|
|
Post by fantom on May 3, 2011 9:56:56 GMT -6
"there are more good coaches than there are good programs". I see that on here fairly often. Yet the coach is responsible for building the program.
I believe that in most cases schools are similar to the other teams in their league in terms of school size and talent base. There certainly are schools that are so dissimilar to the other schools in their league that they're consistently at a huge disadvantage but I don't think that that's the rule.
I think that the biggest problem in "doormat" programs is coaching. The head coach may know what he's doing but he's surrounded by a weak coaching staff. I frequently read posts here from guys who seem to know their jobs but can't win and that seems to be the common thread.
I realize that upgrading the staff isn't easy in some places. Some schools are geographically isolated and don't have enough people to provide a wide base of potential coaches. Some are hampered by union hiring rules. There may be a meddling administration that insists on doing the hiring and firing of assistants. Upgrading there is hard.
But you must upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehoodie on May 3, 2011 10:18:59 GMT -6
Football coaching is one sport where you really need a team of great coaches to be successful. It's simply a matter of numbers, if you have 100+ players in your football program, 1 guy simply can't manage all those people. I've heard that a 1 to 6 ratio of coaches to players is ideal. It's just like in the classroom, when you get classes that are 30+, you simply are not as effective as a teacher than if you have 20 or lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanddecide on May 3, 2011 10:32:30 GMT -6
So how do you upgrade when....
1. There are no teaching positions?
2. There are higher profile programs surrounding your town that play in a higher division?
3. You have advertised everywhere (state association, state job board, websites, etc...)?
4. You have gone through all your contacts to make connections to potential coaches?
5. Local youth coaches are not necessarily an "upgrade"? (even as you try to develop some to be ready for high school ball at some point)
I agree Coach, to take the next step as a program you do need to upgrade. But when you've taken every avenue you can think of what else can you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 3, 2011 10:33:50 GMT -6
"there are more good coaches than there are good programs". I see that on here fairly often. Yet the coach is responsible for building the program. I believe that in most cases schools are similar to the other teams in their league in terms of school size and talent base. There certainly are schools that are so dissimilar to the other schools in their league that they're consistently at a huge disadvantage but I don't think that that's the rule. I think that the biggest problem in "doormat" programs is coaching. The head coach may know what he's doing but he's surrounded by a weak coaching staff. I frequently read posts here from guys who seem to know their jobs but can't win and that seems to be the common thread. I realize that upgrading the staff isn't easy in some places. Some schools are geographically isolated and don't have enough people to provide a wide base of potential coaches. Some are hampered by union hiring rules. There may be a meddling administration that insists on doing the hiring and firing of assistants. Upgrading there is hard. But you must upgrade. Good post. A couple of quick thoughts: 1.You can upgrade or you can develop. A HC's responsibility is as much about developing coaches as it is about developing players. 2. I'm not trying to incite a riot out here...but you said "I frequently read posts here from guys who seem to know their jobs but can't win and that seems to be the common thread." I think there is a HUGE difference between someone who "seems to know his stuff" and can talk a great game on a message board vs. someone who acutally understands how to run a program successfully. I think there are coaches who can diagram their a$$es off and spout rhetoric but fail when it comes to their own personal implementation. I'm a firm believer that a massive amount of a program's overall success hinges on the coaching. Too many people make excuses about the kinds of kids they get, the culture, etc etc etc... I know those are factors in SOME situations, but at the end of the day, YOU own that as the head coach. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 3, 2011 10:34:41 GMT -6
So how do you upgrade when.... 1. There are no teaching positions? 2. There are higher profile programs surrounding your town that play in a higher division? 3. You have advertised everywhere (state association, state job board, websites, etc...)? 4. You have gone through all your contacts to make connections to potential coaches? 5. Local youth coaches are not necessarily an "upgrade"? (even as you try to develop some to be ready for high school ball at some point) I agree Coach, to take the next step as a program you do need to upgrade. But when you've taken every avenue you can think of what else can you do? Develop them with the same rigor and care that you would use to develop your players. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 3, 2011 10:48:35 GMT -6
"there are more good coaches than there are good programs". I see that on here fairly often. Yet the coach is responsible for building the program. I believe that in most cases schools are similar to the other teams in their league in terms of school size and talent base. There certainly are schools that are so dissimilar to the other schools in their league that they're consistently at a huge disadvantage but I don't think that that's the rule. I think that the biggest problem in "doormat" programs is coaching. The head coach may know what he's doing but he's surrounded by a weak coaching staff. I frequently read posts here from guys who seem to know their jobs but can't win and that seems to be the common thread. I realize that upgrading the staff isn't easy in some places. Some schools are geographically isolated and don't have enough people to provide a wide base of potential coaches. Some are hampered by union hiring rules. There may be a meddling administration that insists on doing the hiring and firing of assistants. Upgrading there is hard. But you must upgrade. Good post. A couple of quick thoughts: 1.You can upgrade or you can develop. A HC's responsibility is as much about developing coaches as it is about developing players. I agree. When I say "upgrade" that includes developing the coaches who are already on the staff. It's no different than players. There are two-and only two-ways to upgrade: help the people you have get better or recruit better people. |
|
|
|
Post by CoachShig on May 3, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -6
Someone might know a ton of stuff, but if he can't communicate or get it across to someone else it makes it difficult to be successful. Also some coaches know a ton, but aren't good with the players and the players do not play to their full potential for the coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanddecide on May 3, 2011 12:03:29 GMT -6
Gotcha...I assumed you were only speaking of finding more qualified staff. As a coach who has gone through the struggle of hiring quality assistants I was curious about other avenues I hadn't explored.
Here's another part of it though....
If you struggle to hire, it's a challenge to fire. I've had some guys on staff that were less than committed. At practice and games in front of the kids they were fine. Behind the scenes they missed meetings, didn't do weight room, etc...
You can attempt to develop all you want, but eventually when it comes down to it coaches are adults and if they don't want to put in the hours they won't be around. Then you are stuck trying to hire in an area that is extremely hard to hire in. Now you are back in the cycle...you struggle to hire great/hard working coaches, so you hire a body. The body isn't willing to put in the work so you part ways. You struggle to hire a great hardworking coach.....and on it goes.
again, I agree. You need to upgrade the staff. You need to develop the staff. But it's not always something that can be done in a short time period and a lot of times it can take patience to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on May 3, 2011 12:13:00 GMT -6
Nice post Lochness. I agree with your points 100%. I believe a good coaching staff can go anywhere in the high school ranks and have consistent success. It is the job of the head coach to make sure that he has a good coaching staff. I think you hit in on the head with how a coach might develop a good coaching staff.
#1. Hire good coaches.
#2. Teach the coaching staff what you expect of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on May 3, 2011 12:42:09 GMT -6
I think it's possible to be a good on-field coach but also a poor leader. Some coaches make great assistants or position coaches but are not cut out for the head coach position.
Fantom I would argue that the biggest problem in these perennial "doormat programs" is a lack of strong leadership, not necessarily bad coaches. A successful head coach (i.e. leader) can get everyone to "buy in" and commit to the program and its goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 3, 2011 13:01:48 GMT -6
Although I agree that there are many factors involved in a successful program, you can't focus on what you can't control. You will start making excuses once you fall into that trap. I am in a tough spot right now but I have to dial in on the stuff that I can change. There are 'no-win' situations out there BUT some coaches look at all of the negatives and decide they are in one before actually putting their nose to the grindstone. They'll never really know if they could have gotten the program off of the ground or not.
Now, I have had a few rant threads pertaining to my current HC gig. However, I had to stop thinking about all of the things that were going wrong and focus on what I can make right. I'll lose my mind if I ponder of all of the issues out of my control. My bottom line is simple: if the program fails I'll keep the explanation pretty simple. I didn't get the job done. Because it really is that simple for me. I was hired to turn this program around and it's my fault if it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 3, 2011 14:05:31 GMT -6
I think the biggest no-win scenario that is beyond the coaching and beyond the control of the staff is LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT.
If this is the challenge you face, then my thoughts go out to you. There is nothing more detrimental to the consistent success of a football program than a crappy administration that doesn't care about / support football.
In that case, I do think it's very difficult to be consistently successful regardless of the skills and level of dedication of the coaches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2011 15:02:58 GMT -6
Don't forget the willingness of the asst. coaches to BE developed. Just got done at a place that was one of those perrenial losers, and we couldn't get coaches in. So, we tried to develp the ones we had, however they had job security, they knew there was nobody to replace them, so what incentive did they have to get better. They got some extra money for their time, they figured that was it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We had to keep these coaches, as the state mandates a coach to player ratio and we were actually below it with the ones we had. Very frustrating, and that was only part of the problem.
To say it is on the HC, is true though, b/c the old rule "don't go where you can't win" is ALL the HC's resp. If you're interviewing, you better be researching where you are interviewing, b/c once your hired it does become all YOUR fault, even though some things are outta your control. Good post loc!
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 3, 2011 15:03:52 GMT -6
I think the biggest no-win scenario that is beyond the coaching and beyond the control of the staff is LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. If this is the challenge you face, then my thoughts go out to you. There is nothing more detrimental to the consistent success of a football program than a crappy administration that doesn't care about / support football. In that case, I do think it's very difficult to be consistently successful regardless of the skills and level of dedication of the coaches. Several other coaches in the building blame the administration for the issues but I don't. They don't feel we have support; but we do. I just have to remind them that incompetent support is better than none at all. I have worked under nightmare ADs and ours isn't tbad. Just a little flaky sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbrek on May 3, 2011 18:59:16 GMT -6
Some coaches are so very lucky to have themselves surrounded with great motivated assistants.
The team that has won the last two AA titles here has thirteen coaches on Varsity.....thirteen, eight of them are volunteers.
The head coach got his old high school coach to come out of retirement who just happens to be a hall of fame coach and won 5 state titles of his own, who also got his son to help out.
I don't know who the special teams coach was but he was another volunteer who did a lights job with those kids.
Everyone exclaimed at how good the talent was on that team but they were not that talented in my opinion but they executed their way to back to back state championships.
The coaching on that team made them what they were.
Yet you have some coaches who are so stubborn and narrow minded they don't want many assistants and especially not volunteers.
|
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on May 3, 2011 19:32:38 GMT -6
I think coachb is right, it is always the head coach. No doubt there are some "lucky" head coaches out there who just stumble into a situation with a lot of highly motivated assistants who know their stuff. But most head coaches who have that did not just stumble into it. They probably did a great job of recruiting assistants but they also did a great job of developing and motivating them.
Maybe there are some situations out there that are impossible to turn around but more likely any program can become a winner with the right head coach. Whether its recruiting and motivating assistants, dealing with admin or recruiting players; there is a way to get it done. Knowing X's and O's matters but for the head coach, they do not matter nearly as much knowing how to identify the problem and fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 4, 2011 8:14:17 GMT -6
I wouldn't say that it's ALWAYS the HC, but the HC is the one that has to take responsibility for it. Like I said, there are things that are out your control that can ruin a program but you have to hammer the stuff you can control to try and make up for it.
Our big problem right now is academic eligibility; we have a lot of kids failing. This is something that I cannot directly control; the kids are either going to do their work or they aren't. The teachers are either going to be reasonable with their assignments or they won't. BUT, I can do two things to try and correct it:
1. Keep close track of all of the kids and get after them when their grades are slipping. I call their teachers and see what they need to do to get back on track. I can't really
2. I am trying to build enthusiasm for the program so that the kids WANT to keep their grades up.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwilliams2 on May 4, 2011 8:47:42 GMT -6
I know hiring a great staff is tremendously important, but so is hiring a staff who knows their role. Many coaches think they should be given a coordinator title just for showing up and doing the minimum, or becuase they ahve been there longer than anyone else.
A great staff needs a great leader at HC, good coordinators and the rest need to know their role (even if they have aspriations of moving up the ladder) and be an indian not try to be a chief.
They have to put their egos on hold and teach it the way the HC wants it taught. They should not come in every Sunday with a nwe offense or defense they just saw on Saturday watching college ball.
But for that too happen you have to have a great leader at HC who is honest and upfront about their roles and makes sure he hires people who can accept that role and will work hard at it.
My father coached for a long time, and he coached WRs in a run first offense. He had no aspirations of being an OC or HC but he just worked his tale off to get his kids better. He was a grumpy old man who didn't like kids outside his position group and did not offer very many opinions in meetings. He just went about his business and taught skills the way the HC wanted them taught and made his kids play hard. Nothing wrong with having guys who will fall in line.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on May 4, 2011 9:31:22 GMT -6
I think it's possible to be a good on-field coach but also a poor leader. Some coaches make great assistants or position coaches but are not cut out for the head coach position. Fantom I would argue that the biggest problem in these perennial "doormat programs" is a lack of strong leadership, not necessarily bad coaches. A successful head coach (i.e. leader) can get everyone to "buy in" and commit to the program and its goals. If he's not a good leader he's not a good coach. |
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on May 4, 2011 12:47:25 GMT -6
Gotcha...I assumed you were only speaking of finding more qualified staff. As a coach who has gone through the struggle of hiring quality assistants I was curious about other avenues I hadn't explored. Here's another part of it though.... If you struggle to hire, it's a challenge to fire. I've had some guys on staff that were less than committed. At practice and games in front of the kids they were fine. Behind the scenes they missed meetings, didn't do weight room, etc... You can attempt to develop all you want, but eventually when it comes down to it coaches are adults and if they don't want to put in the hours they won't be around. Then you are stuck trying to hire in an area that is extremely hard to hire in. Now you are back in the cycle...you struggle to hire great/hard working coaches, so you hire a body. The body isn't willing to put in the work so you part ways. You struggle to hire a great hardworking coach.....and on it goes. again, I agree. You need to upgrade the staff. You need to develop the staff. But it's not always something that can be done in a short time period and a lot of times it can take patience to get the job done. rideanddecide, I agree. This is the same point I made in another thread. The reality is, as a head coach, that your hands are tied when it comes to assistants meeting expectations. They have the ability, in a round about kind of way, to dictate the schedule and responsibilities they will take on...and you're right...at what point do you let them go when you can't find anybody else? We have a very difficult time finding coaches where we're at as well. They may not live up to the expectations but that doesn't mean I stop having those high expectations of my assistant coaches. We don't do that with the kids involved in the program and I certainly won't do it with the adults. So the emphasis has to be on development of coaches just like the players. However, this development takes time and sometimes, depending on when coaches come on board, you don't have that time to effectively develop. |
|
|
|
Post by tango on May 5, 2011 11:50:44 GMT -6
Administration has a lot to do with it. If they change the entire situation can change in a hurry. Like 5 principals in 4 years with new guidance consoler's. It is not always the coach but it is our job to make the best of it or get out. After getting fired once I will get out if certain promises are not met. I am pretty easy to get along with but now have a baseline to go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaysea40 on May 16, 2011 11:19:42 GMT -6
Great post! This is something we discuss regularly at our school.
Here is what we have come up with:
1. each school has its own problems -- you are competeing with other programs in-house or you don't get support from administration, etc
2. those coaches who are blessed with the better kids can often over-estimate their own impact on their programs -- just because you win does not mean you are a good coach
3. you can't make chicken soup out of chicken feathers -- I think that either coaching or kids will bump a team up a level and if you get a combination of the two you have a championship calibre team.
This is an interesting topic!
|
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on May 30, 2011 20:54:03 GMT -6
As far as upgrading is concerned, if you have the ability to pick the assistants (don't have to be a faculty teacher, etc.) I'd say hire former players, once enough time has passed to do so. They'll know how you want things taught and ran, and if they gave a crap when they played for you they'll probably still give a crap when they're coaching for you, and put in the work needed to become part of a high quality staff.
I work on a staff where the majority of the assistants played for the HC at one time, and there are very few issues with work ethic, not being able to tell somebody the truth to avoid hurt feelings, and all those little things that you always hear about that drag down staffs. Everybody knows each other, has for a long time, and has the same goals, so it works pretty well.
|
|
wicasa
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by wicasa on Jun 2, 2011 16:12:17 GMT -6
This is a very good thread as a fore-warning for young coaches. You might know the x;s and o's and organization and have your priorities in line, but without a staff on the same page it is a long haul. With the emphasis on "highly qualified" and administrators under the gun from N.C.L.B. expectations. the choice of assistants often doesn't exist. Especially at smaller schools where one often starts his career.
Sometimes you can re-educate an in place staff if you have the necessary charisma. Often though the assistant core that has been in place for years are home-boy oriented, each having their own beliefs. The mind-set is often,"back in 96 we did this", I saw a guy do that in this situation", Peabody U. runs this offense.
It is hard to find professional assistants, people who will sell out in the effort to promote the head coach's program and subserviate their own prejudices.
It is not only a matter of being at the right place at the right time, it is of an equal or greater importance to be surrounded by the right people. It is getting to be more difficult to accomplish this as often the time line for success does not offer the opportunity to fine tune the type of staff that would lead to success.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 2, 2011 21:28:29 GMT -6
Guys just a side note... I have been a part of a few programs that Bear Bryant himself would have had a hard time finding a win.
A lot on this board have been blessed to have never seen the insides of these types of situations. I know guys in the profession around here who have only heard stories because they have spent their entire careers in great programs.
Some programs are simply set to fail no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 3, 2011 14:20:07 GMT -6
I disagree that some programs are doomed for failure. I believe there are different challenges at every program. I coached in the lowest income area for 3 years in a program that was doomed. We went 3-7 the first year then adjusted to our surroundings. The next two years we went 17-4 and won a league title. Our staff ended up leaving for another doomed school in the suburbs that had won 25 perecent of their games since 2000. We have gone 22-9 and 16-5 in the last two years. The key is getting a staff on the same page that is willing to sacrifice time year round to build the progam. I think the hc is responsible for finding assistants that are willing to make this committment.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 3, 2011 14:45:36 GMT -6
I disagree that some programs are doomed for failure. I believe there are different challenges at every program. I coached in the lowest income area for 3 years in a program that was doomed. We went 3-7 the first year then adjusted to our surroundings. The next two years we went 17-4 and won a league title. Our staff ended up leaving for another doomed school in the suburbs that had won 25 perecent of their games since 2000. We have gone 22-9 and 16-5 in the last two years. The key is getting a staff on the same page that is willing to sacrifice time year round to build the progam. I think the hc is responsible for finding assistants that are willing to make this committment. At the risk of being a prick, you need to get out more and see what is REALLY out there... So you had great success at a place once deemed as desolate.. thats great... but believe it or not, there are schools out there who will NEVER be successful. I guess it all goes into how you define success, but at its present state... the school that I took my first head coach job at will NEVER go 10-0. And will probably never win more than 5. A. Socioeconomic make up is terrible. Very poor community school that has a very limited area to pull from. The ENTIRE area is in this poor demographic. B. There are SEVERAL other options that have now been opened up to these students as a better option both athletically as well as academically. Therefor even the "good" kids who actually live in that area are leaving the school. C. When you couple A and B together, there is no source of funding to improve upon the things needed to properly teach the game. Brophy can attest to this fact with his story of the 2 man sled which was mounted on the bottom of a car hood. D. The district as a whole just layed off 300 employees and a hiring freeze has been put into place. So the chances of finding quality assistants is down to zero. I could go on, but this school is set up to fail in athletics... just the way it is... And that is OK to about 95% of the people involved, because right now they are only concerned with keeping the state from taking over the school due to academic failure. Sad part is... this was THE football powerhouse in the 60's. But the socioeconomic make up has changed greatly and it has been on a steady decline ever since. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 3, 2011 17:51:43 GMT -6
many good points - we can't look for ways out of the role of leadership. It ALL, ultimately, is on the head coach.
The question is rather misguided, though. It assumes every situation is the same and that Coach Wonderful will be successful (W-L) no matter where he goes. Good coaches can improve every situation they are in......however, I'm not sure its fair to expect success out of a 1-9 program when that team resides in a conference with top notch coaches and programs already established.
Maybe the question should be do "good coaches" make bad career choices?
boiling it all down to the Head Coach would be a true statement........but it really would depend on just how much control that guy has. All things aren't equal in many parts of the country and applying one standard to all situations is a naive proposition.
If your HC doesn't have control over the schedule, staff, teacher course work, budget, player discipline.....just how much are you going to weigh that guy for cooking a lousy meal (when he never had the time to prepare or even buy the groceries)?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 3, 2011 21:27:05 GMT -6
many good points - we can't look for ways out of the role of leadership. It ALL, ultimately, is on the head coach. The question is rather misguided, though. It assumes every situation is the same and that Coach Wonderful will be successful (W-L) no matter where he goes. Good coaches can improve every situation they are in......however, I'm not sure its fair to expect success out of a 1-9 program when that team resides in a conference with top notch coaches and programs already established. Maybe the question should be do "good coaches" make bad career choices? boiling it all down to the Head Coach would be a true statement........but it really would depend on just how much control that guy has. All things aren't equal in many parts of the country and applying one standard to all situations is a naive proposition. If your HC doesn't have control over the schedule, staff, teacher course work, budget, player discipline.....just how much are you going to weigh that guy for cooking a lousy meal (when he never had the time to prepare or even buy the groceries)? I certainly agree that there are programs that have little chance for long-term success. Said so in my OP. I just don't believe that there are THAT many. In our ten team league there's one school that has struggled. They're just completely different from everybody else: it's a single-school, rural district whose administration has little idea what it takes to succeed athletically. In 20 years their best record has been 5-5 and they've had more coaches than I can remember. That place is just a graveyard. There are other schools that do not have those disadvantages, though, and still struggle. Those are the ones that I'm talking about and I think they're more comon than "graveyard" jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jun 4, 2011 6:45:35 GMT -6
To be sucessfull you need 3 things:
1) talent
2) adim support
3) facility
With these three things you can win I belive 1&2 are most critical. Football is the ultimate team game, 1 or 2 kids can make the difference between 5-5 & 7-3 or 8-2. Having admin on your side giving you not only the resoucres but the freedom needed to run a good program is critical.
Facilities are a bonus they help draw interest, they are a tool you use.
|
|
