Response to: What Makes a Coach a "Good" Coach?

Two weeks ago I posted a blog about the role coaches play in college sport.  I've received a few emails (thanks for the comments!) about this entry so I decided to address them here...

1)  I'm in no way taking the tee-ball approach of "don't keep score" and "everybody's a winner".  I most certainly enjoy winning and I believe it's a part of a successful program.  However I don't think it should be the central focus.  Instead it should be a byproduct of the process.  Getting your athletes to "buy in" and believe in this process will set them up for success both during and long after their time competing.  Establishing an environment of excellence where athletes are expected to excel on and off the field creates more winners than losers.

2)  I think it's important to differentiate between a good "coach" and a good "recruiter".  Good recruiting can make a mediocre coach look great.  Similarly, poor recruiting can make good coaches go unnoticed.  In college coaching recruiting is just as important as developing talent (I'm not denying that).  Everyone has a different genetic ceiling, and it's much easier to win when you're playing with a stacked deck. 

What's More Impressive? The 4:05 High School Miler who becomes a 4:02 College Miler or the 4:30 High School Miler who becomes a 4:07 College Miler?

Coaches who are able to develop athletes and help them to reach their full potential are sometimes more impressive than coaches who have athletes on the podium at National Championships.  In track and field it's easy to think of some programs as being better than others based on Wins and Losses, but there are other factors contributing to their success (or lack thereof).  In cross country this question always comes up...How many scholarships have you invested in your distance runners?  Do you support a full track and field program (sprints/jumps/throws)?  Again, some teams have a clear competitive advantage...

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that judging a coach purely on their competitive record can be a bit misleading.  There are good and bad coaches everywhere.  Just because a person is coaching a Division I program doesn't mean they're better at developing talent than a Division III Coach.  Teams that have had success based on how many games or titles they have won aren't necessarily coached by the best "coaches".  They could just be playing the game with a competitive advantage (better recruiting, more scholarship allocation, etc).