|
Post by tog on Jul 21, 2009 20:54:25 GMT -6
got it. I just kept thinking of the brilliant scientist who has the quick mind and often has absolutely no ability to communicate or relate knowledge to others. I actually had a Poli-Sci professor like that in college...he only kept his job due to international prominance...brilliant...could not teach a lick. gotta be both cole
|
|
|
Post by rcole on Jul 21, 2009 21:31:38 GMT -6
Exactly Tog. Seems I've known a lot of the sharp minds and only a few that could actually get the kids to play above their heads. Worked with a lot of smart coaches who couldn't get through to the kids. I just find the one to be more rare than the other, and harder for most of my colleagues. I went through that schemes and know it all stage in my twenties...seems to be rampant in coaching right now...we know it all and we always make the best decisions but those darn kids just keep screwing it up....nevermind that their failures are our failures. Just a little sick of that mentality. There is no doubt it takes both. That is the point. I just think the rarer of the two is the difference between the elite coaches and the posers (a.k.a. the egos or gurus).
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jul 21, 2009 23:48:57 GMT -6
We had a guy in my hometown who was a legend for what his HS teams did in the '60s and '70s. The school never won anything in the few decades before he got there. He won a state championship under the then-new playoff system a few years after getting screwed out of another by politics (no playoffs then) and, in 25 years on the job, had an overall winning percentage of over 55%. People today talk about what a great coach he was, but every story told about him involves how he made an impact in his players lives, how he treated them like men, never screamed at them but held them accountable, respected them, gave them all he had, and made them proud to be on the team, etc.
The county consolidated schools in 1980 and converted the one he'd made a career at into a MS. He retired from coaching then to stay on at his old place as principal. The town and students loved him so much they secretly raised enough money to surprise him with a new car at halftime of his (and the HS's) final game. The normally stoic coach wept with gratitude. There wasn't a dry eye in the house. That wasn't his best team ever, and they didn't make the playoffs that year, but they made it a point to knock off one of the top ranked teams in their state as a final gift to their coach.
The HS that replaced his floundered under about 6 different HCs for 15 years before it finished at .500 or made the playoffs. It didn't have a winning season (6-4) until 2002, and didn't win a playoff game until 2006. The old HC had managed to raise funds to build a large, impressive new stadium entirely from community donations--and this was a small town of working class people. The new school had no booster club or athletic fundraising organization of any kind for its first 18 years, but they did have a modern weightroom (paid for by tax dollars) that put the old one to shame.
Coaches drew talent from the same pool that once regularly sent athletes to Div. 1. These coaches all whined very publically, and often in front of their players, about how they just couldn't compete with the same talent that had won championships a few years ago, that they didn't have the speed--this came even as they still sent a player or two to 1aa every year. Meanwhile the school routinely did ok in track and was at least competitive in other sports. The athletes winning those track events didn't want to play football because they didn't like being yelled at and didn't want to sacrifice to be part of a losing team that nobody thought could ever win. Many a talented athlete would commute a half hour or more to a nearby school just to avoid playing there.
Coaching is teaching. It's also Xs and Os, as well as salesmanship. But more than that, it's building young men: building their characters, their bodies, and their confidence. The legendary coach I mentioned didn't do anything revolutionary: he ran the same single wing in the late 50s, the same wing-T in the 60s, and the same wishbone in the 70s that everyone else did at those times€, and to say they were one-dimensional is an understatement. His split 6 defense was no different than a million others out there, and though he had his share of standout players his teams were still mostly just a bunch of white country boys who liked to play football. But he was like a father to those boys and made them feel like men who could do anything if they just did what had to be done. These men would get together on their own to bust their tails year round just so they could get an edge and try to accomplish something on 10 nights in the fall.
To me, that is the epitome of the ideal HS coach. There were other coaches in the local area who won more games, but I challenge anyone to find a coach who made the sort of impact in the lives of his players and his community the way this man did. The void he left behind when he retired from coaching is also illustrative of just what it takes to be a good coach (all the things that were taken for granted with him suddenly became VERY apparent), as well as the impact a coach and football program can make on its community. With the new HS's team struggling, the whole town just lost its identity and still hasn't fully regained it, even as the wins have started coming back. They still talk of the legend of Coach Jay Salley.
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Jul 22, 2009 6:20:15 GMT -6
Bear Bryant said, "surround yourself with people who can't stand to lose."
A successfull coach could just be someone who has a tallent for selecting the right people and pointing them in the right direction.
A better title for this debate might be "What are the qualities in head coaches that most often lead to success?"
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 22, 2009 18:46:14 GMT -6
Good points by davecisar and coachd5085. Do you think the question is to large to get our hands around?
In a sense, isn't is like asking "how do you get rich"?
You can have a model to GET wealth that works. But that same model may not apply to KEEPING wealth....or even GROWING wealth.
First, don't we have to define what is "good"? Is it just W-L? If so/not, that would direct us to the appropriate quantifiable.
Second, how does one attain that metric? That would determine how you get to that point, and there may be possibly more than one way to get to that model.
Does it ultimately come back to fundamentals of the game as being the beginning and ending of successful coaching and successful football?
|
|