Does a Bad program = Bad Coaching?

there are many reasons that a program could be down IMO. It may be coaching, it may be a lack of numbers participating, no talent, no support, no work ethic, no strength program. I think these would be just a few reasons why a program is not very good. Each town seems to have its own MO.

A couple of thoughts:
1. Do they have a high turnover of coaches? The teams that are perennially bad around here do. One has
had 6 HCs in 10 years and another has had 4 or 5. At places like that there are usually other problems
namely parent problems and lack of administrative support.
2. Do they have athletes? The way to tell is by whether they win or are competetive, at least, in other
sports. Not the "country club" sports (golf, tennis, soccer), either, but in sports like basketball,
wrestling, and track.

I agree that in high school football, there will be some up and down years. However, you can always tell the well-coached programs from the poorly coached programs.

Spring Valley High School in Western Illinois is a great example of a "good" program. In 17 years, they have had only 1 losing season (and they were 4-5). There HAD to be years in which they had really weak teams, but the coaches managed to get the maximum potential out of their athletes and were able to get those teams to the playoffs. For a team like that, athletes do not determine success. It is largeley the coaches using a tried and tested winning formula and just plugging kids into that system every year.

Contrast that with a team that wins a state championship one year and then the next year, they are 1-8. In those scenarios, that success is largely athlete-driven and not related to "good" coaching.

IMO a bad program is one that doesnt put the TEAM before the individual (player, coach, or administration) and only looks at the W/L column. A good program creates positive experiences for the players, coaches, admin, and fans. When a player comes back years later and says Thanks for teaching me the life lessons i needed Coach...then you have a great program.

Coach,
It seems to me that bad programs continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Good programs do not. They learn from their mistakes and move on.

I agree with Saintrad as far as there being a lot of things that define a program besides just wins and losses. To me when we talk about a bad program we're not just talking about one or two losing seasons. Everyone has those, especially at small schools where the cycles are more frequent and talent pools more volatile. We're talking about a program that not only is a perennial loser it is a perennial underachiever - schools that either don't develop talent or lose with superior talent, schools that don't play hard and have a tradition of quitting when the chips are down.
When a program reaches that point there are a multitude of factors to blame, but one of them is certainly coaching.

I am also a firm believer that there are a lot of different facets of coaching and some coaches are better at certain facets than others. I've known coaches who were excellent at preparation and motivation and fielded excellent teams but were so poor in their in-game decision making that a smart coach could usually beat them in a big game, therefore their programs never really got over the hump.

Wow! I don't usually say this much.
Better shut up!

This gets to two interesting topics: signalling and self-fulfilling prophecies. A bad program probably indicates some bad coaching/administration along the way, but it is difficult to say where in the chain and if that is current. Plus, how does one get to be a "good coach" (measured by what?) if there is apathy among the program, the kids being turned out arent improved, no wins, etc. "Good coaching" is hard to define without some kinds of results. It's like describing a theory that is incorrect and serves no purpose as good--under what criteria? It sounds clever?

Anyway, the signalling is interesting because we use "success" as a proxy for intelligence, drive, etc because these are difficult to determine elsewhere. Good example is NFL hiring, if you're an assistant on a winning team, you are assumed to be a good coach. Is ti good players? Good support staff? Luck? All probably play a role. On the other hand, being part of a good HS or even NFL program may not be a testament to your innate abilities but rather what you probably gained from being a part of that, i.e. if you coached with Belichick you might be a regular joe but you probably picked up some things along the way. Thus people want to hire you, work for you, play for you, etc

Plus, "good coaching" and teams that are tough, hard nosed, disciplined, etc are easier to have with a history of success. Much of the best coaching is from the seniors down to the freshman. Turning a losing program around takes luck to have the right guys. Sometimes when things go downhill no matter how "good" you are you may not be able to fix things. You also might be "Good" for a certain type of kid or program, but it's just not a good fit. It's all tough to say.

I coached in a program last season that has had years of horrible statistics in the win loss colum. The Administration was the primary reason that the program suffers, the disipline comes from the Admin not the coaches, yes on the field we were in charge but if the kids did something off campus they were kept off the field, if some petty incident happened in school they were kept off the field, the community they live in is a street thug environment with little room for staying out of trouble and so if it was even insinuated that so in so was in the vincinity of the problem or had any knowledge of it they too were kept off the field. So it is really a shame that the kids that had the ability to do well suffered because every week 2-3 key players that practiced that week were kept from playing for some stupid reason that really didn't matter It's like the Admins way of running a legalized public juvenile hall. This program has suffered like this for years it has the ability to be a great program but not under the Administration it currently has. Thus no community support. In five yrs 1 kid got a partial ride to a div 3 school in 10 yrs only 3 kids got a look. This school hasn't graduated too many football players most of them have dropped out. This yr only 2 will graduate and don't have any desire in going to college.

don't underestimate the power that actual parents that have instilled a little work ethic in their kids has on a program

I think bad programs have weak/uninvested administrators more often than not...afterall, they chose the coach...and the one before that...and the one before that...etc. seems to me that if a school goes 20 years without winning that maybe someone needs to examine how coaches are selected, how much support and control the coaches are given. what are the expectations?...