"Can't win" schools

The Jimmys and Joes argument is valid, but I've seen a lot of teams that with less athletic talent beat teams with more and vice-versa.

Coaching and environment account for that difference. While coaches cannot control everything in the environment (i.e., administration support, community support, proper training facilities) they are the focal point.

If you are losing, look at the job you are doing first. If you're doing everything you can, find ways to improve the environment. If that can't be done, time to move on.

The programs that I have seen continually struggle generally have issues in the administrative office. The administration doesn't support the athletic programs or hinders them in one way or another.

I know of one program where the administration caused a lot of problems with off season work outs because parents complained. They told the volleyball coach that if she held open gyms, that she could only monitor; not coach. Some of the parents had called and complained ("It's like she's holding practice, boo-hoo-hooo") and the AD took their side. It was ridiculous too; she had 2 open gyms a week, an hour a piece, just so they could stay polished during the spring.

So, the volleyball coach (rightfully so) went to the AD and told them that if she couldn't have contact with the kids, that no one could. So, the AD, being a stubborn individual, agreed and now none of the athletic programs can have contact with the kids during off-season workouts, including the weight room. They can only "monitor"..

There is a school here in SC that has tremendous talent at every position that have struggled on the football field. They have always been a basketball school, going deep into the playoffs most years. They are an inner city type school and have athletic players everywhere. I think that the reason they have struggled is the lack of committment from any HC that goes there. They got a new hc before this past season and it was about the third in the last seven years. They also have the being a basketball school thing. The players play football, but the fans don't support it like basketball. I have always wanted to be the hc at that school, and maybe one day after I coach a few years I might get a chance. They have to good of players to be as mediocore as they are. They have smart kids, many of their football players go on to play college ball and excel on the field and in the classroom. I just think it is going to take a coach that wants to be there for the long haul and wants to build a consistant winner to get them where they should be. I think that they have the potential to be a top team every year because of the type of players they always have.

I would agree on the admin part, if they aren't supportive then it can hinder the program, such as not giving the money to buy equipment to have a good offseason, so the kids are weak and then can't compete bringing the loser mentallity back into play, or could have kids that are strong but dumb as bricks!

This is really complicated, and it depends on the individual situation. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the culture/organization at those schools. You show me a supportive administration, well organized and professional coaching staff, and effective offseason programs and I'll show you a winner. Maybe not a perennial championship contender, but a competitive team who wins games. Show me a program lacking any of those 3 things and I guarantee you they're going to struggle.

I really think a lot of this "Jimmies and Joes" stuff usually boils down to talent development, attitude, and discipline. Most schools in a given area will draw from a similar raw talent pool. It's how you coach it and develop it in the offseason and even at the feeder levels. It's the attitude you instill in your team: the primary benefit of having a winning tradition is that momentum is with you and the players set high expectations for themselves because they believe in themselves. Less "talented" teams beat ones with better athletes all the time.

Losing programs frequently suffer with numbers, they have awful weightroom routines and participation, and are told by everyone that they "just don't have the talent." When good athletes come up through those systems, they will frequently transfer to other schools to be with a winner, so this becomes a self propogating cycle. Again, it's really an attitude issue, not a talent issue. You take those same "untalented" players and put them in a rival program and they would either become much better football players or quit when they aren't willing to make the sacrifices to become better.

It is the responsibility of the HC to change this attitude by being a well-organized professional and instilling an enthusiastic, confident tone that will spread to his players. It's the responsibility of assistant coaches to buy into that HC's vision, teach the players fundamentally sound football, and fill out the details within their areas of responsibility. It's the responsibility of the administration at the school to support the coaches as much as possible, but also to watch the coaches and make sure theyre doing right by the kids. That's what it takes to be a successful program. All the great athletes in the world won't win you a championship if they don't know or care about how to win.

3 HCs in 7 years is a red flag. That makes me think that there's a problem with the administration. Either they're being unprofessional and hiring coaches who aren't qualified or, more likely, they're making it hard on the football coaches in some way. Maybe the basketball coach is a territorial type who doesn't want his kids to lift or insists that his kids play AAU ball in the summer instead of work out with the football team.

I think every area has a school or schools like that: they're great in one or two sports and are competitive in everything but football, so people scratch their heads how a school that obvious has "the athletes" can't field a winning football team. There's something going on beneath the surface.

I really think the most overrated aspect of a football program is the quality of their facilities. Coaches make a big deal about wanting the newest, shiniest equipment, but a barbell is a barbell. I've seen very poor schools with abysmal weightrooms field some very strong, well coached teams because they make the most of what they have. I know having a state of the art weightroom can really help, but it's not going to make or break your program.

I think there's a difference between an administration that won't support you (i.e. no money) and one that undermines you (think "Coach Carter" when they end the lockout). I think the latter one is harder to overcome and IMO could make a school a "can't win" school.

If at a small rural school, what if it has to do more with the expectations of the town, not the school, but the entire town. The comment "we are only good every ten years in football" and "we are only good at girls athletics anyways".

Have heard both of these, but I think that the tough part about this is that is completely contextual and can't necessarily be pinned on one thing, maybe it can be pinned down to a couple of "themes" such as community support, administrative support and possibly something along the lines of the mentality of the players.

Those are just ideas, I think if all things are equal, it boils down to the jimmies and joes, their make up on the field will determine how good you are. Their mental toughness, their relentlessness and their desire.

This thread is a list of things that a coach can't control so they don't matter.

The responsibility lies with the HC and his staff period. All of these other issues do exist. They are a pain in the @$$, but in the end the coaching staff has to figure out a way to succeed.

But if a school has the talent to win at one sport why not another?

Sorry Phantom, I need to agree w/ indian here. Our school and our league is the perfect test case for a coach making a difference. Our league is 8 high schools roughly the same size in a fairly wealthy community. Our free lunches at each school is also comparibale roughly a little over 10% just to give a a socioeconomic indicator. We all have the same exact funding, all have the same exact coaching positions. all the ad's are thick as theives... Our state champion (VA) came from a team in our league who at one point in time "could not win". well, they get a new coach and he does a fantastic job, goess 5-5, loses in playoffs the next year and wins it this year. did he have some kids? yes will they win states next year? who knows.. the bottom line is they are doing it the right way. I just don't see the ups and downs happening in his program...I have heard rumors of him grumbling about admin etc. you can only control what is between the lines

True but irrelevant. If there are enough good athletes to be good at one sport I don't see why they can't also be good in another.

Sorry phantom, I thought you might catch the sarcasm in that post!!

My Alma Mater went from 8-4 10 years ago to 0-10 last year with me on staff.

Why couldn't we win.

1) Talent and lower level talent

The previous HC's, didn't make the "chicken sh*t" Bigger, Faster or Stronger.

When we got here 3 years ago, we had 5 players that could bench over 230. Now while Bench and football don't go hand and hand, you understand what I am talking about as far as strength.

Speed- The fastest person on the team ran a 4.7 - 40 and 11.6 - 100m, after 2 years on me on staff, slower win we got here.

I know you don't need Speed to win game, but in comparison as the track coach, we have never made the region finals in any sprint race and our region has produced the track state champion 8 out of the last 10 years.

Our rival school who is 10 miles away had 13 young men sign football scholly's they also won state(The school we talked about that won't allow Spurrier to come back). But the state championship was played between top teams from our region. Out of the 4 that went to the playoffs. 3 won at least 2 games.

Our region is part of the problem, because of the strength. But we just don't have the jimmies and the joes. But the other bigger issues.

2) Admin Support
The HC was fired after 1 season we went 0-10, the coach before win after 2 seasons 3-17, before him 5 years, etc.....
We had 3 coaches who taught in the building the principal told us she would get coaches in the building and qualified lay coaches.

Didn't help us we had 6 coaches total on staff for a school of 1600 kids, where teams we play have 9 plus..

3)Community & Parent Support
We are a highly academic school, but so are others in our region. If Johnny has a test tomorrow and doesn't want to come to practice and misses and try to punish him, mom raises heck to the principal and we can't punish him for not coming, including no extra running.

I know you stay bench him, but what happens when 50% of the team does this once per week?

3) While we have made them BFS. The huge gap between us and 6th place team in the region. Parents have a lack of commitment during the summer. Vacation for this and that even though we have an agreed upon 2 week off right after finals for vacation and the week of the 4th.

To me the biggest things you need in a program are

1) Admin Support
2) Weightroom
3) Good Coaches and tenure.


We got none so when you have a lack of talent and then you get no help to deal with those issues nothing happens.


They have hired a new coach and told him he could get coaches in the building while interviewing, we have no spots available for next year.

Another example on the gaps that need to be made in the area of making the kids better.
My 4x100 team ran a time of 44.33 fastest time in 4 years. In our region out of 10 schools including us, 5 had there A and B teams run faster than my A team.

phatnom, those big 3 were different when I went there, plus the talent was different. Our region had 63 kids sign scholly's this year 18 to a D-I school. Our school had one kid sign NAIA and another we are trying to send from GA to Minnesota to play D-II.