|
|
Post by eaglemountie on Mar 24, 2019 9:08:49 GMT -6
In your experience and opinion which of these is the most important in maintaining long term success as a program? (Success defined as winning, championships, player retention, putting players into college level programs, representing the school and community with integrity, etc.)
***EDIT: Add write in votes for Admin/Community Support.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2019 9:55:53 GMT -6
I think number 1 (depending on the definition) is what leads to number 2 on a long term basis. However, as tothehouse can tell you, a shift in demographics leading to less players, or a community that undermines number 1 will result in less success. Also, I think that the terms used in the poll make it kind of tough to answer. Program standards and culture/importance of football IS COACHING! It is every bit coaching as being innovative and running 17 versions of Power. I just think it is hard to separate things based on the terms you chose. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2019 11:05:38 GMT -6
If the man at the top is seriously,in any way, deficient, the program is in trouble. And the program is headed for a restart. Going for round 4 grad/1862/GYFS ? I will say your posts have been much more coherent recently. I appreciate being to actually comprehend your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 24, 2019 13:43:47 GMT -6
I think the phrasing to the options sways it to answer 2, specifically because it reads "...overall talent". If long term your overall talent is superior then you will have long term success.
Now, if you are implying 'overall talent' just means 'natural athletic ability' then that may sway the vote to another direction. Similarly, if you are implying that 'culture' (#1) includes weight room and thus develops overall talent then it may sway it.
But as for now, answers 1 & 3 are those factors that develop the factors which win, #2 contains the actual final lag measure. I don't know if thats what is meant, but by how I read it, #2 (having more overall talent) is clearly the choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Mar 24, 2019 20:47:48 GMT -6
We had #2. Which led to more #1. Which was all about #3.
#2 all but disappeared because of massive enrollment drop and schools lack if vision regarding league placement. This led to less #1. Lots of losing and school not caring about losing happening. And then the reverse of #3 happens. You lose coach(s).
To get it all back? Need a proven winner. Can't just hire "some guy". Going through that now. Ain't gonna happen with "some guy". Need the dynamic dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 24, 2019 20:49:56 GMT -6
I think number 1 (depending on the definition) is what leads to number 2 on a long term basis. However, as tothehouse can tell you, a shift in demographics leading to less players, or a community that undermines number 1 will result in less success. Also, I think that the terms used in the poll make it kind of tough to answer. Program standards and culture/importance of football IS COACHING! It is every bit coaching as being innovative and running 17 versions of Power. I just think it is hard to separate things based on the terms you chose. I see player development as related to #1. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2019 20:57:04 GMT -6
I think number 1 (depending on the definition) is what leads to number 2 on a long term basis. However, as tothehouse can tell you, a shift in demographics leading to less players, or a community that undermines number 1 will result in less success. Also, I think that the terms used in the poll make it kind of tough to answer. Program standards and culture/importance of football IS COACHING! It is every bit coaching as being innovative and running 17 versions of Power. I just think it is hard to separate things based on the terms you chose. I see player development as related to #1. Agree. All of these are connected, and to be honest that is why I think eaglemountie 's poll is very subjective. If the poll choices would have been : 1) Having a high number (95+%) of kids attending all of the work outs and practices over a 4-5 year span 2) Having a high number of kids playing of Div 1 football 3) Having detailed and complex schemes It might have been more clear cut. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 25, 2019 3:18:03 GMT -6
I voted 2 but my write in is community/admin support because if you have it then it comes down to coaching.
I can’t say we have the admin support we want but we do have the community. So we don’t have to chase kids down to come lift in the summers or come to practices. That makes it easy to develop talent year round.
|
|
|
|
Post by doitforthekids on Mar 25, 2019 4:48:08 GMT -6
All of them! Everything has an impact, you must establish and develop your program in every way or you will fall short.
|
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 26, 2019 7:46:35 GMT -6
I also see the second choice, player development, related to culture. However, if you get your players playing for each other as a family I have seen less talented teams out perform and beat more talented teams without culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 26, 2019 9:39:27 GMT -6
Bear Bryant said, "Football, more than any other, is a coach's game."
The most consistently successful - sustained, not just for a short burst - HS programs I have seen had stability on their coaching staffs, HC and assistants.
You can't have player development without good coaching.
Even your best players will only be around for four years. Hopefully if you're a HC you'll retain good coaches for much longer. I also remember him saying in a book by or about him "one good coach is equal to five good players." |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 26, 2019 9:41:08 GMT -6
I see player development as related to #1. Agree. All of these are connected, and to be honest that is why I think eaglemountie 's poll is very subjective. If the poll choices would have been : 1) Having a high number (95+%) of kids attending all of the work outs and practices over a 4-5 year span 2) Having a high number of kids playing of Div 1 football 3) Having detailed and complex schemes It might have been more clear cut. Is having a detailed and complex scheme the same thing as coaching/scheme? I don't feel they are one in the same. |
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Mar 26, 2019 11:59:35 GMT -6
I think number 1 (depending on the definition) is what leads to number 2 on a long term basis. However, as tothehouse can tell you, a shift in demographics leading to less players, or a community that undermines number 1 will result in less success. Also, I think that the terms used in the poll make it kind of tough to answer. Program standards and culture/importance of football IS COACHING! It is every bit coaching as being innovative and running 17 versions of Power. I just think it is hard to separate things based on the terms you chose. I agree with this. It almost seems like the poll question needs the phrase "all other things being equal ..." If everybody has roughly similar talent, coaching can make the difference. If the level of coaching competence is generally the same, the guys with better players is going to win. And, as a few others have mentioned, all three factors are connected, and ... because coaching impacts the other two, and in many cases is impacted by the other two ... impossible to separate. Which is why there are no right or wrong answers here. |
|
