A few weeks ago, sitting with a 16-3 record, the Oregon men’s basketball team seemed a lock to make the NCAA tournament. Five consecutive losses later and suddenly there are questions about the team, their future, what is wrong, and whether or not they belong in the tournament at all. When a team starts to crack at the seams, the easy answer is to look at the head coach. There will be questions by many on whether it is time for Oregon men’s basketball head coach Dana Altman to retire. I think there will be plenty of back and forth in those discussions. What I see when I watch this team play is a lot of talent. But I also see a lack of leadership on the court.

From my vantage point as an outsider, it is striking how quickly this slide happened. Oregon went from a cohesive, confident group that knew exactly how to close out games, to a collection of talented but uncertain players who sometimes look lost in critical moments. The passing lanes that once seemed automatic are now clogged by miscommunication, and the defensive intensity that used to galvanize the entire team has diminished when they need it most. Whenever an opponent goes on a run, you can almost sense the collective tension on the floor, and no single voice seems to rise above the din to steady the ship.

I’m not convinced this is purely a matter of talent or even coaching strategy. In studying teams at all levels of sport, I’ve come to believe that a shortfall in leadership can undermine even the most gifted rosters. Strong leadership—whether it comes from a coach or from within the player ranks—keeps everyone accountable and engaged. It prevents small errors from spiraling into larger breakdowns, because someone steps up to remind the group of their identity and their plan. Without that anchor, players may drift into isolation play on offense or miss defensive rotations simply because they don’t hear clear direction or don’t trust that a teammate will back them up.

While many old-school observers might say a team either “has leaders” or it doesn’t, modern research shows that leadership can indeed be a learned skill. Yes, certain players or coaches have natural traits—charisma, confidence, and a knack for seizing the moment—but others can develop those qualities over time if given the proper guidance and opportunities. I’ve watched quiet underclassmen evolve into vocal anchors by their senior year just because they were entrusted with more responsibility, taken under the wing of seasoned veterans, or placed in moments where they had no choice but to speak up.

That’s why I’m hesitant to pin the Ducks’ current struggles entirely on Dana Altman or on a single missing “floor general.” Instead, I see an untapped potential for someone—maybe a talented sophomore who’s been hesitant to assert himself, or a well-respected senior who prefers to lead by example—to become that voice the team desperately needs. The process requires deliberate effort: a clear assignment of responsibilities in practice, genuine mentorship where new leaders learn to call out plays and keep teammates’ spirits high, and a culture that normalizes open communication rather than leaving it all to the head coach. Leadership on a basketball team doesn’t have to be a one-person job; sometimes it’s a group effort where everyone contributes to the whole.

It may sound simple, but making these shifts in the heart of a losing streak can be difficult. There’s a mental hurdle when a team goes from feeling untouchable to questioning every possession. Yet this is precisely where real leadership emerges—when a player or coach can calm the storm, remind everyone of their core strengths, and map out a way forward. If Oregon can rediscover or develop those leadership qualities before the season slips away, they may find themselves recapturing the confident style of play that propelled them to that 16-3 start in the first place. It’s not guaranteed, but I believe it’s possible. Leadership, like shooting form or defensive rotations, is something you can refine through reflection, practice, and a willingness to step outside your comfort zone.

There’s still time for the Ducks to turn things around, but they need someone to take the reins. They have enough talent on the court—I see it every game in flashes of brilliance. The question is whether a commanding voice will rally these individuals into a cohesive unit capable of handling adversity when the next close game or hostile road environment tests their resolve. If they can find or grow that person, or those people, to guide them through the turbulence, then this recent slump might become just a blip on the radar. Otherwise, they risk seeing a once-promising season continue to slip away, leaving fans and outsiders like me to wonder what might have been if only someone had stepped forward to lead.

STEALING FIRE

Dana Altman has made a career of crafting winning rosters and adapting to the players at his disposal, but if there’s one area that could reshape Oregon’s future success, it’s placing a renewed emphasis on leadership in both recruiting and coaching. It’s not enough to stack a team with five-star prospects who can light up a stat sheet; the Ducks also need individuals who can rally their teammates when adversity strikes. That means shifting the lens in recruiting evaluations to consider how a player communicates with others, how he responds to a bad call or a tough loss, and whether he’s the kind of teammate who picks others up rather than just piling on points.

For Altman, this might involve asking deeper questions during the recruiting process. Coaches often look at highlight reels, physical metrics, and advanced stats, but leadership qualities can be uncovered by talking to high school or junior college coaches about how a player handled conflict in practices. Did he mentor younger teammates? Did he keep everyone focused during tough stretches? You can see hints of leadership even in the way a player organizes teammates for off-season workouts or addresses the media after a game. By making these intangibles a higher priority, Altman can ensure that each incoming class features at least one or two potential catalysts who aren’t afraid to speak up on the court and in the locker room.

Altman can also refine his own coaching approach to nurture leadership in every player. Rather than hoping an authoritative figure simply emerges in the midst of competition, he can create spaces in practice that encourage players to take charge—such as rotating who leads huddles or draws up quick adjustments during scrimmages. Even a soft-spoken freshman might surprise everyone when given the chance to direct traffic on the floor. If that happens consistently, over time, the Ducks cultivate a culture where leadership is everyone’s job, not just the responsibility of a single team captain or a star player. This can be further reinforced by regular film sessions not just focused on tactics, but on moments where a teammate’s communication or vocal encouragement made a difference, showing that leadership is valued as much as shooting percentage.

Ultimately, the greatest benefit of weaving leadership into recruiting and coaching strategy is sustainability. Some of the best programs in college basketball thrive because they replenish their leadership ranks year after year, teaching each new wave of athletes how to guide the team forward. By cultivating a broader pool of players who see themselves as accountable for the team’s spirit and direction, Altman can future-proof his program. Talent will always matter, but combining that talent with cultivated leaders who can steady the team through rough stretches could turn a mere contender into a powerhouse with the resilience to chase deep tournament runs season after season.