|
Post by davishfc on Jan 15, 2014 18:29:27 GMT -6
Our Pillars of Success, essentially our values as a program, include: Commitment Discipline Effort Toughness Pride As a coach, if you lay out and commit to a set of expectations you have to remain disciplined and follow through on them. That'll definitely take effort and be tough at times. But in the end, you'll be able to take pride in what you've accomplished knowing you did it the right way. I think the article you listed is an important reminder of what I just stated. The author also brings up a great point that some of the basic expectations listed by the OP are things that you must do in order to stay out of jail in our society. That definitely makes you stop and think about legitimacy of those supposed values for a football program. Maybe more suitable for a corrections facility.
|
|
|
Post by CoachHess on Jan 15, 2014 19:05:14 GMT -6
How many times have us HS coaches, headers and asst's, been asked by a teacher/admin/parent etc. to take a kid under our wings and try to show them the light? Most of the time, it doesn't work out. But occasionally, good things happen and the kid figures it out. Has he ever broken any of Coach Strong's rules as a Cardinal football player? Before coming to campus, obviously not. He's still there (I think) so I assume he didn't while that staff was still at Lville. If it works out, you got a top notch running back and you look like a hell of a coach for straightening him out. If it doesn't, you boot him out of his 3rd program and move on.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 15, 2014 19:33:27 GMT -6
Hey, what do I know? I am a Bobby Bowden fan!
|
|
|
Post by 2adaysfootballcom on Jan 15, 2014 19:37:08 GMT -6
Is that what he did at Louisville?
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Jan 15, 2014 19:47:05 GMT -6
When all is said and done, I have one pillar. I labeled it "WIN." I also have a pyramid. Well...it's not fully assembled, but the one block that I do have in place is also labeled "WIN." Anyone or anything that gets in the way of that will be dealt with accordingly. Everybody understand? Goooooood. See you at practice. Now quick! Somebody go run and jot that down. It'll make you famous.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 15, 2014 20:00:24 GMT -6
Terry Bowden said I only have one rule. Never embarrass the program. If you have more rules the players will make you enforce them.
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jan 15, 2014 20:14:28 GMT -6
I like it. Whether you agree/disagree with some of the more "intense" punishments such as having a position coach run, you have to respect the expectations he is trying to build from the start. As a fan of college football I would rather him set the bar too high at a place like Texas rather than relying on the "this is how its always been done here" attitude that some other "big name programs" struggle with.
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Jan 15, 2014 20:27:04 GMT -6
I like that Coach Knight. Kylem, point made. Respect.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 15, 2014 20:35:50 GMT -6
Some of the stuff is awesome. Some a little crazy (position coach running).
But is this really much different than any other big time coach coming in? For that matter, is this much different from any good coach on just about any level when he takes over a program?
Something I have noticed that is UNIVERSAL on every new coach hire is within three months of the new hire the coaches and players all talk about how much harder the strength/conditioning program is now. It always sounds like the other coach didn't even know what a weight room was.
Talk is cheap. Doing it for a few months is cheap. The truly great coaches and programs do it and sustain it.
|
|
|
Post by maikaione on Jan 15, 2014 22:03:08 GMT -6
All of that happened before Dyer came to UofL. Now you can knock him for letting the kid into the program but as far as I remember Dyer had no issues at UofL. If people have an issue Strong letting him into the program I would hate to hear what you guys think of Tom Osborne (For the record I have always like Osborne and think he is a great coach and man). Exactly Coach. A leader sets standards and holds people accountable to them. What Dyer did prior to being subject to Coach Strong's standards is irrelevent to him playing for Coach Strong. Regardless of his past, Strong decided to give him an opportunity and certainly told him, "These are the standards. If you want to play here, you will meet these standards." Unless there is evidence to show that, after he was at Louisville and subject to Coach Strong's standards, Dyer violated the standards and Coach Strong tolerated it, this point is irrelevant. Coach Strong is empowering his assistants as leaders. They are responsible for ensuring those below them meet the standards as well. The assistants hold their players accountable to the standards and Coach Strong holds the assistants accountable. It's the leaders job to know his people and come up with a way to motivate them to accomplish their tasks. Coach Strong has apparently decided, based on his knowledge of his assistants, that making them run is a good way to motivate them to make sure they hold the players under them accountable. I imagine the effect it will have on the players, knowing that their coach is paying because they failed to do something as simple as show up to class, will go a long way to changing the behavior of the players as well. And that is ultimately what he is after. I imagine some of his assistants are probably saying things like "No way, this is juvenile!" And the first time one of them has to run will do wonders for team (players and coaches alike) discipline. As long as Coach Strong holds them to the standard when they let their players slip, it will be very effective. It telegraphs to everyone immediately, this is the culture, if you (players and coaches alike) don't like it, you are welcome to leave. Now, the earrings thing seems a little odd since it has nothing to do with character, but he set it as a standard so now he must enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 16, 2014 6:20:25 GMT -6
If you read the article I posted, that point was clearly addressed.
I will keep this simple. Michael Dyer has been kicked out of two schools. His first dismissal, was for a failed drug test at Auburn. After his dismissal, he testified in court after his gun was used by teammates in a robbery. A triple whammy for Charlie Strong’s core values. If this was the end of the story, perhaps, it would be easier to understand how Strong looked past Dyer’s questionable past—maybe it was a momentary lapse in judgment for the young man. Shortly after Dyer’s dismissal at Auburn, he ended up at Arkansas State. Before he played a single down, however, he was once again dismissed for similar issues. Dyer was pulled over at 2:20 a.m. for doing 96 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone. In the car with Dyer was weed and a pistol. If his issues at Auburn weren’t enough it would seem safe to assume considering Strong’s values that Dyer’s violations at Arkansas State would rule out any chance of Dyer suiting up in a Louisville uniform. Michael Dyer is a card now
I don’t mean this as an attack on Michael Dyer’s character—people make mistakes. I do, however, think that it’s wrong and worthy to point out when a coach lays out a set of laughably simple laws that his players must live up to only to disregard nearly every single one of these rules when a talented player falls in his lap thanks to issues with drugs, weapons, and connections to theft. No one told Strong that he had to make no guns, stealing, or drugs a part of his core values. When he explicitly stated that these things were his core values, I guess the cynic in me believed that the only reason he’d done something so obvious was because he was more against these things than even the rest of us. I guess you’re exempt from Coach Strong’s Five Core Value’s if you’ve been the MVP of the national championship. If people really paid attention or cared about contradictions or lies from college football coaches, I’d say that Coach Strong sacrificed a good piece of his integrity for Michael Dyer. But hey, the Cards got a good one.
|
|
|
Post by backercoach on Jan 16, 2014 6:56:22 GMT -6
I love it. Iron Fist, old school. The hell with this new aged America where you coddle these kids. He wants those kids representing a certain image of Texas Football. Clean Cut, good kids, who go hard and are held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 16, 2014 7:10:30 GMT -6
You can't sell "family" without including the coaches. It's a easy to preach about being a "family" when you don't bear some of the same consequences. It will resonate through the program if a position coach ever has to run for his positions screw up.
Nothing says "we're in this together" like throwing up on stadium steps along with your position group, I s'pose.
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Jan 16, 2014 7:11:37 GMT -6
once you start amending one rule, players are going to look at that and question it. That's when you get the 'well what about me', or 'what about this or 'what about that.' It could all be very minor. But what if it's not. It has the possibility to create dissension. At the end of the day, he has a lot of rules to uphold. Sometime you can spend more time and energy policing the program as opposed to advancing the program. So if I'm reading that right...you're saying if a coach lets one things slide...or makes an exception/excuse for one player, other players may try to replicate that situation to take advantage of the same "loop hole"? Like...one player doing his own work out at weights instead of the program's weight program. Like...player missing practice because ____________. Like...player behavior because of his home environment. Like...player skipping summer stuff, weight room or anything else where the team is suppose to be there. Preachin to the Choir here brother. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I've just run across so many guys that fail to see how little things like that can erode the continuity of a team's chemistry. An abundance of rules can sometimes be counterproductive. Done preaching
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 16, 2014 7:41:17 GMT -6
I love it. Iron Fist, old school. The hell with this new aged America where you coddle these kids. He wants those kids representing a certain image of Texas Football. Clean Cut, good kids, who go hard and are held accountable. I don't think those objecting to some of the things Coach Strong outlined are opposed to "old school, iron fist discipline." You can have that while trusting kids to live off campus and not having your position coaches running gassers.
|
|
|
Post by shocktroop34 on Jan 16, 2014 8:29:04 GMT -6
Well...for starters, we know that one of his "pillars" got caught being where it shouldn't have been.
|
|
|
Post by M4 on Jan 16, 2014 8:38:16 GMT -6
You're missing my point, too. You guys are creating straw man arguments. It's not the accountability, it's that the punishment seems rather non-constructive and juvenile. Isn't there something much more productive a position coach could be doing than running the steps of Darrel K. Royal Stadium? The WR coach's cardiovascular health isn't going to help the team win games. I don't think he is doing it as a punishment, I get the feeling that is in there to prevent the third time. I would say it is a preventative discipline policy. Not many college athletes that I know would want to suffer the aftermath of their position coach having to run. exactly my thoughts, its more of a statement then a punishment. I'm, sureStrong really doesnt care if his coaches run, more of a statement to the player that "hey if you f up a 3rd time your coach is gonna get punished for it and then who do you think is going to feel the backlash of that" do you want to be the guy who gets your positional coach in that much crap with his boss? and if it ever gets to the point of a coach running, well that's a HUGE statement to the team and the staff that eitehr A) this guy wasn't doing his job or B) this player is just not commmitted to the program as he has f'd up 3 times now and isn't getting the message Curious if a coach has ever had to run for Strong, if it ever got to the point.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 16, 2014 9:33:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ccoupelin on Jan 16, 2014 12:31:25 GMT -6
Sometimes a program is like your favorite movie...yea there might be have one or two scenes that you feel werent that great or that could have been left out all together, but that doesnt mean that it isnt a quality film. Maybe it will happen one day, but so far I havent been a part of a program that I felt did every single thing the way I would do it, but that doesnt make it an unworthy program.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jan 16, 2014 13:04:18 GMT -6
I take all of the this (OP and responses) as simply this:
-Strong was basically standing in the middle of main street letting everybody know there a new phuking sheriff in town.
Now any fan of good cowboy movies knows the scene well. Sometimes the sheriff has a Colt Walker, sometimes a Colt Dragoon. Sometimes he has a sawed off double barrel, some times a Winchester .45-70. Regardless of the tool of preference, it's a tool to represent change.
All HCs have their own line drawn in the dirt. Do all HCs have to have the same line, no.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 16, 2014 13:08:47 GMT -6
an his name is Charlie Strong!! As Right!
|
|
|
Post by IronmanFootball on Jan 18, 2014 7:41:48 GMT -6
Telling 21-23 year old kids that they have to move back into the dorms and making guys in their mid 50's run gassers seems to be overkill. You can have "high expectations" without these kind of things. all the more reason those 50 year old coaches need to hammer their players and check up on them before it becomes an issue I don't see how you'd get a player skipping class again after he made his whole position group run. Positive peer culture That's how I see it too. I don't accept tardies to class, to school is one thing (only have 2-3 kids on our team that drive themselves) but class? C'mon. We run for D's and F's, we run for tardies, and I expect position coaches to have the kids' cell # and check up on them.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jan 18, 2014 8:33:02 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough?
I also don't get the sitting in the front of class thing. If a kid attends class regularly and get good grades what does it really matter where they sit?
Other than that I think it was fine. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 18, 2014 8:51:55 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough? I also don't get the sitting in the front of class thing. If a kid attends class regularly and get good grades what does it really matter where they sit? Other than that I think it was fine. JMO. I see two reasons for the ear ring thing. Kids forget to take them out for practice. It is pretty standard rule about jewelry not being worn in practice. The other thing is earrings are small and easy for people to steal. If you don't allow them ever it keeps it simple. Cuts down lost and stolen jewelry and kids wearing bling in practice. The front of the class thing i get and I have heard a number of times. If you are in the front of the class it shows that more than likely you showed up on time. That professor isn't going to be real happy if you have to walk across the front of the room. Harder to goof off, not pay attention, play on your cell phone, and the list can go on. Yeah there are counter points to all of those things in both accounts but just in my POV that is where some of the rules are coming from. Someone brought up the living off campus and making exceptions. If you made an exception there then you have to start doing it other places. While in his statement he does not address married players he does address that there will be exceptions to that rule. So it is know from the beginning that if you want to live off campus you will have to do these things.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 18, 2014 9:59:55 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough? I also don't get the sitting in the front of class thing. If a kid attends class regularly and get good grades what does it really matter where they sit? Other than that I think it was fine. JMO. It's a lot harder to screw off when you're sitting right in front. It's also a lot easier for a coach to peek in to make sure that you're there.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 18, 2014 10:04:22 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough? I also don't get the sitting in the front of class thing. If a kid attends class regularly and get good grades what does it really matter where they sit? Other than that I think it was fine. JMO. It's a lot harder to screw off when you're sitting right in front. It's also a lot easier for a coach to peek in to make sure that you're there.
Also indicates interest in the class to instructor and other students can't say player was in a class of theirs but never saw him.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 18, 2014 10:09:08 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough? That is exactly the point though coach. Many just like you (but in positions of power such as perspective employers and such) also think it looks stupid. When I was coaching college ball I would constantly tell my position players (db's) about how they would be judged for things like tats, grills, earrings, hair etc. They would complain, and say "That's just me man, it's my personality" and I would reply "Yes, and that's just THEM. And unfortunately for YOU, their opinion of you means a lot more than your opinion of them at this point in your life" While it may be somewhat of an overkill, I think you are underestimating the academic desires (and abilities) of many if not most D1 and D1AA football and basketball players. It is often said that without football or basketball most of those guys would not be attending college. I believe that is correct, but often interpreted wrong. Many think it applies to the cost of the institution. I think it more accurately describes the dark secret that nobody ever wants to publicly admit when discussing college football and basketball. Most of those guys wouldn't choose to go to school/nor do they have the qualifications. The sitting in the front of the class thing is not only trying to lead the horse to water,it is trying to hold his head under the water and almost force him to drink.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jan 18, 2014 10:38:56 GMT -6
I just don't really get the earring thing. Do I have one? No. Do I think it kind of looks stupid? Yep. But I've also been out of HS for 25 years. Things change. I don't see the "harmful intent" on wearing one. I mean isn't the kid looking stupid punishment enough? That is exactly the point though coach. Many just like you (but in positions of power such as perspective employers and such) also think it looks stupid. When I was coaching college ball I would constantly tell my position players (db's) about how they would be judged for things like tats, grills, earrings, hair etc. They would complain, and say "That's just me man, it's my personality" and I would reply "Yes, and that's just THEM. And unfortunately for YOU, their opinion of you means a lot more than your opinion of them at this point in your life" While it may be somewhat of an overkill, I think you are underestimating the academic desires (and abilities) of many if not most D1 and D1AA football and basketball players. It is often said that without football or basketball most of those guys would not be attending college. I believe that is correct, but often interpreted wrong. Many think it applies to the cost of the institution. I think it more accurately describes the dark secret that nobody ever wants to publicly admit when discussing college football and basketball. Most of those guys wouldn't choose to go to school/nor do they have the qualifications. The sitting in the front of the class thing is not only trying to lead the horse to water,it is trying to hold his head under the water and almost force him to drink. All responses to my post I feel make valid points. I guess I personally tend to prioritize. I see drugs and behavior as a much greater priority than appearance. With that being said and since Coach Strong addressed drugs I would like to see where people stand on the following: Several months ago (maybe even a year by now) I saw a post in which their was an insinuation that smoking weed is not a big deal. In fact, it was even insinuated that it was not a big deal even at the high school level. I posted vehemently against this & to my shock many people echoed the statements of other posters that weed just isn't a big deal or priority we should concern ourselves with. I guess I feel radically different. Wondering how people feel about this topic now. I see many posting about the importance of not wearing an ear ring and seating charts, where do we stand on our youngsters smoking weed ? Not at all looking to fight or call anybody out, just curious about this contrast in light of the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 18, 2014 10:49:38 GMT -6
That is exactly the point though coach. Many just like you (but in positions of power such as perspective employers and such) also think it looks stupid. When I was coaching college ball I would constantly tell my position players (db's) about how they would be judged for things like tats, grills, earrings, hair etc. They would complain, and say "That's just me man, it's my personality" and I would reply "Yes, and that's just THEM. And unfortunately for YOU, their opinion of you means a lot more than your opinion of them at this point in your life" While it may be somewhat of an overkill, I think you are underestimating the academic desires (and abilities) of many if not most D1 and D1AA football and basketball players. It is often said that without football or basketball most of those guys would not be attending college. I believe that is correct, but often interpreted wrong. Many think it applies to the cost of the institution. I think it more accurately describes the dark secret that nobody ever wants to publicly admit when discussing college football and basketball. Most of those guys wouldn't choose to go to school/nor do they have the qualifications. The sitting in the front of the class thing is not only trying to lead the horse to water,it is trying to hold his head under the water and almost force him to drink. All responses to my post I feel make valid points. I guess I personally tend to prioritize. I see drugs and behavior as a much greater priority than appearance. With that being said and since Coach Strong addressed drugs I would like to see where people stand on the following: Several months ago (maybe even a year by now) I saw a post in which their was an insinuation that smoking weed is not a big deal. In fact, it was even insinuated that it was not a big deal even at the high school level. I posted vehemently against this & to my shock many people echoed the statements of other posters that weed just isn't a big deal or priority we should concern ourselves with. I guess I feel radically different. Wondering how people feel about this topic now. I see many posting about the importance of not wearing an ear ring and seating charts, where do we stand on our youngsters smoking weed ? Not at all looking to fight or call anybody out, just curious about this contrast in light of the thread topic. There are a lot of people in this forum. Are you sure that you're talking to the same people?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jan 18, 2014 10:58:04 GMT -6
All responses to my post I feel make valid points. I guess I personally tend to prioritize. I see drugs and behavior as a much greater priority than appearance. With that being said and since Coach Strong addressed drugs I would like to see where people stand on the following: Several months ago (maybe even a year by now) I saw a post in which their was an insinuation that smoking weed is not a big deal. In fact, it was even insinuated that it was not a big deal even at the high school level. I posted vehemently against this & to my shock many people echoed the statements of other posters that weed just isn't a big deal or priority we should concern ourselves with. I guess I feel radically different. Wondering how people feel about this topic now. I see many posting about the importance of not wearing an ear ring and seating charts, where do we stand on our youngsters smoking weed ? Not at all looking to fight or call anybody out, just curious about this contrast in light of the thread topic. There are a lot of people in this forum. Are you sure that you're talking to the same people? No Fantom, I did not mean to insinuate that either. My mistake if it came across that way. Not looking to fight either. Just curious. Like I said, a long time ago I got several responses that were dismissive towards weed being bad but today I got several responses that ear rings and seating charts are important. I am just curious about how those people who are posting on this topic now feel about kids smoking weed. It's clear how coach Strong feels about it as well as clear about how many of you feel about jewelry and such. I am just curious if the thread from way back was an anomaly or do many of us feel that ear rings and seating charts are more important than pot smoking? Not looking to judge or fight just CURIOUS. That's all. No other underlying motive. Thanks.
|
|