|
Post by oldman on Apr 6, 2019 14:39:45 GMT -5
I thought you were a polymath No. He's from California. Polymaths are from those small Utah towns. Duh. Or is the short version Cal Poly
|
|
|
Post by Mark Richards on Apr 6, 2019 15:15:33 GMT -5
Anybody who see's a coach as parental unit or a role model is a loser.
|
|
|
Post by dc on Apr 6, 2019 15:57:18 GMT -5
Anybody who see's a coach as parental unit or a role model is a loser. If a coach can't qualify to be a role model, can anybody? Why can't a coach qualify to be a role model?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 6, 2019 17:25:33 GMT -5
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!So do writing instructors!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 6, 2019 17:30:09 GMT -5
Anybody who see's a coach as parental unit or a role model is a loser. 👎
|
|
|
Post by vbkahuna on Apr 6, 2019 17:42:25 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. I can see that you've never been a CEO and only have a vague notion of what they do.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 6, 2019 19:04:19 GMT -5
So do writing instructors! REPORTED In line with the topic of whether coaches actually matter, you are as predictable as Karch's offense.
|
|
|
Post by maɡˈnōlēə on Apr 6, 2019 22:47:33 GMT -5
In line with the topic of whether coaches actually matter, you are as predictable as Karch's offense. As predictable as the sun rising and the phases of the moon.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 7, 2019 11:42:41 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. I can see that you've never been a CEO and only have a vague notion of what they do. I'm quoting the paper. The effect of coaches in sport was strong statistically significant, and but the effect of CEOs on performance of large corporations was not detectable.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Apr 7, 2019 12:18:31 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. I think there is a substantial overlap between sports and business with respect to things like teamwork, praise/feedback, definitions of roles, etc.--many of the same things that also overlap across different sports. As with coaching, better managed businesses are likely to perform significantly better, but also as with sports the abilities of the team members generally matter more. CEOs of large companies are different because of the scale--how much influence would a coach have over a team of 10,000 players? I don't think Berry and Fowler have published their CEO analysis, but my impression for the coach and government analyses is that they are not comparing a coach with a random other person, they are comparing a coach with another coach. So what they are saying for CEOs isn't that the CEO is overpaid relative to a random employee, they are saying any CEO of a comparable company could get about the same performance as any other CEO (of course there could be other arguments that CEOs are overpaid). My impression is that the larger organizational scale for many businesses makes them much more likely to suffer from the Peter principle than sports organizations. I also believe many businesses view labor as a commodity and ignore the potential for improving performance through, for example, better teamwork. This perspective seems much less common in sports. The consequence would be that a lot of CEOs simply do things the same way and therefore get the same results.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Apr 7, 2019 20:53:58 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. I can see that you've never been a CEO and only have a vague notion of what they do. Everyone can see that your reading comprehension skills let you down this time.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Richards on Apr 8, 2019 18:05:20 GMT -5
Anybody who see's a coach as parental unit or a role model is a loser. If a coach can't qualify to be a role model, can anybody? Why can't a coach qualify to be a role model? A coach is supposed to coach players. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by wmiv1895 on Apr 8, 2019 18:18:45 GMT -5
In line with the topic of whether coaches actually matter, you are as predictable as Karch's offense. Care to expand on that? Just genuinely curious. I know some people like/don’t like Karch. I’ve never really paid much attention.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 8, 2019 18:36:25 GMT -5
In line with the topic of whether coaches actually matter, you are as predictable as Karch's offense. Care to expand on that? Just genuinely curious. I know some people like/don’t like Karch. I’ve never really paid much attention. Are you asking if Karch's offense is predictable? Umm, yeah. Otherwise, getting reported is pretty predictable too.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Apr 8, 2019 19:57:52 GMT -5
|
|