... not for praying before the game.

How much input should the kids have? If year after year you hear the large percentage of kids state they do not like the coaching staff (could be for numerous legit reasons and even from programs with winning seasons) and that the current coaching staff is making it no fun to play anymore, should the coach keep his job and kids have no say?

 

Are the kids complaining just because they aren't having fun? If so, then no, they should not have any input. If it's something else, then further investigation is warranted.

You're a great teacher.

You're a great role model.

Your teams play competitively.

You're a valuable member of the community.

You play in a tough district.

 

You also win 40% of your games.

 

That's enough to fire the guy?

 

Every school is different.

 

At some schools, winning 40% of your games would be acceptable. At others it wouldn't. You can't assume every school is the same in regards to what it expects out of a football coach.

How much input should the kids have? If year after year you hear the large percentage of kids state they do not like the coaching staff (could be for numerous legit reasons and even from programs with winning seasons) and that the current coaching staff is making it no fun to play anymore, should the coach keep his job and kids have no say?

 

They should be listened to with a very cynical ear. However, if the coach himself through his attitude and actions are causing problems then that is a valid reason to consider changes. However, that happens with winning teams as well. Not every winning team loves their coach and how he handles kids.

Every school is different.

 

At some schools, winning 40% of your games would be acceptable. At others it wouldn't. You can't assume every school is the same in regards to what it expects out of a football coach.

 

Let's assume it's not a Trinity/Highlands long-dominant school. Just your average KY high school.

So you would fire an otherwise qualified administrator that hired a bad coach ? If I am reading that right it sounds really off base.

 

If an admin is too stupid to put together a group to advise him and hires someone unqualified for a job then that makes him unqualified to lead a school. Your exact words were not knowing the game or how to coach. That head football coach makes a massive impact on your school. That head football coach who is also supposed to be a teacher in the building is more valuable than Johnny math teacher who goes home at 3:05. If that admin hires Johnny Math teacher who doesn't know math or how to teach he is not qualified to be the leader of that school either.

Let's assume it's not a Trinity/Highlands long-dominant school. Just your average KY high school.

 

What's average though? You still can't assume any two schools have the same expectations out of their football coach. A team that historically has won 40% of it's games probably is going to let the W/L slide a little more than a school that has historically won 70% of their games. For the school that has won more games, W/L is absolutely going to be part of the reason of hiring/firing.

 

If they aren't being honest about that, well, that is a different subject altogether.

I think you need to specify whether we are talking public or private school here. Its a totally different dynamic for both. Alumni/Supporter donations can be correlated to success on the field, and for a private, or specifically Catholic School. For a HC in that environment, stimulating revenue is part of the job description. Cov Cath/Lex Cath/T/X folks, feel free to chime in here.

 

On the public program side, if youth is being positively mentored, wins and losses are irrelevant.

I think you need to specify whether we are talking public or private school here. Its a totally different dynamic for both. Alumni/Supporter donations can be correlated to success on the field, and for a private, or specifically Catholic School. For a HC in that environment, stimulating revenue is part of the job description. Cov Cath/Lex Cath/T/X folks, feel free to chime in here.

 

On the public program side, if youth is being positively mentored, wins and losses are irrelevant.

 

Good point - public schools.

I mostly agree with Clyde but I think success has to be part of the evaluation within reason.

 

Here are a few questions:

 

Are students who play for less than competitive teams getting the same experiences from playing a sport as their peers?

 

Does competitiveness affect the viability of the program? Are students less likely to play if the team is poor (whether families move districts or the students opt for other sports or simply opt to stay home)?

 

Is school pride a relevant consideration? Alumni and the community being engaged can be important for the school overall. Does a routinely sub-par team hinder this?

If the coach hands out participation trophies at the banquet, fire him.

I mostly agree with Clyde but I think success has to be part of the evaluation within reason.

 

Here are a few questions:

 

Are students who play for less than competitive teams getting the same experiences from playing a sport as their peers? NO

 

Does competitiveness affect the viability of the program? Are students less likely to play if the team is poor (whether families move districts or the students opt for other sports or simply opt to stay home)? YES

 

Is school pride a relevant consideration? Alumni and the community being engaged can be important for the school overall. Does a routinely sub-par team hinder this?

YES

Some areas are much easier than others for transferring. It's very easy in NKY but not so much in Owenton or Greenville.

 

90% of coaches are not out recruiting. They can't be judged on the talent they "bring in."

 

False in the basketball community.....probably false in football.

To be completely honest, I can't even wrap my head around the idea of wins and losses NOT being a factor in firing a coach...

 

Sure there are more important lessons learned when playing football than just what the scoreboard reads after each game. But to suggest that W/L shouldn't factor at all, I just can't agree with that.

 

If you're being paid to coach football, you need to win games. If you want to be a Guidance Counselor, do that.

 

I'm sorry but this is just too over the top for me. With all due respect this might be among the most ludicrous concepts I've seen. Why do you repeatedly refer to the basic concepts of being a coach, of any sport by the way, as being a "guidance counselor." I'd say if you are NOT counseling your players THEN you should be fired. Wins DO NOT define how well a coach teaches the fundamentals and concepts of playing the game. THAT is a way to judge a coach. Wins and losses DO NOT define how well a coach demands discipline and commands respect. THAT is a way to judge a coach. Wins and losses MIGHT define the strength of a coach's scheduling. I'll agree THAT COULD be a way to judge a coach. Imagine the .500 coach who plays the best teams he can find being judged solely by how many wins he has. Imagine a coach who year after year has mediocre talent, low parental support and poor facilities but get 5 or 6 wins because he is a great teacher of the game. Does he get fired? By your definition just go out and schedule down and you'll at least buy yourself a few extra years at the helm. I love the ferocity in your intent, but the reality of your words just doesn't wash in this discussion In MY Humble Opinion.

I mostly agree with Clyde but I think success has to be part of the evaluation within reason.

 

Agreed.