Are you kidding me? Wins and losses don't matter? Unreal. I bet you are a fan of participation trophies. Our society has moved backwards so much. Whatever happened to "competion"? Competing is a part of life. My daughter is in 5th grade. Just learned that her school no longer has honor roll. They hate to leave people out that don't make the cut. In life. Set standards high. If you can't meet or exceed expectations: next man up! Come on guys. Think about it. It's not that difficult.

 

Is this directed at me?

Wins and losses should not be the only reason or even the most important reason IMO but W and L's definitely are and should be one of the reasons to keep or let go a coach. I do think the wins and losses have to be measured against the talent the team has to determine if the coach is achieving or under-achieving in that area. It is up to the AD or principal to make that call.

Covington Catholic can go 11-2 every year but if those two losses are to Highlands every year then the head coach will be fired eventually.

I think guys that aren't very good coaches can win because they have more talent than other people. BUT to me if a coach isn't working hard such as rolling out right after practice, not watching film with the kids, not preparing his team for games(kind of goes along with the first few) obvious coaching blunders in the games, lack of control of team, cheating ie breaking rules kind of like we have seen this year then I think that is grounds for firing. I don't think coaches should just be fired after a year or two but if it is obvious that the guy doesn't know what he is doing then why punish kids by keeping him. And again don't leave the administration out of this if they fire or hire a guy and it is wrong either way those people should be held accountable and THEY NEVER ARE!!!!!

There's more to life than winning ball games, and there's more to coaching than winning ball games. But ultimately in the end if you aren't getting it done you aren't getting it done.

I think guys that aren't very good coaches can win because they have more talent than other people. BUT to me if a coach isn't working hard such as rolling out right after practice, not watching film with the kids, not preparing his team for games(kind of goes along with the first few) obvious coaching blunders in the games, lack of control of team, cheating ie breaking rules kind of like we have seen this year then I think that is grounds for firing. I don't think coaches should just be fired after a year or two but if it is obvious that the guy doesn't know what he is doing then why punish kids by keeping him. And again don't leave the administration out of this if they fire or hire a guy and it is wrong either way those people should be held accountable and THEY NEVER ARE!!!!!

 

I pretty much agree with this... If an HC is not doing the things necessary to build a winning culture, then he needs to go. To me, it isn't even necessarily about the scoreboard and/or final record. If a coach is building a culture of commitment, respect, & accountability, as well as providing a positive experience for student-athletes, I think he is doing everything he can. That said, if he is doing those things, then wins will probably follow. However, as many on here have alluded to, what "winning" looks like for schools/programs differs from place-to-place. In some places, 6-4 is a great achievement, in others 8-2 is the low end of the expectations scale.

 

As far as administrators, that is a little trickier... Their first accountability is to academic culture, in most cases. And while I (and most BGP posters, probably) think that athletic/academic culture are tied together, I don't think most admins probably truly understand that connection. As a result, admins often hire what they believe to be a solid, hard-working head man, fewer and fewer commit to hire enough assistants, provide in-school weights, or a host of other commitments that are necessary to build a football program. Most administrators are content to have a football team, rather than a football program, because they don't understand the difference. However, admin are never going to be judged solely on athletics hires - nor should they, IMO, unless they have ignored dangerous behaviors.

My 2 cents. It takes athletes to win. If a coach doesn't have any and he loses however great educator etc. then he doesn't get the ax. However if a coach doesn't have athletes but they are in the school but will not play cause of coach and he looses then he gets the ax. It all depends how he runs the program.

Every team is going to be different, as many have said on here. When a coach interviews for that job, he has to understand what they are going to expect of him. If they just want somebody to basically field a team and just offer something for the community to watch on Friday night, he knows that his win/loss probably won't be a big factor unless it gets to the point that you only have 11-15 kids. If you are in an interview, and they just want wins, you know the bar is a little higher. This isn't saying that either of those expectations is wrong or right. But, the low level teams in KY aren't having people come into interviews with promises of state championships and all of the elite level of play. They have guys coming in who are going to try and build something up, change the culture and everything like that.

 

Every job is going to have different expectations. Most jobs are going to line up correctly with the talent ability that they are using. I sincerely doubt that some of the 0-10 or 2-8 teams are just expecting rings, or every Black Friday games. They want to be competitive if they can be, and to just not look like the worst team in the state.

 

So, should a coach be fired on wins/losses? It all depends on where they are. Trinity? Highlands? BG? X? Yeah, it's probably going to be a good bet that if you don't produce, you're gone.

 

However, Clinton County? Caverna? Fort Knox? Phelps? Berea? Wins are going to be hard to come by, so it's probably not going to be much of a hot seat.

 

 

It's all about location and expectations. The only real problem you would have is a place that's a really bad team, with absolutely no resources, with zero talent, but with really high expectations. That's where things are rough.

I think wins and losses are symptoms of something that is or could be wrong or right within a team or program. Certainly talent level, participation and scheduling should all be considered when looking at a record. I have seen coaches with great records who had no business as head coaches, conversely I have seen coaches with less than stellar records who were great leaders of the programs.

The sad thing is that sports like "non-revenue" sports can pretty much lose every time out and nobody seems to care.

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?

 

Yes and no. If you are doing what you can to pull out wins, and lack talent, then I say let them stay. Sometimes longevity is beneficial for a program, especially one that needs consistency. If it is an established program and it going through a "rough phase" then give them some time (i.e. 3-4 years) to get the program up. Basically it is like teaching, you get 4 years to prove you are tenure worthy. If you aren't then, you get the ax in your 4th year.

Because they won't play who the parents want them to play.:taz:

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?

 

Should we give the coach a participation trophy as well? I mean what about all the crop of young coaches who wont get a shot if we don't fire inept coaches who cant win games?

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.

 

Wrong...don't put words in my mouth. I said "an otherwise qualified administrator..".

 

Obviously you have a personal reflection story that's not been told. You will find very few on this board that hit as hard as I do on school administration, I admit that.

 

You may have topped my ability...and that's not necessarily a good thing

The actual W/L record may not be, in itself, a legitimate reason. What if the W/L record can absolutely be attributed to a coach not knowing the game or how to coach ?

 

I would guess that some schools offer the head coaching jobs up to teachers as an opportunity to supplement their salary, prior to going outside the school. Say that amount averages $5,000 a year for gate related sports. Teacher is willing to put the time in to get that dough, but doesn't have a clue about the game, coaching or anything.

 

Is W/L record a factor then ?

 

Your exact words just like I said.

I've thought long and hard about this.

 

It all depends on the situation in all sports. Someone coaching at Phelps, no they shouldn't be fired based on wins and losses. Someone coaching at Belfry, Highlands, or Trinity? Yes they should.

 

 

If they keep score, you try to win.