|
Post by artvandelay on Mar 8, 2006 16:24:53 GMT -5
VBfanatic is closer to the original intent of the question. That is how would a top established coach do if they were at a program w/ no money, no name, week conference, yada yada yada
My hunch is that the VERY best coaches would succeed in any environment and some have proven that. But, other coaches may find their careers very different if they were at schools where THEIR performance really mattered.
Now, in your opinion what are examples of both this scenarios?
War...what is it good for?
|
|
|
Post by artvandelay on Mar 8, 2006 16:26:15 GMT -5
VBfanatic is closer to the original intent of the question. That is how would a top established coach do if they were at a program w/ no money, no name, week conference, yada yada yada
My hunch is that the VERY best coaches would succeed in any environment and some have proven that. But, other coaches may find their careers very different if they were at schools where THEIR performance really mattered.
Now, in your opinion what are examples of both this scenarios?
War...what is it good for?
|
|
|
Post by vbfanatic on Mar 8, 2006 16:49:51 GMT -5
Coaching in it's purest form is about relationships and getting players to "buy in" and work hard and perform as well as developing relationships in recruiting. There are many examples of coaches with programs in the big conferences who have all the money they need but still have not been able to be successful. SOME of this is recruiting but also some is how the coach relates to the players. Some the coaches that come to my mind know a lot about volleyball but can't motivate or relate to players. The top programs with the best coaches have the best of both worlds - more than adequate resources and the ability to recruit and sell their school and their program. Most unsuccessful coaches are missing one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by deerpark12 on Mar 8, 2006 17:44:59 GMT -5
The only thing that would lead me to believe that Mary Wise would not be as successful at a bottom feeder is that to reach the next level program-wise, the team would have to win a number of close games and close matches. My opinion from watching her is that her strength is in preperation. She is not as strong as an in-game coach in tight situations. That may be because her team isn't in very many close matches or games, so there are too few examples to go by. Still, that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 8, 2006 18:41:00 GMT -5
My hunch is that the VERY best coaches would succeed in any environment and some have proven that. Define "succeed"? For example, let's send Mick Haley off to Montana St. How would he do? Well, on one hand, I wouldn't be the least surprised if he took the team to the top of the Big Sky Conference. In that regard, he would be doing very well. OTOH, would he have a top ten team? Not bloody likely, or if he did, it would be fleeting. Would he have a team that could regularly compete with the best teams in the Pac Ten? Again, not likely. He could probably get them to be a team that breaks the top 25 once in a while, but he'd never be near as successful as he has been at USC. Thus, if you define "succeed" in the relative sense, yeah. However if you put in the absolute sense of "teams competing for national championships," which Mick has been able to do twice, I wouldn't expect it to happen at Montana St.
|
|
|
Post by SakiBomb25 on Mar 8, 2006 19:54:06 GMT -5
The only thing that would lead me to believe that Mary Wise would not be as successful at a bottom feeder is that to reach the next level program-wise, the team would have to win a number of close games and close matches. My opinion from watching her is that her strength is in preperation. She is not as strong as an in-game coach in tight situations. That may be because her team isn't in very many close matches or games, so there are too few examples to go by. Still, that's my opinion. But as other Florida fans pointed out, the Gators were at the bottom of the SEC and had no winning tradition in volleyball what so ever. So wouldn't then that qualify as a bottom feeder and thus, she turned a bottom feeder into a winning program?
|
|
|
Post by romeo on Mar 8, 2006 23:04:12 GMT -5
In my opinion, coaching is like the management of any business at a high level and requires all of the following to be highly successful:
Hiring (recruiting the right players). Not just the best individuals but those that together can be the best,
Developing (training),
Inspiring or motivating to accomplish a common goal,
Having a strategy or vision (game planning/use of players),
Providing timely tactical advice and the having the ability to adjust (game time coaching).
While some coaches may be good at a few of these skills, it is truly the rare breed that possesses all of them. The fact is, a coach can be incredibly successful - even if he doesn't possess all said skills, if he surrounds himself with a coaching staff that has these skills.
It is that rare breed that would succeed in a move to a lower level program. She would know that hiring the right staff would be the first step towards success at the lower level, just as it was at the elite level.
Seems simple enough, but it isn't all that common to have all those coaching skills on board.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Mar 9, 2006 4:00:01 GMT -5
I like this subject.
Here's my first two cents.
Successful coaches can be measured with many different sticks. That being said, the stick I'll start with is the 'success at a national level' stick.
There are only going to be a few coaches that can achieve that and the programs that they are able to achieve that success are even fewer between. The reason is financial. Some schools can afford to do what is necessary to make a team good. Weight and conditioning rooms, facilities, budgeting for funding, recruiting, scholarships, quality coaches, etc.
Some can argue that a good coach will make all of that happen. I'd counter with, 'sometimes, but no matter how hard you squeeze, there's only so much water that a sponge can hold!'
I guess my argument is environment over inheritance.
|
|
|
Post by JustInCase on Mar 9, 2006 6:36:43 GMT -5
I agree with the statement that only a few coaches can coach at the "national level". It takes a special person (obviously in the right environment) to be able to lead a program, year in and year out, at the level. Giving the same tools to a number of other talented coaches does not mean they would be just as successful.
I think the opposite is true as well. Some of the most talented coaches in the country at the "national level" wouldn't necessarily do a great job at the lower level, with less scholarships, harder academic requirements, etc.
These other type of jobs take a special person as well and the makeup of the coach to handle these type of situations needs to be special in their own right. The top "national" coaches wouldn't necessarily be as successful as some of the present coaches at that level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2006 9:52:53 GMT -5
I have no doubt I could turn Hawaii into a bottom feeder in half of a season.
|
|
|
Post by midwestrener on Mar 9, 2006 11:06:26 GMT -5
It would be interesting to track coaches through levels, like how did they do in DII or JCO, then how did they do with the move to DI, mid level, then DI higher level, etc...it's one thing to be good at a bigger name school, like say a Kentucky or Georgia(a solid coach will be successful there b/c kids know the school and they have great environments)....it's another to succeed at a relatively unknown school b/c they are either DII or a mid major with no big time hoops or football...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2006 11:21:41 GMT -5
How about Geoff at OU?
Concordia-St. Paul was pretty average when he arrived. They were pretty good by the time they left (and still are). OU was good (and Geoff inherited a good core), but they've been damned good for a MAC team the last two years.
Of course, there's many, many coaches that have had the same career success, but then stalled at the next level (a major conference).
|
|
|
Post by midwestrener on Mar 12, 2006 23:56:33 GMT -5
As a Badger fan, what about Pete Waite....he's done a great job wherever he has been....Wisconsin, Northern Ill....he's made the progression well. He is a great example of what the original question was...he would be successful anywhere he coached. To go off off Ruffda and the MAC path Concordia St. Paul was 0-18 in conference the year before Carlson got there, the year after he left they finished 2nd in the nation and are still in the top 5 now I think. Looking at the website, Ohio finished tied for 3rd in the MAC the year before he got there They had only won one match in MAC tourney history and had never come close to winning the conference. They are 57-1 in the MAC and 9-0 in the tourney in 3 years and beat Ohio State 3-0 to make the Sweet 16 this year. Next level, who knows that answer.
Also, look at someone like Shondell who was able to go from top JO ball to turning Purdue around, I think he would be successful at DII or small DI. Shelton Collier went from DI, to high DI, and now to Wingate, DII...has been successful at all 3, turning Wingate around quick.
|
|
|
Post by clue31 on Mar 13, 2006 7:54:33 GMT -5
When Collier took over Georgia Tech, they were the doormat for the ACC every year in the teams history, a terrible prgram in every way. Built success with winning ,recruiting, attendance, program reputation. Wingate has now gone to two NCAA Tournaments, and had never been previously. Carlston is a great example at Ohio, agreed. Prediction: Anne Kordes for the future. Rose proved he can build something from scratch as well, PSU was not always at the top. Did'nt Washington go from worst to first as well in a tough Pac Ten ?
|
|