I’ve had this discussion with a number of people over the years and I think it’s largely dependent upon the level at which the coach is coaching. For the purposes of this post I’m going to focus on intercollegiate coaches because I think there are a number of unique factors that come into play when evaluating success at this level.
As a child growing up I was inspired by great coaches from movies and television shows. Mick convincing Rocky that he could beat Apollo Creed, the David vs. Goliath story of Coach Norman Dale leading Jimmy Chitwood and the Hickory Huskers to the State Championship, and Herb Brooks inspiring a group of young men and a nation in Miracle are just a few of my favorites. In most of these films the coach was an incredible motivator. I think at the root of any successful program, regardless of sport, there is a coach who has an innate ability to inspire their athletes and get them to “buy in” to his/her program.
Sometimes in college coaching this essential trait is overlooked. Hires are made based on one’s ability to “recruit” (which sometimes involves stretching the rules), a person’s past athletic glory, as well as their connection to the program. I realize there are fiscal incentives to put a winner on the field, and completely understand why athletic directors and other administrators often go this route when making hires. That being said, it still bothers me when a successful athlete (but unqualified coach) is selected for a job. There have been plenty of ex-players who have gone on to become great coaches, so I don’t want to paint everyone with the same brush here; however I don’t think one’s potential as a coach can be judged solely by their talents as an athlete.
It’s easy to judge a program based on wins and losses, but I don’t think this tells the whole story. As a college coach is it your duty to win at all costs? Or is it to help mold young men and women into productive members of our society?
Nowhere in college sport is this issue more prevalent than in Men’s Basketball. During its early years players were required to complete their four years of eligibility before being drafted in the NBA. During the 1970s this changed and players began to forgo college and jump straight into the professional ranks. The first of these players was former Philadelphia 76er Moses Malone who was initially drafted in the ABA. We all remember players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and LeBron James who decided they’d go pro after high school and have become successful in the NBA. Everyone forgets about (or hasn't heard of) the countless other players who elected to go that route and went undrafted (and were unable to go back to college). Since 2005 the NBA requires first year players to be at least 19 years of age and at least 1 year removed from high school. I really don’t think this rule helped the situation any. Now we have high level athletes going to college for 1 year on a full scholarship, then dropping out of school and entering the draft. This is definitely the “win at all costs” mentality, and it puts people in the seats, so does it really matter what happens to these kids afterwards? If you only have these players for a year or two how much “coaching” are you actually doing? I guess it all depends on how we define the word…
I’ve always thought that a good coach is someone who can get the most out of their athletes. One who provides the training and motivation for consistent improvement and also helps prepare their athletes for life after the sport. It’s definitely more than just x’s and o’s. Your job requires more than just writing training programs and giving motivational speeches before games and meets. There’s definitely a “role-model” component that has become lost in contemporary sport (thanks Charles Barkley) that I think coaches should aspire to. This doesn’t mean your athletes must follow in your footsteps, it just means that you help provide them with the tools to make their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment