion galloping across their home field. The governor of Texas, a graduate of Texas A.&M., Texas Tech's opponent this evening in early November, was just now finding his seat, along with the biggest crowd ever to watch a football game in Lubbock. The governor would be rooting for the other team, obviously. It could be worse, and had been. Two years before, when Texas Tech played Navy in a bowl game in Houston, the president of the United States, a Texan, was rumored to be in the stands rooting against them. "We aren't exactly America's team," Texas Tech's head coach, Mike Leach, said.
2:51 . . . 2:50 . . . 2:49 . . .
A sound: of surgical tape ripping, as Texas Tech's quarterback, Cody Hodges, affixed to his wrist a piece of laminated paper listing all the plays he might run tonight. Four years ago, Hodges was a high-school senior with just one other offer to be a college quarterback, from the University of Wyoming. Now, two-thirds of the way through the 2005 N.C.A.A. football season, and with a throwing arm so dead that he required a cortisone shot to move it, Hodges was the nation's leader in yards passed, total offense and touchdowns. Three weeks earlier, against a competent Kansas State defense, he threw for 643 yards and, had Coach Leach not pulled him in the fourth quarter, might well have broken the N.C.A.A. record for passing yards in a single game (716).
A lot of the players in the locker room had similar stories of rejection and redemption. In this part of the country, the University of Texas and Oklahoma University are the old-money football schools, with Texas A.&M. right behind. Those schools fish first in the local-talent pool. Tonight there would be very few players on the field for Texas A.&M. - for Oklahoma or Texas there wouldn't be a single player - to whom Texas Tech would not have offered a football scholarship. Conversely, the Texas Tech locker room was filled with players rejected by the old-money schools. And yet - look around! Hodges led all of college football in passing. The team's tailback, Taurean Henderson, had broken the N.C.A.A. career record for most passes caught by a running back. The top four receivers on the team were the four leading pass receivers in Texas Tech's league, the formidable Big 12.
At least one N.F.L. head coach had taken a special interest in the Texas Tech offense and had been ordering its game tapes on Monday mornings. At least one N.F.L. defensive coordinator, Jim Schwartz of the Tennessee Titans, had stumbled upon Texas Tech accidentally and said, Oh, my. The surprise runner-up in the search earlier this year for a new San Francisco 49ers head coach, Schwartz had scrambled to answer a question: if he got the 49ers job, whom should he hire? He was just in his mid-30's, and his football career stopped at Georgetown (where he graduated with honors in economics), so he really hadn't thought about this before.
The 49ers had not bothered to interview college coaches for the head-coaching job in part because its front-office analysis found that most of the college coaches hired in the past 20 years to run N.F.L. teams had failed. But in Schwartz's view, college coaches tended to fail in the N.F.L. mainly because the pros hired the famous coaches from the old-money schools, on the premise that those who won the most games were the best coaches. But was this smart? Notre Dame might have a good football team, but how much of its success came from the desire of every Catholic in the country to play for Notre Dame?
Looking for fresh coaching talent, Schwartz analyzed the offensive and defensive statistics of what he called the "midlevel schools" in search of any that had enjoyed success out of proportion to their stature. On offense, Texas Tech's numbers leapt out as positively freakish: a midlevel school, playing against the toughest football schools in the country, with the nation's highest scoring offense. Mike Leach had become the Texas Tech head coach before the 2000 season, and from that moment its quarterbacks were transformed into superstars. In Leach's first three seasons, he played a quarterback, Kliff Kingsbury, who wound up passing for more yards than all but three quarterbacks in the history of major college football. When Kingsbury graduated (he is now with the New York Jets), he was replaced by a fifth-year senior named B.J. Symons, who threw 52 touchdown passes and set a single-season college record for passing yards (5,833). The next year, Symons graduated and was succeeded by another senior - like Symons, a fifth-year senior, meaning he had sat out a season. The new quarterback, who had seldom played at Tech before then, was Sonny Cumbie, and Cumbie's 4,742 passing yards in 2004 was the sixth-best year in N.C.A.A. history.
Now Texas Tech had Cody Hodges, still another fifth-year senior - barely six feet tall, with an average arm and four college seasons on the bench. Before the 2005 football season even began, Hodges was short-listed for the Maxwell Award for the finest college football player in the land. Whoever played quarterback for the Texas Tech Red Raiders was sure to create so much offense that he couldn't be ignored.
Schwartz had an N.F.L. coach's perspective on talent, and from his point of view, the players Leach was using to rack up points and yards were no talent at all. None of them had been identified by N.F.L. scouts or even college recruiters as first-rate material. Coming out of high school, most of them had only one or two offers from midrange schools. Sonny Cumbie hadn't even been offered a scholarship; he was just invited to show up for football practice at Texas Tech. Either the market for quarterbacks was screwy - that is, the schools with the recruiting edge, and N.F.L. scouts, were missing big talent - or (much more likely, in Schwartz's view) Leach was finding new and better ways to extract value from his players. "They weren't scoring all these touchdowns because they had the best players," Schwartz told me recently. "They were doing it because they were smarter. Leach had found a way to make it work."
But when Schwartz studied videotape of the Texas Tech offense, what he saw unsettled him. The offensive linemen positioned themselves between three and six feet apart - on extreme occasions, the five linemen stretched a good 15 yards across the field. At times it was difficult to tell the linemen from the receivers. Strictly speaking, they were not a line at all, just a row of dots. "The offensive line splits - you look at them, and you're just shocked," Schwartz said. "It scares people to see splits that are that wide."
The big gaps between the linemen made the quarterback seem more vulnerable - some defenders could seemingly run right between the blockers - but he wasn't. Stretching out the offensive line stretched out the defensive line too, forcing the most ferocious pass rushers several yards farther from the quarterback. It also opened up wide passing lanes through which even a short quarterback could see the whole field clearly. Leach spread out his receivers and backs too. The look was more flag than tackle football: a truly fantastic number of players racing around trying to catch passes on every play, and a quarterback surprisingly able to keep an eye on all of them.
This offense was, in effect, an argument for changing the geometry of the game. Schwartz didn't know if Leach's system would work in the N.F.L., where they had bigger staffs, better players and a lot more time to prepare for whatever confusion the offense cooked up. On the other hand, he wasn't sure it wouldn't.
1:51 . . . 1:50 . . . 1:49 . . .
Finally, a coach: Mike Leach, 44, entered the locker room with the quizzical air of a man who has successfully bushwhacked his way through a jungle but isn't quite sure what country he has emerged into. "When you first meet him," Jarrett Hicks, a junior wide receiver, told me, "you think he's an equipment manager." Leach's agent, Gary O'Hagan of I.M.G., who represents dozens of other big-time college and N.F.L. coaches, put it this way, "He's so different from every other football coach it's hard to understand how he's a coach."
Leach shouted, "All right, everybody up!" Seventy players pushed into the middle of the room and bent down on one knee. ("That's the great thing about football," Leach says. "All you gotta do is yell.")
Leach isn't really sure that there's anything a coach can say to football players minutes before a game that will inspire them to put aside their pain and their problems and play their best. He thinks that revenge is a silly motive and that waxing poetic on how history will judge you is distracting. Two weeks earlier, his team was ranked seventh in the country but then lost badly to the University of Texas, the nation's No. 2 team, which ended Texas Tech's surprising shot at a national championship. Now they were 7-1, ranked 15th and still within sniffing distance of a major bowl game. Not worth mentioning, in Leach's view.
"Everyone find someone," he yelled. Hands sought hands and clasped. The room swelled with the disturbingly deep rumble of 70 football players speaking in unison. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.. . .("Basically I'm a religious person, but with some clear obedience and discipline issues," Leach says.) "All right," he cried, after the Lord's Prayer. "Three things." He jumped up onto a little green stool and looked down on his players, all larger than he. "Do your job. DO - YOUR - JOB!"
He was talking to the entire team, but his mind was on the offense, which Leach coordinates, unlike most head coaches. He watches the tape, draws up the game plan, schools the quarterbacks and calls the plays.
"No. 2," he said, "play together with great tempo."
He had been harping on tempo all week: he thinks the team that wins is the team that moves fastest, and the team that moves fastest is the team that wants to. He believes that both failure and success slow players down, unless they will themselves not to slow down. "When they fail, they become frustrated," he says. "When they have success, they want to become the thinking-man's football team. They start having these quilting bees, these little bridge parties at the line of scrimmage." His 45-second pregame speech set a certain tempo, but he had one final thing to say:
"Your body is your sword. Swing your sword."
Each off-season, Leach picks something he is curious about and learns as much as he can about it: Geronimo, Daniel Boone, whales, chimpanzees, grizzly bears, Jackson Pollock. The list goes on, and if you can find the common thread, you are a step ahead of his football players. One year, he studied pirates. When he learned that a pirate ship was a functional democracy; that pirates disciplined themselves; that, loathed by others, they nevertheless found ways to work together, the pirate ship became a metaphor for his football team. Last year, after a loss to Texas A.&M. in overtime, Leach hauled the team into the conference room on Sunday morning and delivered a three-hour lecture on the history of pirates. Leach read from his favorite pirate history, "Under the Black Flag," by David Cordingly (the passages about homosexuality on pirate ships had been crossed out). The analogy to football held up for a few minutes, but after a bit, it was clear that Coach Leach was just . . . talking about pirates. The quarterback Cody Hodges says of his coach: "You learn not to ask questions. If you ask questions, it just goes on longer."
Hodges knows - the players all do - that their coach is a walking parenthesis, without a companion to bracket his stray thoughts. They suspect, but aren't certain, that his wide-ranging curiosity benefits their offense. Of all the things motivating Texas Tech to beat Texas A.&M. this night, however, the keenest may have been the desire to avoid another lecture about pirates. Even now, their beloved coach had his left arm in the air, wielding his imaginary sword.
"SWING -YOUR - SWORD!"
With that, the players rose and crowded into the bright red double doorway leading to the tunnel.
Hu! Hu! Hu! Hu! Hu! Hu! Hu!
Leach had mixed feelings about this fever pitch - "You never know if they're too wired," he says. "I've had them saunter out and play like gangbusters" - but it couldn't really be helped, not at home against the Texas A.&M. Aggies. The players jammed in close and tight. They were no longer names; they were numbers. Leach walked up behind 88, Jarrett Hicks. Three years ago, Hicks was a widely ignored receiver playing for a high school in Houston. Neither Texas nor Texas A.&M. showed any interest in him; the only other offer he received from a serious football program was from Purdue. He had not caught his share of passes this season, but tonight Leach had plans for him. Leach placed his hand on the small of his back and said: "You and me, Hicks. You and me."
0:03 . . . 0:02 . . . 0:01 . . .
They burst through the doors and into the thick concrete tunnel and then onto the field and into the hot Texas wind and the roar of the crowd that gave them the feeling that they were running straight into the mouth of a lion.
Wherever Mike Leach walks onto a football field, a question naturally follows. Vincent Meeks, who plays safety, puts it this way: "How does a coach who never played a down of football have the best offense in the game?" Leach actually rode the bench through his junior year in high school in Cody, Wyo. But that was it for his playing career. When he left Cody for Brigham Young University, Leach planned to become a lawyer. From B.Y.U. he went straight to Pepperdine law school, where he graduated, at the age of 25, in the top third of his class. That's when he posed the question that has sunk many a legal career: "Why do I want to be a lawyer?" One day he announced to his wife, Sharon - soon to be pregnant with their second child - that what he really wanted to be was a college football coach. ("Yeah, her side of the family flipped.") To Leach, coaching football requires the same talent that he was going to waste on the law: the talent for making arguments. He wanted to make his arguments in the form of offensive plays.
The last 20 years have been an odd journey, with coaching jobs at College of the Desert, Cal Poly, Iowa Wesleyan, Valdosta State and a European league team in Pori, Finland. His first year coaching Division 1 college football was 1997, at the University of Kentucky. He arrived from Valdosta State with the head coach, Hal Mumme, and turned the Kentucky offense from joke into juggernaut. The year before he arrived, Kentucky's quarterback passed for 967 yards. In Leach's first year, his quarterback, Tim Couch, threw for 3,884 yards; the year after that, Couch, who lasted for only a few disappointing years in the N.F.L., threw for 4,275 yards. After Kentucky, Leach moved to Oklahoma for a single season, 1999. That year Oklahoma went from 101st to 8th in the country in offensive scoring. Its quarterback, Josh Heupel, passed for 3,850 yards that season, which was 1,700 more than any quarterback in Oklahoma football history had thrown for in a season. The next year, running Leach's offense, Oklahoma won the national championship - but by then Texas Tech had picked up the pattern and hired Leach to run its team. "Mike was different," says Patty Ross, who has long served as an assistant to Texas Tech head football coaches and who didn't know what to make of this new one. "We had always had West Texas guys. We always ran the ball here. The first time Mike's offense came out on the field everyone is like, Whoa. He has that play he calls the Ninja - when they all line up on one end. I'm not sure anyone had ever seen the Ninja. It was just a shock effect. Mike's personality was like that, too."
Stepping out into Jones SBC Stadium, surrounded by people wearing self-conscious looks of grim determination, Leach was even easier than usual to identify: he was the one guy wandering about, as Meeks has put it, "with this look on his face like he's walking around an airport, lost." True, he had shaved ("It's a good idea to shave for TV games") and shed his flip-flops, his "Hawaii Five-O" baggy shirts and his board shorts for an outfit that looked vaguely coachlike. As his team raced onto the field, he gazed into the stands filled with screaming fans and wondered about the several thousand "cadets" from Texas A.&M. clustered in one end zone. They wear military uniforms and buzz cuts, holler in unison and stand at attention the entire game. "How come they get to pretend they are soldiers?" he asked. "The thing is, they aren't actually in the military. I ought to have Mike's Pirate School. The freshmen, all they get is the bandanna. When you're a senior, you get the sword and skull and crossbones. For homework, we'll work pirate maneuvers and stuff like that."
Leach made his way to the sideline and from his back pocket pulled a crumpled piece of paper with the notations for dozens of plays typed on it, along with a red pen. When a play doesn't work, he puts an X next to it. When a play works well, he draws a circle beside it - "to remind myself to run it again." But at the start of a game, he's unsure what's going to work. So one goal is to throw as many different things at a defense as he can, to see what it finds most disturbing. Another goal is to create as much confusion as possible for the defense while keeping things as simple as possible for the offense.
What a defense sees, when it lines up against Texas Tech, is endless variety, caused, first, by the sheer number of people racing around trying to catch a pass and then compounded by the many different routes they run. A typical football offense has three serious pass-catching threats; Texas Tech's offense has five, and it would employ more if that wasn't against the rules. Leach looks at the conventional offense - with its stocky fullback and bulky tight end seldom touching the football, used more often as blockers - and says, "You've got two positions that basically aren't doing anything." He regards receivers as raffle tickets: the more of them you have, the more likely one will hit big. Some go wide, some go deep, some come across the middle. All are fast. (When Leach recruits high-school players, he is forced to compromise on most talents, but he insists on speed.) All have been conditioned to run much more than a football player normally does. A typical N.F.L. receiver in training might run 1,500 yards of sprints a day; Texas Tech receivers run 2,500 yards. To prepare his receivers' ankles and knees for the unusual punishment of his nonstop-running offense, Leach has installed a 40-yard-long sand pit on his practice field; slogging through the sand, he says, strengthens the receivers' joints. And when they finish sprinting, they move to Leach's tennis-ball bazookas. A year of catching tiny fuzzy balls fired at their chests at 60 m.p.h. has turned many young men who got to Texas Tech with hands of stone into glue-fingered receivers.
The first play Leach called against Texas A.&M. was the first play on Cody Hodges's wrist. That wrist held a mere 23 ordinary plays, 9 red-zone plays (for situations inside an opponent's 20-yard line), 6 goal-line plays, 2 2-point-conversion plays and 5 trick plays. "There's two ways to make it more complex for the defense," Leach says. "One is to have a whole bunch of different plays, but that's no good because then the offense experiences as much complexity as the defense. Another is a small number of plays and run it out of lots of different formations." Leach prefers new formations. "That way, you don't have to teach a guy a new thing to do," he says. "You just have to teach him new places to stand." Texas Tech's offense has no playbook; Cody Hodges's wrist and Mike Leach's back pocket hold the only formal written records of what is widely regarded as one of the most intricate offenses ever to take a football field. The plays change too often, in response to the defense and the talents of the players on hand, to bother recording them.
Hodges looked down and read what to anyone but a football player is incomprehensible: Ace Rip 6 Y Shallow.
The first part - Ace Rip - is the formation, the way the players line up. Here's how a conventional college football offense lines up.
Here's how Texas Tech lines up in Ace Rip, its most common formation.
Leach is unusual in giving his quarterback the authority to change every play, wherever the line of scrimmage. "He can see more than I'll ever see," Leach says. "If I call a stupid play, his job is to get me out of it. If he doesn't get me out of it, I might holler at him. But if you let him react to what he sees, there's a ton of touchdowns to be had." All Leach is really saying to Hodges when he sends in the play is, "Line up in Ace, see how they line up against it and call a good play."
Hodges stuck with 6 Y Shallow. The four wide receivers fanned out, two on each side, and the lone back stood several steps to the right of the quarterback. 6 Y Shallow tells them where to run - sort of. The play calls for the two outside receivers, X and Z, to run deep and drag both the cornerbacks and the safeties with them. If the cornerbacks and safeties are in a zone defense and refuse to follow along, X and Z are supposed to stop and wait in empty pockets within the zone. H is also supposed to adjust his plans according to how the defense lines up: if it looks as if the defenders will blitz - that is, rush in to get the quarterback - H runs a quick slant across the middle of the field so that the quarterback can throw to him immediately. If the defenders do not blitz, H runs a more leisurely 10 yards downfield and cuts across the middle. F, the tailback, takes off sideways and waits for a pass. Y, for whom the play is named, goes shallow. He runs 3 yards down field, then tears across the middle of the field, crossing H's route but separated by 7 or 8 yards. Leach doesn't expect receivers to go entirely uncovered - though in the confusion he creates, that happens a lot - but he does assume he will get single defenders covering a couple of them. A fast receiver covered by just one player is an open target waiting to happen for the simple reason that he knows where he is going and the defender does not.
Hodges took the snap from a shotgun position a couple of yards behind the center and saw something not often seen on a football field: 10 of the 11 Texas A.&M. defenders running backward to cover 5 Texas Tech receivers. There was but one lone white jersey in front of Hodges, walled off by five Tech lineman. A.&M.'s fear of the open spaces down the field had left the space right in front of Hodges empty. He ran for an effortless 11 yards and a first down.
Quickly, a pattern was established: A.&M.'s fear of Tech's passing meant that the field just beyond the line of scrimmage was so open that a blind man with a cane could find the holes. Though the defense managed to stymie his passing attack - temporarily - the sight of big, lumbering defensive linemen dropping back to cover the receivers did not displease Leach. "The thing is," he said after the game, "defensive linemen really aren't much good at covering receivers. They aren't built to run around that much. And when they do, you have a bunch of people on the other team doing things they don't have much experience doing." For the first 16 plays of the game, Texas Tech lined up in seven different formations (one with two running backs, another with two tight ends, etc.) just to see how the defenders would respond and which way they would run after the ball was snapped. Hodges threw to four different receivers, at eight different spots on the field. Leach wanted to move the ball toward the opponent's goal line, of course, but he also wanted to see how the spaces changed, to see what the A.&M. defense conceded and also which parts of the inherent disorder the defenders were failing to understand. Seven of the first 11 plays were pass plays that Hodges changed into runs.
Finally, A.&M. brought a few more players to the line of scrimmage. Hodges looked over and noted Jarrett Hicks all alone with a cornerback and threw Tech's first touchdown pass to him. The entire Texas Tech possession lasted just 2 minutes 42 seconds. Two minutes later, Tech got the ball back, and this time it was only four plays and 47 seconds before the tailback, Taurean Henderson ran, barely touched, for 18 yards into the end zone. An idea about the use of football time was being challenged. The typical football offense seeks to eat up as much of it as it can. The Texas Tech offense, which at that point in the season had passed for more touchdowns than any team in the country, uses just a shade over two minutes on each drive. But speeding everything up has a curious effect on game time. A typical college football team runs 65 to 75 offensive plays a game. Texas Tech tries to run 90 - and sometimes does. A college team with a robust passing game might throw the football 35 times a game; at this point, 8 games into an 11-game regular season, the Red Raiders were averaging 53 passes a game. And because the clock stops after first downs, touchdowns and incompletions, Texas Tech's games are among the longest in college football. Less than six minutes into game time but nearly 30 into real time, Tech led, 14-0.
The Texas Tech offense is not just an offense; it's a mood: optimism. It is designed to maximize the possibility of something good happening rather than to minimize the possibility of something bad happening. But then something bad happened. ("It always does," Leach says.) On its third series, the Tech center cut his hand and began bleeding profusely; instead of telling anyone, or wiping it off, he snapped a blood-drenched ball that slithered out of Hodges's hand as he prepared to throw, and the huge loss of yards killed the drive.
"There's no such thing as a perfect game in football," Leach says. "I don't even think there's such a thing as the perfect play. You have 11 guys between the ages of 18 and 22 trying to do something violent and fast together, usually in pain. Someone is going to blow an assignment or do something that's not quite right."
Three more times in the first half Texas Tech had the ball and each time it failed to score. But its problems weren't obviously caused by the A.&M. defense. One drive ended in a missed 38-yard field goal. On another, a touchdown was nullified by a holding call on the receiver Robert Johnson far away from the action. If you are the captain of a pirate ship, you cannot complain too much about lawless behavior - and Texas Tech is one of the most heavily penalized teams in college football - but still it's painful to watch a crew member drop treasure overboard. (Later, watching a videotape of the incident, Leach actually says, "Johnson's got to do a better job holding.") The final drive reached the A.&M. 5-yard line, where Leach called a pass play. Cody Hodges rolled out and, when he might well have simply run the ball into the end zone, threw an interception.
The Red Raiders trotted off the field at halftime with a lead, but not a large one: 14-10. A disappointing half, yet with hidden value. For 40 plays Leach's offense had groped - digressing, probing to learn something new - and it had been useful to see how the empty spaces on the field shifted. Coach and quarterback now knew what they wanted to know about the A.&M. defense. They had paid for the knowledge with time, but time means less to them than it does to any other offense in the land. A half to the Texas Tech offense is as good as a full game to most. The game within the game was about to begin.
From the beginning of football time, when there was no such thing as a forward pass and an offense did nothing but run, innovation has come from the passing attack. The last great shift was the so-called West Coast offense, developed by Bill Walsh during his time as a coach for Stanford University and then the San Francisco 49ers. Now widely imitated, it emphasizes controlling the game with lots of short passes. Still, football's mixed feelings toward passing are ingrained. Bob Carroll, a leading football historian, summarizes the attitude of the game's rule makers to the forward pass: "We're going to allow it because we know it makes the game safer. But we're going to make it difficult for you, because we don't approve of it." A whisper of the old antipass bigotry can be heard in football's conventional wisdom: that a balanced offense means running as often as you pass; that you can't pass all that effectively unless you first establish a running game; that a running game is necessary to "control the clock"; that passing is inherently riskier than running because a pass might be intercepted and give the other team good field position.
Leach and his offense are approaching the natural end of a path football strategy has been taking for 50 years. They are testing a limit. Synergy, in Leach's view, doesn't come from mixing runs with passes but from throwing the ball everywhere on the field, to every possible person allowed to catch a ball. "Our notion of balance," Leach says, "is that the five guys who catch the ball all gain 1,000 yards in the season." (The Indianapolis Colts last season became only the fourth team in N.F.L. history to have three receivers gain more than 1,000 yards in a single season.) The trouble with running plays, as Leach sees it, is that they clump players together on the field - by putting two of them, during a handoff, in the same spot with the ball. "I've thought about going a whole season without calling a single running play," Leach says, only half-joking. To a team that gains as many yards as Texas Tech, the usual boring, penny-ante yard-eating tactics - punts, penalties - are trivial. Field position is simply a thing to improve. Cody Hodges, who has spent the last four years marveling at Leach's in-game refusal to accept that his offense might have to be so conservative as to punt, says, "There's been lots of times I'm on the sidelines, and I'm like, 'Oh, my God, we're going for it!' We went for it on fourth and 5 on our own 23 - in the first quarter. We went for it once on fourth and 18 - and we were ahead." E. J. Whitley, an offensive lineman, says: "If you're on this offense, you expect to score. Most offenses on fourth down are coming off the field. On fourth down we expect a play to be called. Because we haven't scored yet."
One of the side effects of Leach's tinkering with the accepted rules of offensive conduct is to upset the ordinary rhythms of a football game. In the five full years Leach has coached Texas Tech, four or five times each season the team has flopped around ineffectually for the first third or so of a game before racing off to score touchdowns at a rate unheard of in organized tackle football. It's as if his opponent's defense has some deep dark secret that takes time for his offense to extract. Early this season, Texas Tech had been losing to Kansas State, 13-10, late in the second quarter - and won the game, 59-20. Last year's game against Texas Christian University was even odder: T.C.U., heavily favored, had shut out Southern Methodist University the week before, 44-0. With 8 minutes left in the second quarter, T.C.U. scored its third touchdown, for a 21-0 lead, and a T.C.U. defensive back was caught mouthing into a television camera, "They aren't going to score." In the last six minutes of the half, Texas Tech scored three quick touchdowns; after the break Leach's team came out and scored another seven and won the game, 70-35. A few games later, the Texas Tech offense scored the most points Nebraska had ever given up in its 114-year-old history. In that game, Texas Tech had been ahead, 14-3, with 2 minutes remaining in the first half. It won 70-10.
Halftime during the game against A.&M. was dull-minded; by now the original thrill of the game was gone. The team had slumped into the locker room, oozing self-disgust, and the players scattered into little bureaucratic meetings with their position coaches - the offensive linemen with the offensive line coaches, the receivers with the receivers coach and so on. Leach met with his quarterbacks in the coaches' locker room; he spent a few moments glancing at the first-half statistics. "The only information he ever asks for at halftime is the distribution," Hodges says. "He doesn't even care about the score. If Y has caught five passes and Z hasn't caught any, he wants to figure out how to get the ball to Z." Leach says, "You try to get the ball in everyone's hands because then it makes the whole offense harder to keep track of." If they aren't spreading the ball around, they aren't forcing the defense to cover the entire field. They are leaving empty spaces unprobed.
Leach had just a few minutes with Hodges, but he told him what he had noticed. First, the A.&M. cornerbacks were disguising their intentions. They were lining up as if to cover the fade routes - that is, before the play began, they stood between the receiver and the sidelines - but then, just as the ball was snapped, they were scampering back into the middle of the field. To Hodges it looked as if fade routes would be covered, so he had been sending his receivers on slants into the middle of the field. "Throw the fade," Leach said. "It doesn't look like it's there, but it is."
The other glaring opportunity, to Leach's mind, was A.&M.'s response to Tech's formations. On the few occasions when Texas Tech lined up in a formation that suggested a running play, with two running backs, the Aggies "put their ears back and stop the run." But when Tech was, as it preferred, in its passing formation, A.&M.'s fear of the pass caused them to leave huge empty spaces to run in. In the second half, the Tech running backs would be charging into pass coverage, and the Tech receivers would be running toward the sidelines.
There was one other thing Leach had noticed - and Hodges had noticed it, too. The A.&M. front line appeared tired. "The minute you see the defensive line bent over and their hands on their hips," Hodges told me, "that's when you know you have them." The A.&M. linemen were a lot bigger than the Texas Tech linemen. They may or may not have been fatter - Leach insists they were - but their bodies were clearly designed for a different sort of football game than this frenetic one. "That's the risk of playing 330-pound guys," Leach said later. "You get good push, but if you got to run around a lot, you get tired." Before the game, Leach had said to Hodges: "Get those fat guys up front and make them run. They're already a little slow. By play 40, they'll be immobilized." That was one reason he kept sending so many receivers on deep routes: to force the defense to run with them.
A coach cannot change the shape of the football field, but he can change its effective size. And if he can alter the environment, even slightly, he alters the environment's system of rewards and punishments. He can put 330-pound defensive linemen on the fast track to obsolescence and turn a pass-catching tailback into the holder of N.C.A.A. records. He can take a quarterback whose greatest assets are his moxie and his ability to see the field quickly and efficiently and make him the most prolific passer in the nation.
When he was finished with Hodges, Leach marched into the locker room, climbed back up on his green stool and exhibited, with the enthusiasm of a man doing it for the first time, the proper way to swing a pirate sword. "Coach's motivational speeches are always the same," says Daniel Loper, who played four years for Leach and is now a rookie offensive tackle with the Tennessee Titans. "He tells very long stories, and you're never sure what they mean. But he's a genius. When we leave the locker room, we all know that we'll have three receivers wide open every play."
"Thinking man's football" is a bit like "classy stripper": if the adjective modifies the noun too energetically, it undermines the nature of the thing. "Football's the most violent sport," Leach says. "And because of that, the most intense and emotional." Truth is, he loves the violence. ("Aw, yeah, the violence is awesome. That's the best part.") Back in the early 1980's, when he was a student at B.Y.U., he spotted a poster for a seminar, "Violence in American Sports." It was given by a visiting professor who bemoaned the influence of football on the American mind. To dramatize the point, the professor played a video of especially shocking blows delivered in college and pro football. "It had all the great hits in football you remembered and wanted to see again," Leach recalls. "Word got around campus that this guy had this great tape, and the place was jammed. Everybody was cheering the hits. I went twice."
For him, the game combines the appeal of chess with the joy of a demolition derby. Before the game, he and his coaching staff had spent a fair amount of time reminding the players, as if they needed to be reminded, that they were meant to hit people as hard as they can. "Be the hammer, never the nail." "You go out and knock the living dog snot out of people." "You get after him - get after him like he stole something from you." Et cetera.
On the second play of the second half, a lot of violent imagery, along with a pair of Texas Tech safeties, converged on a Texas A.&M. running back as he broke into the open field. One of the safeties, Vincent Meeks, was a ridiculously fast athlete who thought he came to Texas Tech to be a running back; the other, Dwayne Slay, had been hitting receivers so hard that they had started taking dives before he got to them. Slay was one hit shy of the N.C.A.A. record for forcing fumbles in a season - this was the hit. He drove right through the A.&M. ball carrier and took out Meeks as well, who rolled around on the ground screaming and clutching his groin. As the ball popped free and was grabbed by a Tech defender, a bent-over Meeks stumbled to the sidelines, where a coach asked a trainer, "Now who gonna touch that and make it well?"
What happened next doesn't often happen in big-time college football, and almost never in the N.F.L. But here at Texas Tech it now passes for normal: the Tech offense scored a touchdown, then got the ball back five times more - and scored all five times. One moment the scoreboard read 14-10 and suggested a hard-fought contest; the next it showed Texas Tech winning 56-17, with the ball and, with a minute remaining in the game, driving to score again. By the time he left the game, with 5 minutes to go, Cody Hodges had thrown 44 passes for 408 yards, a lot of them to Jarrett Hicks, who had 8 catches for 147 yards and 2 touchdowns, both on fade routes. The Texas Tech rushers had gained another 218 yards, just about all of them from pass formations.
But when Leach removes his starting quarterback, he does not mean for his offense to stop scoring touchdowns. Scoring is a habit, he says; the more players do it, the better they get at it. The new quarterback, Graham Harrell, had the offense marching as fast as possible toward the end zone, and with 23 seconds left, Texas Tech had reached the Texas A.&M. 25-yard line.
It was then that I looked over and noticed Bennie Wylie standing uneasily next to Mike Leach. Wylie is Texas Tech's strength and conditioning coach. Leach hired him three years ago from the Dallas Cowboys to prepare football players to run more than they had ever run on a football field. Just after he moved to Lubbock, Wylie learned that this job might be less a job than a calling. The thought struck him when he was driving and spotted, in the distance, a sloppily dressed middle-aged man in-line skating down the center of the road. The guy was rocking back and forth in the middle of what in Lubbock passes for a busy street; cars were whizzing past at 30 m.p.h. in both directions. There was no skating lane; truth to tell, there wasn't a lot of in-line skating going on in Lubbock. As Wylie drew closer, he thought to himself, That lunatic looks a little like Coach. As he pulled alongside the lunatic, he realized, It is Coach. Later, Leach explained that he had decided to take up in-line skating, and he'd calculated that the middle of that particular road was Lubbock's flattest, smoothest surface and so the obvious place to start. "To Mike, everything he does makes sense," Wylie says. "It just takes a while to see how it all fits together. But if you were a fly on his shoulder for six months, you'd laugh your eyeballs out."
But on this night Wylie was a fly on Leach's shoulder, and his eyeballs were still in their sockets. The end of this football game was shaping up disturbingly like last year's game against S.M.U., which had been, by Leachean standards, a low-scoring affair. With 15 seconds left, Texas Tech was ahead, 27-13. The clock was running, but the Red Raiders had the ball on the S.M.U. 4-yard line. It was then that Wylie realized that Leach and his offensive machine lacked an off switch. With 15 seconds left, Leach leaned into the field and called a timeout.

On the last play of that game, Leach sent in a pass play, and the quarterback, Sonny Cumbie, stepped into the shotgun position. "I could hear Bennett screaming," Cumbie says, referring to the S.M.U. head coach, Phil Bennett. "He's furious. He's yelling: HIT HIM! HIT HIM! HIT HIM! HIT THE QUARTERBACK!" Cumbie threw the ball into the end zone to a wide-open receiver, who dropped it. (None of the S.M.U. defenders hit him.) "I see their coach slam his earphones, throw down his clipboard and come running across the field," Wylie says. "I'm thinking: This is gonna be bad. He's mad at Mike for trying to score. And Mike really has no idea that he's mad. Mike is sitting there upset that we didn't score." Leach was, in fact, jotting notes on his wadded-up sheet of paper with the plays on it. His head was down; he didn't see Bennett. But before the S.M.U. coach reached Leach, Wylie jumped in. "The guy starts poking me in the chest - Bam! Bam! Bam! - and screaming," Wylie says. "If I hadn't been there, I think he might have taken a swing at Mike."
Now Texas Tech had a 39-point lead over A.&M. and the ball and was moving forward as rapidly as ever. To minimize its humiliation, the A.&M. offense had been running plays meant to use up time and get the team out of Lubbock. The governor of Texas slipped away early and was on his way back to Austin. The guys dressed up as soldiers in the Aggie end zone had run out of military drills to perform. Up in the sky boxes, the wife of an Aggie assistant coach insulted every female Red Raider in earshot by saying that at least she lived in College Station instead of Lubbock. ("First of all, we just beat them, 56-17," Leach says when told of the incident. "By rights she should now be a Red Raider slave.") For everyone but Mike Leach, the game was over, but he jumped onto the field and called a timeout. The referees did not notice: they were too busy throwing yellow flags at the extra Texas Tech players who had tried to get into the game. Tech was penalized, and in the subsequent confusion, Leach let the clock run out. "There was 23 seconds on the clock," he told me later. "That's more than enough time. I think we all had a level of disappointment we didn't score one more touchdown."

Bad as it was for Texas A.&M., its staff might wonder how much worse it could have been if Leach had the same access to talent as A.&M. or Texas or Alabama or, God forbid, Notre Dame. The chances of that happening can't be great, though. Leach remains on the outside; like all innovators in sports, he finds himself in an uncertain social position. He has committed a faux pas: he has suggested by his methods that there is more going on out there on the (unlevel) field of play than his competitors realize, which reflects badly on them. He steals some glory from the guy who is born with advantages and uses them to become a champion. Gary O'Hagan, Leach's agent, says that he hears a great deal more from other coaches about Mike Leach than about any of his other clients. "He makes them nervous," O'Hagan says. "They don't like coaching against him; they'd rather coach against another version of themselves. It's not that they don't like him. But privately they haven't accepted him. You know how you can tell? Because when you're talking to them Monday morning, and you say, Did you see the play Leach ran on third and 26, they dismiss it immediately. Dismissive is the word. They dismiss him out of hand. And you know why? Because he's not doing things because that's the way they've always been done. It's like he's been given this chessboard, and all the pieces but none of the rules, and he's trying to figure out where all the chess pieces should go. From scratch!"
Leach was out in the middle of the field shaking hands with a visibly upset Dennis Franchione, the Texas A.&M. coach. The press had descended on him, to ask him to describe just how happy he felt. But he didn't look happy; he looked distracted, for all the world as if he would rather be left alone. And by the time the cameras left, he was. The football field was huge and green and empty. The only other people on it were the two Texas Rangers assigned to protect him. As he allowed himself to be escorted toward the locker room, there were many things Mike Leach might have been thinking about. His team was now 8-1 - the best start in nearly 30 years for a Texas Tech football team. They had just beaten Texas A.&M. by the largest margin in the 80-year-old history of the rivalry. He knew he was not going to sleep anytime soon - he keeps the hours of a vampire and wouldn't go to bed until 6:30 a.m. - and so he might have even been thinking about reviewing game tape, which he usually does while others sleep.
Then he spotted a giant grasshopper on the turf. It twitched on the very spot where, two days earlier, he picked up his third-string halfback's tooth after it had been knocked out by his second-string defensive tackle. He gazed upon the grasshopper in wonder. He wondered, specifically, how far a giant grasshopper could hop, were he to put his foot to its rear. It was on the 20-yard line; he thought maybe it might make it to the 30.
Finally he looked up from the grasshopper. And, as if for the first time, he noticed that he wasn't exactly alone. The stands were thick with fans. Twenty thousand Red Raiders were chanting his name.
Coach! Leach! Coach! Leach!

Texas college football teams seem to have a particular need for hand signals. Fans of the University of Texas Longhorns deploy the thumb-and-pinkie hook-'em-horns gesture to suggest their bovinity. The Aggies have gig 'em, a frog-murdering gesture. The Red Raiders have guns up; when they are excited, they turn their index fingers into gun barrels. Now they were excited, perhaps as excited as they have ever been, and the fingers of West Texas filled the air. Ah, yes, it seemed to occur to Mike Leach, I'm supposed to feel as if I've won. He glanced once more at the grasshopper and thought, Oh, well, next time. Then he threw two triumphant trigger fingers high over his head and jabbed the air with them, twice. Guns up!
Twenty thousand natural-born underdogs roared the winner's roar. The man who made the moment possible by refusing to do anything but what he loves to do smiled, and for just a few seconds his mind was present and accounted for. Then he ran up the concrete tunnel and back into the pleasure of thinking for himself.

Michael Lewis, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author of "Moneyball" and, most recently, "Coach," about a high-school baseball coach.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Taking A Page From Google!

By Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian
Newsweek
Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Dec. 2, 2005


Issues 2006 - At google, we think business guru Peter Drucker well understood how to manage the new breed of "knowledge workers." After all, Drucker invented the term in 1959. He says knowledge workers believe they are paid to be effective, not to work 9 to 5, and that smart businesses will "strip away everything that gets in their knowledge workers' way." Those that succeed will attract the best performers, securing "the single biggest factor for competitive advantage in the next 25 years."
At Google, we seek that advantage. The ongoing debate about whether big corporations are mismanaging knowledge workers is one we take very seriously, because those who don't get it right will be gone. We've drawn on good ideas we've seen elsewhere and come up with a few of our own. What follows are seven key principles we use to make knowledge workers most effective. As in most technology companies, many of our employees are engineers, so we will focus on that particular group, but many of the policies apply to all sorts of knowledge workers.

  1. Hire by committee. Virtually every person who interviews at Google talks to at least half-a-dozen interviewers, drawn from both management and potential colleagues. Everyone's opinion counts, making the hiring process more fair and pushing standards higher. Yes, it takes longer, but we think it's worth it. If you hire great people and involve them intensively in the hiring process, you'll get more great people. We started building this positive feedback loop when the company was founded, and it has had a huge payoff.
  2. Cater to their every need. As Drucker says, the goal is to "strip away everything that gets in their way." We provide a standard package of fringe benefits, but on top of that are first-class dining facilities, gyms, laundry rooms, massage rooms, haircuts, carwashes, dry cleaning, commuting buses—just about anything a hardworking engineer might want. Let's face it: programmers want to program, they don't want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both.
  3. Pack them in. Almost every project at Google is a team project, and teams have to communicate. The best way to make communication easy is to put team members within a few feet of each other. The result is that virtually everyone at Google shares an office. This way, when a programmer needs to confer with a colleague, there is immediate access: no telephone tag, no e-mail delay, no waiting for a reply. Of course, there are many conference rooms that people can use for detailed discussion so that they don't disturb their office mates. Even the CEO shared an office at Google for several months after he arrived. Sitting next to a knowledgeable employee was an incredibly effective educational experience.
  4. Make coordination easy. Because all members of a team are within a few feet of one another, it is relatively easy to coordinate projects. In addition to physical proximity, each Googler e-mails a snippet once a week to his work group describing what he has done in the last week. This gives everyone an easy way to track what everyone else is up to, making it much easier to monitor progress and synchronize work flow.
  5. Eat your own dog food. Google workers use the company's tools intensively. The most obvious tool is the Web, with an internal Web page for virtually every project and every task. They are all indexed and available to project participants on an as-needed basis. We also make extensive use of other information-management tools, some of which are eventually rolled out as products. For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months. The use of e-mail is critical within the organization, so Gmail had to be tuned to satisfy the needs of some of our most demanding customers—our knowledge workers.
  6. Encourage creativity. Google engineers can spend up to 20 percent of their time on a project of their choice. There is, of course, an approval process and some oversight, but basically we want to allow creative people to be creative. One of our not-so-secret weapons is our ideas mailing list: a companywide suggestion box where people can post ideas ranging from parking procedures to the next killer app. The software allows for everyone to comment on and rate ideas, permitting the best ideas to percolate to the top.
  7. Strive to reach consensus. Modern corporate mythology has the unique decision maker as hero. We adhere to the view that the "many are smarter than the few," and solicit a broad base of views before reaching any decision. At Google, the role of the manager is that of an aggregator of viewpoints, not the dictator of decisions. Building a consensus sometimes takes longer, but always produces a more committed team and better decisions
  8. Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men.
  9. Data drive decisions. At Google, almost every decision is based on quantitative analysis. We've built systems to manage information, not only on the Internet at large, but also internally. We have dozens of analysts who plow through the data, analyze performance metrics and plot trends to keep us as up to date as possible. We have a raft of online "dashboards" for every business we work in that provide up-to-the-minute snapshots of where we are.
  10. Communicate effectively. Every Friday we have an all-hands assembly with announcements, introductions and questions and answers. (Oh, yes, and some food and drink.) This allows management to stay in touch with what our knowledge workers are thinking and vice versa. Google has remarkably broad dissemination of information within the organization and remarkably few serious leaks.

Contrary to what some might think, we believe it is the first fact that causes the second: a trusted work force is a loyal work force.
Of course, we're not the only company that follows these practices. Many of them are common around Silicon Valley. And we recognize that our management techniques have to evolve as the company grows. There are several problems that we (and other companies like us) face.
One is "techno arrogance." Engineers are competitive by nature and they have low tolerance for those who aren't as driven or as knowledgeable as they are. But almost all engineering projects are team projects; having a smart but inflexible person on a team can be deadly. If we see a recommendation that says "smartest person I've ever known" combined with "I wouldn't ever want to work with them again," we decline to make them an offer. One reason for extensive peer interviews is to make sure that teams are enthused about the new team member. Many of our best people are terrific role models in terms of team building, and we want to keep it that way.
A related problem is the not-invented-here syndrome. A good engineer is always convinced that he can build a better system than the existing ones, leading to the refrain "Don't buy it, build it." Well, they may be right, but we have to focus on those projects with the biggest payoff. Sometimes this means going outside the company for products and services.
Another issue that we will face in the coming years is the maturation of the company, the industry and our work force. We, along with other firms in this industry, are in a rapid growth stage now, but that won't go on forever. Some of our new workers are fresh out of college; others have families and extensive job experience. Their interests and needs are different. We need to provide benefits and a work environment that will be attractive to all ages.
A final issue is making sure that as Google grows, communication procedures keep pace with our increasing scale. The Friday meetings are great for the Mountain View team, but Google is now a global organization.
We have focused on managing creativity and innovation, but that's not the only thing that matters at Google. We also have to manage day-to-day operations, and it's not an easy task. We are building technology infrastructure that is dramatically larger, more complex and more demanding than anything that has been built in history. Those who plan, implement and maintain these systems, which are growing to meet a constantly rising set of demands, have to have strong incentives, too. At Google, operations are not just an afterthought: they are critical to the company's success, and we want to have just as much effort and creativity in this domain as in new product development.
Schmidt is CEO of Google. Varian is a Berkeley professor and consultant with Google.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Restaurant Investing Article

Here's an interesting article from the NY times with some insights on restaurant investment/equity structures.

Stay Out of the Kitchen, but Follow the Numbers
By ALEXANDRA PEERSWHEN

Stephen Loffredo opened Zoë, a restaurant in SoHo in 1992, his backer was his father-in-law. Earlier this year, when Mr. Loffredo was looking to open another Manhattan restaurant, Jovia, on the Upper East Side, he took a different route. In a structure that echoed the Broadway-angel model of backing musicals, he offered 34 units of the restaurant at $50,000 apiece. Christian Pompa, a real estate developer who was a prep-school classmate of Mr. Loffredo's wife, Thalia, bought three. "I like to eat, I like to drink and it's right near my house," Mr. Pompa said. Still, he added, his greatest hope is that in the current roaring restaurant market, Jovia will be so busy that "there's no room for me." The restaurant business is booming - both in New York City and, to a degree, nationwide. On average, more than five new restaurants a week open in the city, according to the Zagat Survey; that is the fastest pace since 2000. In October, national restaurant and bar sales reached an estimated $34.6 billion, up 7 percent from 2004, according to the Census Bureau.Eager to get in the game, and inspired by the high-profile success of chefs who, after achieving stardom in one city, open additional restaurants in other places across the country, more people are seeing restaurants as attractive investments. At the same time, the growth in the number of new restaurants, along with banks' traditional reluctance to finance them, has increased the number of restaurateurs looking for capital - and for ways to let beginners buy in. But chefs, owners and investors warn that the restaurant business, already considered high-risk, may be more volatile than ever. The cost of starting a restaurant varies widely, from perhaps $100,000 for a tiny bakery in a college town to upward of $8 million for a 200-seat dining room - with a superstar chef, architect and interior designer - in a large city. What are the odds of success? While an old saw holds that 9 of 10 restaurants fail, a study by Michigan State and Cornell Universities in 1991 and one by Ohio State in 2003 show that about 60 percent of all restaurants closed by their third year. Moreover, the spate of new dining spots is setting off bidding wars for chefs, sommeliers and even contractors and public relations firms, owners say, and is creating higher expectations for diners who dart among restaurants, eager to try the next new thing. "The customer who used to say, 'Satisfy me,' now says, 'Knock my socks off,' " said Barry Wine, a restaurant consultant who was the chef and owner of the Quilted Giraffe in Manhattan.That is the lofty goal of one investor, David Robkin. He is a backer of the Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr, who plans to open two multimillion-dollar restaurants in the Chelsea Market this winter: Buddakan and Morimoto, which will feature Nobu's former executive chef, Masaharu Morimoto.Mr. Robkin was an accountant in Philadelphia when he started investing in restaurants, inspired by the sight of a line of customers around the block at the Buddakan bar and restaurant that Mr. Starr opened in that city in 1996. After a series of successful openings - and two flops - he now manages an investor group backing Mr. Starr that, he says, earns "venture capital returns," typically 20 percent or more a year. Many restaurant investors come from the corporate or financial world - and they often expect similar business methods. But there is a big disconnect between the corporate world and the kitchen, chefs warn. The turnover is much higher, for example, and staff members are often under the age of 30, said Stephan Fortier, who opened Loft, a restaurant and lounge on the Upper West Side, backed by an investor he met at a Crunch Gym. "But if you know what you are doing, you can make some serious money," he said, especially in multiple restaurants, because of economies of scale. Trust in one's partners is crucial, he said. In the last dozen years, Dr. Andrew Feldman, chief of sports medicine at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan, has invested $100,000 apiece in businesses like the Blue Water Grill and It's a Wrap in Manhattan and Best Cellars, a wine store chain. All but one of his choices, a bakery, have made money - some, lots of money, he said.But he did not always earn his expected share of profits. Over the years, "the lesson I've learned is to be more involved in the day-to-day operations," he said. Chefs say investor money never comes without strings. "You never know the nightmare investors until they've invested," said Geoffrey Zakarian, a chef who made his reputation with the 44 restaurant in the Royalton Hotel in Midtown in the early 1990's and has since opened Town in Midtown and, this week, Country on Madison Avenue at East 29th Street. For one opening a few years ago, he said, there were daily e-mail messages at all hours from an investor, reading "Why didn't you comp my friend?" "I don't like that waitress," or "I want the best table at 8." "People like to say, 'I'm the owner; do you know who I am?' " Mr. Zakarian said.
The easiest way for investors to enter the restaurant game is to be a friend of a restaurateur and to become a regular customer. Sirio Maccioni, owner of Osterio del Circo and of Le Cirque, which is moving to a new Manhattan site, is among those who have culled backers from their customer bases. Potential investors can also meet chefs and restaurateurs at various food events, like those listed on Web sites like StarChefs.com or held at the James Beard House, a haven for food lovers in Manhattan. Classes in operating a restaurant and raising financing are held at sites including the French Culinary Institute and through the Myriad Restaurant Group, parent of restaurants like TriBeCa Grill and Nobu. But investors should not expect smooth sailing: the tension between a chef and a backer is often literally built into the deal. Investors have a shorter-term horizon than owners do. Backers of a hot restaurant, for example, may want most of their money out after about six months - just as it's cooling. "Deals fail when they're structured at cross-purposes," said Ira Drukier, who owns, among other properties, the Chambers and the Maritime, two hotels in Manhattan, and has stakes in their restaurants. He builds his deals so that the chef gets a financial incentive when the investors are paid back - and he stipulates a minimum 12 to 15 percent annual return, with payments made monthly. For the individual investor, pitfalls can extend beyond the financial risk. "Whether someone slips and falls, gets speared by a swordfish or the business just goes bankrupt," the investor can be liable, said Mark Albaum, a New York accountant who has had a couple of clients who were burned in the restaurant business. In general, building a restaurant investment as an equity stake, or as a limited liability partnership, shields the investor. But there is no protection if the investor has signed, or has the power to sign, any business checks or tax returns. MOST of all, owners and experienced backers say, investors should stay out of the kitchen - no telling the chef how to season the soup - and do the math. A restaurant's income projections should jibe with its expected average check size, average length of a meal and number of seats. There should be a cushion of six months' worth of expenses, and measures in place to raise extra capital if needed. "Right now, everybody wants to get into the restaurant business," Mr. Zakarian, the chef, said. "But people who think it's fun and sexy lose their shirt very quickly," he warned. Then again, "It is fun and sexy."

Sales & Guest Forecasting

After receiving way too many emails asking me about formulas I'm posting them for anyone else. But for those who want a more specific worksheet to their business here are the formulas you need to know to help determine your forecasts. Or else you can email me and I'll create one for you.

  1. Avg Sales per guest = Total sales/number of guests served
  2. Variance = sales this year - sales last year
  3. Percentage variance = (sales this year - sales last year)/sales last year
  4. Percentage variance = variance/sales last year
  5. Or Percentage variance = (sales last year/sales this year)-1
  6. Revenue Forecast = sales last year + (sales last year x % Increase Estimate)
  7. Or Revenue Forecast = sales last year x (1 + % increase estimate)
  8. Guest Count Forecast = Guest count last year + (Guest count last year x % increase estimate)
  9. Or Guest Count Forecast = Guests last year x (1 + % increase estimate)
  10. Sales per guest forecast = last year's avg sales per guest + estimated increase in sales per guest
  11. Or Avg Sales per Guest Forecast = Revenue forecast/Guest count forecast
Hope this helps.

Have Fun Today!
Jeffrey Summers, Head Coach
GameOn! Restaurant Coaching Solutions