|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 23, 2006 10:57:02 GMT -6
Seems like most agree that it doesn't matter if you played in college or what not...
So what relevance DOES playing experience have on a coach's qualifications.
If I listed (starting or backup reserve) DI National Championship team member on my resume, versus DIII intramural basketball, would it speak to my abilities of coaching football?
Is it assumed that I have a better concept of the inner-workings of coaching duties or football strategy per se?
Or does it just make me APPEAR to be more qualified by the level I have been associated with?
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jun 23, 2006 11:38:41 GMT -6
I think it's all about perception. Again I didn't play college ball so maybe I'm biased and I'm a young coach so maybe I don't know any better but I feel that I'm going to become a great football coach regardless of the fact that I didn't play football in college. I think that it can be an advantage to have played at a high level because obviously you can pick up from some great coaches but that can only take you so far. I do believe its unfortunate that having played in college means more to a college program than having had success for many years at the high school level.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachnicholson on Jun 23, 2006 12:06:48 GMT -6
It should not be this way but there are a couple reasons why having played college football can land you a job over someone who may be more qualilied that didnt play college ball.
First and foremost...the "good ole boy" system! If you played college ball then you know Coach "Jon Doe" who just happens to know Administrator "Jane Doe" who also happens to be close friends with AD "Jimmy Doe"! You get the idea!
Secondly having played college ball looks flashy on a resume. It seems like many ppl who do the hiring of coaches put more merit into someone typing (I played at Blank State University) than they do the actual coaching abilities of the person applying for the job.
Its not right but unfortunately its the way it is!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachnicholson on Jun 23, 2006 12:10:01 GMT -6
Also, learning from college coaches while playing college ball is great but IMO you just cant beat actual coaching experience!
For example:
Lets say player X has just graduated from and played college football at a big ten university. Player X applies for a coaching job after leaving college.
Coach A who has 5 years of coaching experience at the high school level but no playing experience on the college level applies for the same job.
Now who do you think would be more qualified for a coaching position? IMO its a no brainer...the guy with 5 years coaching experience would have to be the pick for the job.
But...it seems many administrators and so on just dont see it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachnicholson on Jun 23, 2006 12:18:55 GMT -6
And while im on my soapbox...just b/c a person didnt have the size and/or ability to play college ball does not mean he isnt a great coach! This may sound arrogant, but, I would feel perfectly comfortable comparing my coaching abilities to those of many guys who hold D1A coaching jobs simply b/c they were fortunate enough to play D1A college ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jun 23, 2006 12:21:34 GMT -6
I took calculus in college...that doesnt make me qualified to teach it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on Jun 23, 2006 13:12:32 GMT -6
Playing football in college is kind of like being an intern in the real world. You are exposed to the game. But you may be caught-up just playing it - and you may not absorb much. You may be the type who lives in the film room or your coach's office - and you may learn a lot. Or you may be more worried about lifting and not get much learning done.
The playing part is only the begining. Just like an intern, the real learning is done after you graduate. How much time is spent listening vs. talking, time studying film, time talking to college coaches, time spent at clinics, time spent reading, time reviewing plans and how they worked - that is the real education of a coach.
And that is the sad part. Many coaches go about their jobs without learning anything on their own (especially the young ones from what I see). So many guys get caught up in techniques they were taught as a player, or learn one way of doing things - and they stop learning. Then they start talking. And they don't stop talking.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachnicholson on Jun 23, 2006 14:48:41 GMT -6
How much time is spent listening vs. talking, time studying film, time talking to college coaches, time spent at clinics, time spent reading, time reviewing plans and how they worked - that is the real education of a coach. AMEN BROTHER! |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jun 23, 2006 15:09:43 GMT -6
Being an ex college football player might help you get HIRED, but it won't keep you hired if you flat out can't coach.
Whether it's on your resume or during an interview, being able to say you played college football has some value - for a young coach. If you don't have coaching experience to "Sell yourself" to whoever is doing the hiring, then of course you're going to stress the fact that you were either a big time starter/player, or at worst a letter-winner / student of the game.
Just because you played college football (I did - NAIA) doesn't automatically make you a good candidate to coach. My resume addresses my college playing days in 1 line, at the very bottom, after the body of my information which points out my 20+ years of high school and college coaching.
But, by being an younger, ex player, you automatically have at least one more reference to give a prospective employer. Either way, focus on your strengths and don't obsess about something that shouldn't even matter. Also, be careful about fudging on your resume - George O'Leary got bounced out of the Notre Dame job for saying he (among other things!) lettered on his college football team when he hadn't. Now he has landed on his feet, but oh the embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Jun 23, 2006 15:49:53 GMT -6
on paper it looks good, but what if really comes down to is your ability to teach the kids what you know. One of my biggest pet peeves with coaching is any coach who does not take advantage of learning situations to improve themselves as a coach. i.e. we live 25 min. from a very good div II school and we have coaches who will not go with us to their spring practices, will not go to any clinics that we pay for, etc... frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 23, 2006 20:30:26 GMT -6
There is more to coaching than just knowing the game from college level playing experience. You have to be able to TEACH a player the game and it intrinsics. Anyone can sit down and learn the ins and outs of the game using a little dedication, but imparting that knowledge onto the kids takes work.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 23, 2006 20:39:05 GMT -6
A lot of the coaches I know that playec college ball struggle a little bit their first few years of coaching. A lot of these guys where very good athletes that learned skills quite easily when they were on the field. They have a very hard time being patient with the players and forget that these kids are no where near as talented as they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jun 23, 2006 21:02:16 GMT -6
Just because a guy didn't play college ball doesn't mean that he can't coach, this is a no brainer. ;D However, (everything being equal, intelligence, desire, etc) if a guy has played college ball in a good program and PAID attention to DETAILS, he has a great advantage over a guy who has only played high school, I think your fooling yourself if you think otherwise (remember, everything being equal other than exposure) ;D. Being exposed to great coaches for hours daily over a period of years is an internship rich in knowledge, learning to teach it is what I assume the guy is going to school for if he is going to be a teacher. Sure, there are guys who are students of the game, but the college player has the advantage in going to his coach any day of the year and asking questions, whereas the non player (coach) has to pay to go to a clinic to hear the same coach speak for an hour, not nearly the same. Just guessing on the math of fall football/spring football times 4/5 yrs, its probably around 2000-2500 hours of "internship" from the best in the business. Now, having said all that, if the college player is just a player and not a student of the game, then there isn't an advantage.  |
|
|
|
Post by SAcoach on Jun 23, 2006 21:06:37 GMT -6
From the Finding the Winning Edge  Considering Former Players as Assistant Coaches As the head coach, you must not assume that a popular, serious-minded, energetic former player will naturally make a good coach. Many people mistakenly believe these individuals are always ideal candidates for coaching positions. Such a scenario is not always the case, however. Even if he possesses excellent social skills and was an outstanding player, he may not have the teaching skills necessary to be an effective coach. The point you must keep in mind is that if you hire such an individual to be a position coach, you must establish procedures that enable the more experienced members of your staff to monitor this person's work. Even if your new assistant played for a number of years in the NFL (i.e., ten or more), his experiences will not immediately translate into coaching competence. Except in very unusual circumstances, these individuals have not yet learned to organize their thoughts, teach in an appropriate sequence, and recognize and work with the shortcomings of less-gifted athletes. Former-players-turned-coaches often assume that a team's current players think and respond as they would. As such, these coaches do not always appreciate the importance of the long-term development of a less-talented player. Former players who are new assistant coaches also tend to become too familiar with their players. As a result, they often establish relationships similar to those that they enjoyed with their former teammates. In addition, some of these individuals are often shocked by the daily work schedule expected of an assistant coach. On the other hand, individuals who were back-up or short-term NFL players often possess innate teaching ability. Throughout the NFL, examples exist of outstanding coaches who never played a down in the NFL. Except in very unusual circumstances, these individuals have not yet learned to organize their thoughts, teach in an appropriate sequence, and recognize and work with the shortcomings of less-gifted athletes. Former-players-turned-coaches often assume that a team's current players think and respond as they would. As such, these coaches do not always appreciate the importance of the long-term development of a less-talented player. Former players who are new assistant coaches also tend to become too familiar with their players. As a result, they often establish relationships similar to those that they enjoyed with their former teammates. In addition, some of these individuals are often shocked by the daily work schedule expected of an assistant coach. On the other hand, individuals who were back-up or short-term NFL players often possess innate teaching ability. Throughout the NFL, examples exist of outstanding coaches who never played a down in the NFL. Men such as Marv Levy, Chuck Knox, Al Davis and Dick Vermeil were excellent college athletes who, for one reason or another, never became professional players. Enormously talented and successful head coaches like George Seifert, Don Coryell, Mike Holmgren and even Vince Lombardi molded their skills through years of experience as assistant coaches. |
|
