|
|
Post by mariner42 on Sept 7, 2009 20:33:23 GMT -6
Just finished reading a fun book called Freakonomics (link: www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376634&sr=8-1). One of the interesting topics explored was the effect parents have on their kids, which the author basically distilled to this point: Good parents are the ones who have put themselves into a situation to be good parents (good job, education, etc) whereas bad parents typically put themselves into a situation where they had a hard time succeeding (single parent, low pay, etc). This falls in line with other such wisdom that I've heard, which is that generally, if it's your desire to be a good parent, you will be. This got me thinking about us as coaches and how we approach our profession. Most of us will agree that football, for the vast majority, is an extension of the classroom in that we use it to teach lessons and values and develop character traits within our boys. My question is this: Do you think it's more important to be a coach with character, with the idea being that your good character will influence your boys, or to coach character, with the idea that you're going to make your boys have good character? I think it's an intricate distinction, but kind of important nonetheless. I'd like to hold off on my thoughts because I'd like to see what a few other people think first. So, whatcha think? |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Sept 7, 2009 21:02:54 GMT -6
This got me thinking about us as coaches and how we approach our profession. Most of us will agree that football, for the vast majority, is an extension of the classroom in that we use it to teach lessons and values and develop character traits within our boys. My question is this: Do you think it's more important to be a coach with character, with the idea being that your good character will influence your boys, or to coach character, with the idea that you're going to make your boys have good character? I think it's an intricate distinction, but kind of important nonetheless. I'd like to hold off on my thoughts because I'd like to see what a few other people think first. So, whatcha think? You coach with character. As soon as you try to MAKE others do something, you are asking for trouble. However, when you can exemplify what is right... you don't have to make anyone do anything, your actions provide all the necessary convincing. Making someone do something, is temporary and external. Having someone believe in what you are doing is intrinsic and life altering. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 7, 2009 21:05:00 GMT -6
Using your example, do people train their kids to show them "how good of a parent they are"?
Being a consistently sound and successful football player is impossible (imo) without having or displaying "good character". However, it is a by-product, not causation.
If you are in the weight room, doing your 1/11th on the field, challenge yourself to get better, and listen to your coach.....uh, you can be a turd, but if you do THOSE THINGS, you are exhibiting "good character".
If you do those things, we'll win football games. We don't start games with choir boy bible quizes on the 50 yd line.
As a side note, I read Freakonomics, and I don't recall the self-righteous Ayn Rand "exceptionalist" tone you're alluding to here.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Sept 7, 2009 21:11:08 GMT -6
Using your example, do people train their kids to show them "how good of a parent they are"? Being a consistently sound and successful football player is impossible (imo) without having or displaying "good character". However, it is a by-product, not causation. If you are in the weight room, doing your 1/11th on the field, challenge yourself to get better, and listen to your coach.....uh, you can be a turd, but if you do THOSE THINGS, you are exhibiting "good character". If you do those things, we'll win football games. We don't start games with choir boy bible quizes on the 50 yd line. As a side note, I read Freakonomics, and I don't recall the self-righteous Ayn Rand "exceptionalist" tone you're alluding to here. Wait a minute... Are you saying there are some bad parents with good jobs and good education? Or are you saying that good parents aren't interested in being labeled as good parents, but more so in the maturation of their youth? Poor parents can't be good parents? Its all about the money? What are you saying man? |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 7, 2009 21:24:05 GMT -6
Hill laurence
In the question of A or B, I say neither. Be a competitive football coach, and that other stuff will take care of itself without a willful attempt for stroking.
How do you make a steak taste better? Ketchup or A1? Neither, prepare and cook the damn thing the way its supposed to be done, and you won't have to spend needless energy garnishing charcoal.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Sept 7, 2009 23:02:54 GMT -6
As a side note, I read Freakonomics, and I don't recall the self-righteous Ayn Rand "exceptionalist" tone you're alluding to here. Not being defensive, but could you point me towards what you're referencing? I could be explaining myself poorly or inadequately and I'd like to avoid that if possible. I suffer from the frequent problem that whenever I put pen to paper, it makes great sense to me but not necessarily others. |
|
|
|
Post by coach4life on Sept 8, 2009 0:10:24 GMT -6
Very graceful reply to Brophy (for whom I have great respect). As to your question, it's both, with the caveat that you can't make anyone else something (i.e. a person of character) that they don't want to be, you can only offer them the opportunity to see what they could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 8, 2009 7:21:57 GMT -6
I could be misinterpreting but I take the original post to be about a choice (or preference) between do as I say or do as I do. In that case, do as I do always is the most important, and then the do as you say should fit your style. Some guys are naturally preachy and it works; others less so, and do it in more subtle ways. In either case what you say won't be as effective if the kids don't see it in you. But I would throw in the caveat that some of the best coaches I've been around always seemed to know how to reinforce good character with some choice words, something I have never been great about (I am one of those who feels self conscious being too "preachy," but that's just me).
In terms of the parent thing I think the insight is supposed to just be the simple idea that you are more likely to succeed if you are in position to succeed, though with the rich parent/poor parent sometimes that is more a factor of luck or other factors. Also there probably is, at the margins maybe, a factor where people who are wealthy because of their own efforts are maybe also more effective at most tasks, including parenting. Or certain people who are very poor (I'm not talking middle class), may have certain self-defeating habits. But I don't mean to generalize, just picking out things at the margin.
More likely the issue is just the situation is simpler. If you are limited in resources, have to work multiple jobs, and receive little support from family or a spouse, it is more difficult to do all the things you need to do. That said, rich parents have a plethora of ways to screw up their kids (and success can be measured in different ways -- the rich parent may beget a rich kid who is nevertheless morally bankrupt, again this is all overgeneralizing).
Anyway I probably said some dumb stuff, just some interesting thoughts.
|
|
