Head Coach Age

[BEChargers]

Every time a job comes open, I read a lot of comments saying that the school in question needs a young high energy guy to be the next HC.  In a couple of the podcasts from this past season of The Coaches Office podcast with Chuck Smith and David Buchanan, Chuck a couple of times mentioned that he feels that some coaches are taking the reigns of Head Coach a little too early.  Earlier than they used to.  Fewer coaches to pick from is one reason for this but I respect his opinion.  When Anderson Co's job was open, I specifically stated that I didn't think a young up and coming coach would be a good fit given the recent history of the school and program.  

Coach Haddix, I believe, became a HC at 25 !   Then we saw Coach Holcomb come out of retirement and turn around Madison Central immediately.  The easy answer is each coach is different and each school or team situation is different.  

So what is your preference for your school?  

Would you want one that hadn't been either a OC or a DC at some point?

Must have HC experience?

Alumni of the school?

You could write 15 paragraphs on staff makeup and those types of things but I'm mainly just talking about the HC in this thread.  

[Hard Work]

13 minutes ago, BEChargers said:

Every time a job comes open, I read a lot of comments saying that the school in question needs a young high energy guy to be the next HC.  In a couple of the podcasts from this past season of The Coaches Office podcast with Chuck Smith and David Buchanan, Chuck a couple of times mentioned that he feels that some coaches are taking the reigns of Head Coach a little too early.  Earlier than they used to.  Fewer coaches to pick from is one reason for this but I respect his opinion.  When Anderson Co's job was open, I specifically stated that I didn't think a young up and coming coach would be a good fit given the recent history of the school and program.  

Coach Haddix, I believe, became a HC at 25 !   Then we saw Coach Holcomb come out of retirement and turn around Madison Central immediately.  The easy answer is each coach is different and each school or team situation is different.  

So what is your preference for your school?  

Would you want one that hadn't been either a OC or a DC at some point?

Must have HC experience?

Alumni of the school?

You could write 15 paragraphs on staff makeup and those types of things but I'm mainly just talking about the HC in this thread.  

I think when you ask these questions, we run into scenarios that aren't always the norm.

At what point is a coach with no HC experience ready to take the reins of a program and when should they be able to get their start? Do they only target specific programs or programs that are willing to take a risk on them?

Then there are scenarios like Coach Haddix, Ethan Atchley, Clay Clevinger and others that have had success at a young age. Some coaches are just mature and true students of the game.

I believe young coaches have a target on their backs. You don't hear as often about older coaches who fade out at programs that they weren't successful and not because of their ability to coach but due to the dynamics of the program. Unlike when you have a young coach that fails those other factors tend to be ignored. 

A head coach is only as good as his supporting staff and there are not enough good position coaches and good coordinators anymore. Everyone isn't a head coach, some coaches are great coordinators, or they are amazing position coaches. We see this at every level of this game. 

[Hip-Hop Box]

The saying "God works in mysterious ways" sits well when it comes to my Almer mater. We had some great candidates get interviewed for our HC, but Coach Davis is the Perfect fit for our kids at Frankfort. Having been Associate HC/Def Coor at East Capel Hill High school, his dedication and commitment in that capacity is what we need to advance our kids.  

[TheConch]

Great topic to discuss. I think I will start off by defining what I beleive "young" coach means, as a lot of people throw it out there, but have yet to define exactly what that means to them. 

Feel free to pick this apart, but my thoughts is that their need to be two different definitions of "young."

Non- Coaching world young: 21-30.

Coaching world young: By default, as you have to be 21 years of age to coach in the state of KY, I have to include them. 21-45. As always, their are some exceptions to the age. 

I think when this topic is dicussed, it is often paired with "energy". It is no secret that their are plenty of coaches who don't fit within this age group that bring an incredible amount of energy to a program. 

A common mistake I've seen others make, as I am guilty of myself, when a job opens up that isn't necassarily a "KY Blue Blood" job that has years and years of proven success, that we label this job a great job for a "Young and energetic" coach to come in and bring some excitement to the program. Simply mentioning that is not the mistake, but I know what I have in mind when aligning with that kind of speaking is mentioning that with the idea that a younger coach could potentially be in that position for ahwile, could grow with the school, reset or set the culture, and build something special. BUT, I think we need to realize the days of coaches staying in one spot and being a "lifer" are long gone. 

As far as head coaches, I commented the following in the Open Job: Beechwood thread earlier this year in response to what Beechwood should look for in their next head coach. It is important to note, that I realize Beechwood would be considered a "KY Blue Blood" so this may not be the best example, but I do believe this holds up for most schools. 

"HC experience 

1a) overall record, year to year record improvement, enrollment numbers (+/-), state championships, regional championships, overall record compared to previous coach

2) Teacher - ability to be in the building

3) Assistant coach 

3a) What program we’re you apart of, success of program while you were on staff, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, special teams coordinator, overall record while on staff, success of your side of ball while on staff (O, D, ST)

4) Ties to Beechwood/Fort Mitchell/NKY community

4a) Will you be a good steward in the community, be active, and promote other programs, events, and teams

5) Coaching ties

5a) who have you coached for, coach with, played for, played with. The success of the programs you have been apart of and the connections you have. What will your staff look like

6) Tradition 

6a) Do you understand tradition of Beechwood football, are you prepared to continue that. Have you been apart of tradition rich programs in the past. Are you prepared to bring in your own system, culture, and tradition while still honoring and respecting the past.

Just some things I’d look for if I were Beechwood decision makers."

Now, nowhere in there was a mention of a young coach. Why? A couple things, a young coach could very well fall within one of those "requirements" or "criteria". Also, as for a first time head coach, I beleived the Beechwood job is too prominent and too good of job that was going to attract some very good candidates across the state in which a first time head coach was going to be overlooked. 

In summary, you are correct. Every coach is different. Every school is different. Each position is unique with their own hurdles, obstacles, and benefits. At the end of the day, as the years go on, I am all for "young" coaches to get a shot, as the profession is shrinking and the oppurtunities are growing. Everyone starts somewhere, whether good bad or indifferent, even if a first time head coach comes in and does a poor job, I believe it is far to early to label them as an unsuccessful coach. Failed at the job at hand, sure, but a failure overall? Too early to tell. 

Just my two cents. 

(Reader beware: Length of my reply may be painful for some and most importantly, no comments made about who is considered "young" was intended to call out the old guys. We're all young at heart, some just older than others! LOL 🙂 " 

 

[RunninReb]

A great topic of discussion. It is so hard to find great help for a lot of coaches. I believe young coaches are trying to climb the ladder too fast. Younger coaches do not see the value in learning from great coaches and want to have that title beside their name. 

[Hard Work]

6 minutes ago, TheConch said:

Now, nowhere in there was a mention of a young coach. Why? A couple things, a young coach could very well fall within one of those "requirements" or "criteria". Also, as for a first time head coach, I beleived the Beechwood job is too prominent and too good of job that was going to attract some very good candidates across the state in which a first time head coach was going to be overlooked.

Do you not believe that overlooking young head coaches because this job is believed to be "Too Prominent" you miss on the opportunity to find a guy who can provide consistency and longevity while implementing a new vision of the game. What happens if you pass over a guy like the next Justin Haddix or Coach Smith out at SW? Are you okay with missing out on those guys because you believe the job is too prestigious?

11 minutes ago, TheConch said:

I think when this topic is discussed, it is often paired with "energy". It is no secret that their are plenty of coaches who don't fit within this age group that bring an incredible amount of energy to a program. 

I agree completely with this statement that it is solely related to energy but the factor that's missed far too often is relationships. As our game evolves, children are also evolving and having someone who can relate to them and build unique relationships is important. If that long time head coach can't establish or build relationships because he can't relate or reach his athletes is that not equally as damaging?

[TheConch]

7 minutes ago, Hard Work said:

Do you not believe that overlooking young head coaches because this job is believed to be "Too Prominent" you miss on the opportunity to find a guy who can provide consistency and longevity while implementing a new vision of the game. What happens if you pass over a guy like the next Justin Haddix or Coach Smith out at SW? Are you okay with missing out on those guys because you believe the job is too prestigious?

I agree completely with this statement that it is solely related to energy but the factor that's missed far too often is relationships. As our game evolves, children are also evolving and having someone who can relate to them and build unique relationships is important. If that long time head coach can't establish or build relationships because he can't relate or reach his athletes is that not equally as damaging?

To your first point, I totally think its possible you miss out on those type of guys. I am all for giving young guys a chance, and am not in the camp of "oh he's too young." I think if the coach aligns with your vision and you believe he is the best man for the job, go for it. Regardless of age. But, realistically, I do believe some of those "prestigious" jobs miss out on those types of guys now and then. But at the end of the day, it's a we'll never know kind of thing. 

Secondly, agreed. That is part of my reasoning for allowing younger coaches to have a chance, even if they may be a little too young on paper. Closer to kids age, more in the know on all the social media fads, what is popular, and potentially more pathways to connect with the kids. 

[Calico Jack]

In this day and age it's just becoming tougher, period.

However, I heard this once upon a time and I personally believe it holds true despite the age. If they're a young age, for example, take Haddix @BEChargers, before he took the Perry County Central job he was at Breathitt County coaching under Mike Holcomb who he just so happened to play for and wasn't calling the offense (maybe I'm wrong). He had played under Mike Holcomb, then went onto have a very good career at WKU where he obviously learned from some good ones, and then went back to learn some more under Mike Holcomb.

Point being? I think who someone has learned under carries a lot more weight than anything.  You can't play and especially coach under legends and not know how to coach the game well unless you're just not very smart.

I heard something once that I think makes even more added sense, IMO.

"Two things help me determine whether to take a job or not: is there great administrative support and can I win there?" ("win"= all relative to the situation. For first time head coaches? Maybe that's being able to compete year in year out for a district title. Heck, nowadays, that's even the case for guys who have either had long tenures at one school or have been at multiple. Maybe that's realistically competing for region titles? Then obviously state titles. Does my community, my school have all the things it takes that are beyond my control- town size, job opportunities to keep and attract other familes, demographic/geographical layout- aka- are we a 3A sized school, but really a 1A program in terms of where we draw our kids from)

I think, and this goes back to what Coach Smith said, but many times first time head coaches (even multiple time) don't analyze the above enough and just have too much of the 'Head Coach or bust mentality'.

Personally, I think this day and age it's easier than ever for coaches in their 20's to get a head job, but I'd say they have to be willing to pack up and move (see Frankfort High's new head coach, Pikeville to Frankfort).

I would be completely comfortable in saying that only 15-20% of the jobs in the state right now have head coaches that left one program immediately for another and I'd assume that 90% of those are either coaches who have taken jobs within the same county, school system, a metro area like NKY where there are 3 counties, yet everything is right there next to one another meaning they don't have to pack up their families and move, lastly they've left one for another the following year because of family being there and/or it being a school they attended.

[Calico Jack]

45 minutes ago, RunninReb said:

A great topic of discussion. It is so hard to find great help for a lot of coaches. I believe young coaches are trying to climb the ladder too fast. Younger coaches do not see the value in learning from great coaches and want to have that title beside their name. 

I whole heartedly agree with that and I think some head coaches get burned by that, because at the end of the day? Your/their name is on it thing. Head coach gets fired, they are almost always done coaching at that school and the "O.C" or "D.C" have the option to stay with the next head coach.

If you have somebody(s) 1- You can trust with your life and 2- They know at least as much as the head coach at a minimum, preferably more? Then by all means. Name away one or both sides. If not? Call them both yourself. That used to be, in the not so distant past, more common than not. If you have assistant coaches who sell out completely to "do your job" - "know your" role? It's not that hard for a head coach to do both if they are comfortable doing so. Truth be told, IMO, one of the best things a head coach can do is delegate all of the "other stuff" to assistant coaches or make them equal parts of it, because once you become that man? You learn real quick that your days become about 1% football and 99% all the other things.

That, IMO, is one of the best things head coaches can do for aspiring head coaches, but, handling those things isn't as flashy as having the "O.C" or "D.C" graphic on your twitter banner. So, finding guys that want to just be a position coach and have a heavy hand in all the tedious behind the scenes goings on isn't as easy to sell. 

With that said, I know current head coaches as we all do who were "coordinators" before getting a head job and many of them happily took the role of "coordinating" knowing and wanting the head coach to either 1- Sign off on any and everything they did or 2- The head coach saying, "Here is what I want us to do. I'll teach it to you and you 'run' with it."

@barrel

 

[Pi]

There is no right age or wrong age. There is a lot more good coaches than there is good jobs, IMO. And I’m not just talking the teams you see at Kroger Field every year. There is approximately 50-60 good jobs in the state. Of those, 15 or so are elite.
 

Think the issue you see with young coaches is they are in a big hurry to be a head coach and they take the wrong job. These jobs usually have the following no matter who the HC is:

Little to no resources, tradition, or support. Struggle to get assistants. 
 

And I don’t think it’s just coaches anymore who are bailing on jobs quickly. People may work the same jobs for 40 years these days, but the odds of doing it for the same company  are slim to none. 

[LethalPG]

16 minutes ago, Pi said:

There is no right age or wrong age. There is a lot more good coaches than there is good jobs, IMO. And I’m not just talking the teams you see at Kroger Field every year. There is approximately 50-60 good jobs in the state. Of those, 15 or so are elite.
 

Think the issue you see with young coaches is they are in a big hurry to be a head coach and they take the wrong job. These jobs usually have the following no matter who the HC is:

Little to no resources, tradition, or support. Struggle to get assistants. 
 

And I don’t think it’s just coaches anymore who are bailing on jobs quickly. People may work the same jobs for 40 years these days, but the odds of doing it for the same company  are slim to none. 

Bingo.  I think at a young age it's hard to sit in an interview, and ask the right questions to hold the employers feet to the fire.  Often times, the younger choice is a discount option and if it doesn't work out they'll try someone else in a 3-4 year window.  I've always thought it's so hard to establish "culture" when coaches don't have traditional contracts.  The one year contract is bogus, and gives schools too much power IMO. 

[Royal Blue]

Mid to late 30’s, former players during successful eras are the best options imo.  

[TheDeuce]

For one, age should only be a part of the equation and really only in regards to how the coaches age fits into the vision of the job going forward. 

More than the actual age, maturity is what matters. Some “young” coaches simply aren’t mature enough to lead a program, and some may never be. Same can be said for some older coaches as well. 

[Tranquility Base]

42 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

For one, age should only be a part of the equation and really only in regards to how the coaches age fits into the vision of the job going forward. 

More than the actual age, maturity is what matters. Some “young” coaches simply aren’t mature enough to lead a program, and some may never be. Same can be said for some older coaches as well. 

Bingo.   It's more about mental and emotional maturity than a number.   Some 25 year olds may be completely ready, some 50 year olds still are not.

[ChiefSmoke]

A few thoughts:

1-  For many young guys… they are capable of being a head coach. The problem… finding assistants. Fewer guys out there. 
 

2- Older coaches… experience is vastly underrated… BUT… I remember an older coaching legend that lost control of his team at the end of his career. Told my family to make me hang it up before that happens to me. 
 

3- The more dysfunctional a situation, experience & maturity are premium. 
 

4- Being the freshman head coach is great prep to be a varsity HFC. You have to do head coach stuff on a smaller scale & navigate all 3 phases of the game.  OC/DC is great because you get to do more football, but doesn’t always translate to HFC. 

Glad you guys like the podcast!