|
Post by azvolleydad on Apr 2, 2019 15:20:29 GMT -5
If the coaches are the ones recruiting the talent, then they matter quite a bit. The study seems to have been done of pro leagues, which have an entirely different dynamic than college teams. Even pro players get recruited and at least part of their decision is based on for which coach they want to play.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 2, 2019 16:41:46 GMT -5
If the coaches are the ones recruiting the talent, then they matter quite a bit. The study seems to have been done of pro leagues, which have an entirely different dynamic than college teams. They say that college coaches play a bigger role in the final result than pro coaches. I agree with hammer that organization is key, but is that a function of the head coach or not?
|
|
|
Post by vbkahuna on Apr 2, 2019 17:08:31 GMT -5
Is this really a serious question? If it is, in the immortal words of John McEnroe: "You...cannot...be...SERIOUS!"
It's not just recruiting. It's not just game tactics. It's everything. Organization. Team culture. System. Recruiting. Player development. Etc. All of it. Few head coaches can do all of it well. But the best ones know how to get all of it done well (for example, by finding, grooming, and demanding excellence from great assistants, trainers, support staff, etc.).
Long-term winning programs are built, and sustained, by excellent head coaches. Any doubt about that can be seen when some previously great programs go into a long decline after the departure of the great coach (Exhibit A: John Wooden/UCLA basketball). There are many other examples in multiple sports.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 2, 2019 17:11:27 GMT -5
It also helps to have a Sam Gilbert.
|
|
|
Post by maɡˈnōlēə on Apr 2, 2019 21:42:13 GMT -5
They matter a great deal when you have a really good one or a really bad one. I have had both extremes, both my daughters each had some really good ones and some really bad ones too. ^^ this.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 2, 2019 22:09:13 GMT -5
I guess I've only had mediocre coaches my entire life, although there was one assistant coach in JV soccer I really liked. I hoped to become him someday. He always smiled and never lost his patience with us doofs. Whenever he saw me, he would always smile and say, "There he is! There's the man!"
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 3, 2019 12:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 3, 2019 19:40:51 GMT -5
Coaches in college matter more than pro coaches. Because in college they are the ones recruiting and bringing in specific athletes
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 3, 2019 19:57:06 GMT -5
Some coaches at some schools don’t really have to do much work recruiting players. *cough*stanford*cough*
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 3, 2019 20:36:07 GMT -5
We don't get them all, just 50% of the great ones.
|
|
|
Post by ned3vball on Apr 3, 2019 20:57:21 GMT -5
We don't get them all, just 50% of the great ones. After watching years of HS and D3, my goal is for the team to bring in 2 good players ever year. if you do that you can keep it going. I get the feeling that to play at the top level of D1 you do need more than that, you do need 50% of your players to be able to make it at that level, if you want to go to final 4s.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Apr 3, 2019 21:10:28 GMT -5
sloanreview.mit.edu/audio/how-much-do-coaches-actually-matter/?utm_medium=adv&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=counterpoints&fbclid=IwAR3cl12WDioGl5t4uORTKLE_FXjM6kuMAAAcSRcwBBwU30xn35kmiyS5EwYBill Snyder at Kansas State. Eddie Robinson at Grambling. Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Gregg Popovich with the Spurs. It’s hard to underestimate the impact these coaches have had on their organizations. But are coaches always an X factor? Just look at the Golden State Warriors. Dominating as they have been under Steve Kerr’s steady guiding hand, they have been every bit as successful — actually statistically even more successful — during Kerr’s two extended absences from the team when Luke Walton and then Mike Brown (not exactly Hall of Fame coaches) took the helm. Which brings us to the question of the day: How much do coaches actually matter? Well, two researchers from the University of Chicago just might have the answer.Their conclusions might surprise you, given the present day ethos. Their methodology takes a lot of getting used to and understand. Their conclusions didn't surprise me, but some of the responses here have. My impression is that the media likes a narrative where coaches are either irrelevant or geniuses that always win (or idiots that always lose) because, I guess, the reality that coaches make a significant though usually not dramatic difference is boring. Sigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 12:39:38 GMT -5
sloanreview.mit.edu/audio/how-much-do-coaches-actually-matter/?utm_medium=adv&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=counterpoints&fbclid=IwAR3cl12WDioGl5t4uORTKLE_FXjM6kuMAAAcSRcwBBwU30xn35kmiyS5EwYBill Snyder at Kansas State. Eddie Robinson at Grambling. Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Gregg Popovich with the Spurs. It’s hard to underestimate the impact these coaches have had on their organizations. But are coaches always an X factor? Just look at the Golden State Warriors. Dominating as they have been under Steve Kerr’s steady guiding hand, they have been every bit as successful — actually statistically even more successful — during Kerr’s two extended absences from the team when Luke Walton and then Mike Brown (not exactly Hall of Fame coaches) took the helm. Which brings us to the question of the day: How much do coaches actually matter? Well, two researchers from the University of Chicago just might have the answer.Their conclusions might surprise you, given the present day ethos. Their methodology takes a lot of getting used to and understand. Their conclusions didn't surprise me, but some of the responses here have. My impression is that the media likes a narrative where coaches are either irrelevant or geniuses that always win (or idiots that always lose) because, I guess, the reality that coaches make a significant though usually not dramatic difference is boring. Sigh. THIS. 1) There is an ENORMOUS difference between the pros and NCAA. Afa university athletics (which draw from high schools and clubs in our sport), a coach is a kinda surrogate parent, so to speak. The SAs are leaving home - for the most part - for the first time, pretty much. As was broached earlier, organization IS key in ANY high-level NCAA program. The coaches Are Critical to an SA's development; this comes through within the parameters/framework of "practice, practice, practice". 2) A great coach (or AC, in my case) is 'there' for the SA: particularly when they are Freshmen. I was a multisport letter winner in HS. I went to a D3 solely on academics (I was "recruited" for the team after acceptance). My coaches -- in HS, club and NCAA -- Were Crucial to my development: Both on AND off the playing arenas. Coaches matter!
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 6, 2019 13:04:13 GMT -5
Coaches matter. A group of talented athletes can have their abilities driven backwards when they have a dingleberry as their coach. See Karch
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 6, 2019 13:24:21 GMT -5
I was more interested that CEOs don't seem to matter to the success of their companies - at least statistically. Would seem to argue against their immense level of compensation, even if it is a function of the complexity of the problem they face.
I often see people draw correlations between sports and the private sector. I wonder how much of that is real.
|
|