|
Post by staticb on Dec 19, 2021 19:25:18 GMT -5
A lot of is recruiting--a lot of the most coachable athletes are also the most highly recruited. Athletes with more athletic ability and physical characteristics often catch on with things faster, have more options etc.
Nebraska for example, didn't do anything drastically different against Texas that most teams didn't try. They were just able to execute the plan better.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 19, 2021 19:29:44 GMT -5
Can't play without players.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdogman on Dec 20, 2021 16:36:46 GMT -5
Can't play without players. Right. That is where it starts. A team needs talent to win. So good recruiting and elite talent are necessary elements for success. But it's not the only thing. The coaching matters too. Usually it matters a lot. The responses with % breakdowns like 50/50 or 95/5 might possibly apply to particular teams, but there is no universal standard that applies to all teams. Here are a few ideas I consider relevant: 1. Great coaches can take less talented teams very far. If the talent isn't the best, but it's still fairly good, these teams can even win it all. 2. Great talent can take less talented coaches very far. These teams can even win it all, almost certainly with a higher chance than the teams with the lesser talent and great coaches. 3. The highly talented coaches and players are often found around each other. I know that for every coach out there, there's someone who has some gripe about them - he/she cannot recruit, cannot develop talent, or cannot make in game adjustments, etc. - but in general hack coaches do not get hired for the top programs. That means the two sides of the coin are working with each other to get to the top and make it harder for the teams with only one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Dec 20, 2021 17:40:46 GMT -5
Seems that just having height is not enough to be a dominant team. I am pretty new to watching college vball, but a couple of years ago Florida had a front row that was 6'8", 6'7", and 6'6", if I remember correctly. Even with Mary Wise, they lost to NAU. I know everyone loses sometimes, but I was surprised at the time.
At the club level, based on what I have seen over the years, Just having tall players, even with access to the elite level players, does not pan out without solid coaching and building team dynamics. The world is filled with unsuccessful people with talent- Coolidge
Just my anecdotal perspective.
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Jan 8, 2022 13:33:42 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land So what you're saying is the ACC players are less talented than the B1G players. Is that in terms of physicality or in terms of volleyball IQ coming in as freshmen? To be fair, serb only stated height and alluded to special recruiting. Why have some teams gotten to the final four and won a national championship while others failed for twenty plus years? I think the answer is complex and not reducible to two sentences or a choice of what's more important A or B.
|
|
|
Post by rjaege on Jan 8, 2022 13:58:25 GMT -5
Key factors IMO: 1) Most D1 college coaches are well above average with a good resume for the job. Like any other group some are better than others. 2) Essential skills include recruiting players and assistants, skills/player development, tactical knowledge in the sport, interpersonal skills with players and assistants, leadership skills, high competiveness, extreme work ethic, creativeness, ability to grow, and more. 3) The coaches that put the attributes in "2" together the best are the most successful IMO. There is no right formula, but weaknesses in any of those areas leads to failure or at least mediocrity. And weaknesses has to be evaluated vs their peers, see "1" above. 4) Geology, school reputation, fan participation and local talent development all faciltate school/Coach sucess.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 8, 2022 14:30:34 GMT -5
I think the difference in this year's Wisconsin team was the 6'9" freshman Anna Smrek. 4 years with Dana Rettke could get the Badgers up the mountain. The freshman Smrek put them on top of the mountain. This recruiting question also comes to mind when I think of Hambly coaching Stanford to two national championships with superior talent. Hambly is a good coach, the players on the Stanford team made him a 'historic' coach. Smrek made impact because of injury: without injury might-not have seen her very much! But the decision to use 2headed player for 1position worked great
|
|
|
Post by coahc21 on Jan 8, 2022 14:32:10 GMT -5
Admittedly I have not yet read every post here, but it seems like what most people are calling coaching is technical execution and game planning. There is so much more to coaching collegiate athletes behind the scenes.
Looking at X's and O's only - recruiting is overwhelmingly more important, however if you look at the whole picture, that gap is significantly closed -- broad strokes purposes - culture is needed to bring out the highest potential - great recruiting raises the floor and the ceiling - great coaching gets you closer to the ceiling - that being said, the greatest coaches with the greatest still only have a ceiling that is based on the recruiting talent
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2022 14:35:55 GMT -5
The amount of "coaching up" the Nebraska staff did to this team from September until last night shows that coaching is at least half the equation. Recruiting is key. You can't turn awful players into Dana Rettke. But if you can get your team to buy in, trust the process and believe in themselves and each other, you can coach a team with seven losses into the Final Four. Oh boy. Look at Nebraska’s roster. Who wasn’t a top 10 to 20 recruit?
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Jan 8, 2022 14:51:59 GMT -5
Recruiting sets the baseline and ceiling of what you can accomplish. Coaching determines what you actually get. A great coach can’t win a championship with mediocre talent, but having great talent doesn’t mean you are going to win a championship. The vast majority of coaches probably would not have won a championship with Wisconsin this year with everything else being even. The fact that they grew as much as they have over the last few years, that players played well, and responded to adversity as well as they did, is a testament to them, and the coaches for creating an atmosphere to allow each player to reach that level of play in such a highly competitive match. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jan 8, 2022 15:50:39 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land So what you're saying is the ACC players are less talented than the B1G players. Is that in terms of physicality or in terms of volleyball IQ coming in as freshmen? Physically I’m assuming. At least that’s what the truth is. Volleyball IQ doesn’t really correlate to being the best. Some players understand and read the game at a very high level but may not be as gifted physically. I wouldn’t say the top 20 recruits have a higher volleyball IQ than the 20-40 range recruits necessarily, so coming out of high school a lot of it is physicality, yes IQ plays a part but that is something that can be developed with a player where as being 6’5 and athletic cannot. Coming out of high school, the best OH, RS, and MB recruits are normally much more physical than the lower recruits and not many of them go to the acc
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Jan 8, 2022 15:54:34 GMT -5
The amount of "coaching up" the Nebraska staff did to this team from September until last night shows that coaching is at least half the equation. Recruiting is key. You can't turn awful players into Dana Rettke. But if you can get your team to buy in, trust the process and believe in themselves and each other, you can coach a team with seven losses into the Final Four. Oh boy. Look at Nebraska’s roster. Who wasn’t a top 10 to 20 recruit? Nebraska did a great job getting this group to start clicking at the right time but yes, they are littered with top recruits over there. Look at a team like Louisville, had one player on the team who was a top 20 recruit and I don’t think anyone else was even top 30 on their team. To me, that’s a more impressive coaching job
|
|
|
Post by taxidea on Jan 8, 2022 16:53:32 GMT -5
Recruiting sets the baseline and ceiling of what you can accomplish. Coaching determines what you actually get. A great coach can’t win a championship with mediocre talent, but having great talent doesn’t mean you are going to win a championship. The vast majority of coaches probably would not have won a championship with Wisconsin this year with everything else being even. The fact that they grew as much as they have over the last few years, that players played well, and responded to adversity as well as they did, is a testament to them, and the coaches for creating an atmosphere to allow each player to reach that level of play in such a highly competitive match. Just my opinion. I agree. Even if you use the 80/20 rule for simplicity, getting the right players is still 80% of the equation. Note that getting the right players does not always result from recruiting “aces”, as some of these kids - through no fault of their own - are not realistically in terms of their ability to excel at the next level. The conundrum faced by coaches everywhere. But yeah, the coaching effort put on by both Sheff and Cook, to overcome unique challenges to their programs, and put their respective teams in a position to win the NC, was amazing…even masterful.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jan 8, 2022 17:26:42 GMT -5
Best recruiter in the world vs best Xs and Os coach in the world. Who wins?
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Jan 8, 2022 17:49:13 GMT -5
recruiting is the lifeblood for any collegiate program. But it is not always about who gets the top recruits. It is more about who gets the rights athletes that fit best into their culture/system.
Recruit the wrong kid - either mis-evaluate the talent or not a good fit for your team - and you make a coaches job more difficult that it al ready is.
Recruiting is key
I also agree with something mentioned earlier -- I can teach/coach passing, blocking, hitting, etc.... I can not teach 6'2 or 6'7....
|
|