It is what they do with the talent they have, If a coach acheives or over acheives, they are deemed sucessful, no matter the record.

 

Really? How can we tell? How can a coach achieve or over-achieve? If the team wins how do we know it wasn't a case of there being more talent than we thought?

 

Let's use some of the coaches mentioned above. Faust from St.Henry for example. "Good" coach in 2003 when they won the All-A and nearly won the first round of the Sweet 16 losing to the eventual champ? Or good talent? Is he still a "good" coach? If so why? If not why not? St. Henry hasn't won the All-A or Regional since in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (unless they win the region next week). Has his coaching talent varied or did the talent level? If they win the region next week is it a "good" coaching job? If they lose, it is a "bad" job since they were winning earlier in the year? Scharlman was all that a bag of chips at Brossart and now is he still as good after the move to Highlands? Or is it just a talent level cycle? If Highlands gets bounced by 20 by CovCath is it the coaching or talent? Saw in the paper that Brossart's eight Seniors scored all their points in the game against Mason Co. If they lose by 30 to Mason Co. next year it is due to bad coaching or maybe the talent is just down a little?

What about the coach from Silver Grove, sure he had Pelle but he is starting to build something in one of the smallest schools in the state.

 

I agee, Tony is a very good young coach but lets not forget who got SG back on the map and that was Steve Hart and his 10 yr tenure. Steve built pride back in the program and Tony has picked up where he left off. Not to mention having the luxury of the Pelles.

Really? How can we tell? How can a coach achieve or over-achieve? If the team wins how do we know it wasn't a case of there being more talent than we thought?

 

Let's use some of the coaches mentioned above. Faust from St.Henry for example. "Good" coach in 2003 when they won the All-A and nearly won the first round of the Sweet 16 losing to the eventual champ? Or good talent? Is he still a "good" coach? If so why? If not why not? St. Henry hasn't won the All-A or Regional since in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (unless they win the region next week). Has his coaching talent varied or did the talent level? If they win the region next week is it a "good" coaching job? If they lose, it is a "bad" job since they were winning earlier in the year? Scharlman was all that a bag of chips at Brossart and now is he still as good after the move to Highlands? Or is it just a talent level cycle? If Highlands gets bounced by 20 by CovCath is it the coaching or talent? Saw in the paper that Brossart's eight Seniors scored all their points in the game against Mason Co. If they lose by 30 to Mason Co. next year it is due to bad coaching or maybe the talent is just down a little?

 

Your not getting what I am saying, I said you coach up to the potential of the talent you have, if you have a .500 basketball team with the talent of a .300 team, that is sucess, now if its vice versa its failure. Ultmitaly it comes down to talent, but just look at Unviersity Heights this year. They under achieved their talent level, so that is a bad coaching job.

Mike Code, IMO, is by far the best coach in NKY

 

I will be interested to see how he does next year with all the talent gone.

I will be interested to see how he does next year with all the talent gone.

 

I'm guessing they'll play good defense and be competitive!! Talent runs in spurts at all small schools, and while they probably won't be up to this year's standards; they'll hold their own against a tough schedule.

Please elaborate on what kinds of pressures kids from Park Hills have on them that kids from Inner-City Covington don't have. Am I missing something?

 

I think he meant to say they have a lot LESS pressures. If I'm not mistaken.

 

 

Correct, my mistake.

Your not getting what I am saying, I said you coach up to the potential of the talent you have, if you have a .500 basketball team with the talent of a .300 team, that is sucess, now if its vice versa its failure. Ultmitaly it comes down to talent, but just look at Unviersity Heights this year. They under achieved their talent level, so that is a bad coaching job.

Sorry, I can't help myself. YES!

 

Now on to my comments on the crux of the statement.

 

The key ingredient that goes into the team's success or lack thereof is the ability to keep the kids interested and excited about what they are doing, and looking forward to playing their next game. While he might chew their butts they have to understand that it is in their best interests and will help them ultimately succeed.

 

I like to say - Happy, Healthy, and Hungry.

 

Team chemistry is of paramount importance and the kids have got to be in sync with their coach and have total confidence in him. They have to form a bond and believe in each other. The coach cannot be an island nor can the players be. You cannot demand their confidence - you must earn it.

 

Knowing what needs to be taught and having the ability to teach it effectively and getting the team to buy-in are key factors in over-achieving and under-achieving.

 

The coach has got be to be able to issue the challenge and the team must have the ability to answer it. He has to be in complete control of what is taking place on his team and cannot let the lunatics run the asylum. (See top line).

1. Mike Code

2. Dave Faust

3. Carr

4. Mike Listerman

5. Willie Schlarman

6. Jim Hicks

 

Honorable mention- Dick Maile :jump:

Define "Best Coach" ...I'll skip the worst discussion for now.

Is it wins and losses, is it winning percentage, is it regional titles? That can be satisfied statistically; if you're talking about the coach's impact on his kids; his ability to get the very most out of his kids; to built trust and confidence in the program; to take decent kids and make them good to take good kids and make them great? If you choose these attributes, it seems to me you can only answer if you played for them. There's a lot of talk about what this coach or that appears to do with the talent they're given...I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound like many actually played for the coaches about whom they comment. I know, it's your opinion, and it's fun. But, the passion with which some of these opinions are defended is silly unless you've truly spent time under someone, day after day. The best coaches I've had are guys that, win or lose, held the respect of each and every player they had. They did win a lot, but the legacy for them has been more attributable to their genuine, honest, consistent and competent leadership. I've played for a couple of 'winners' who I wouldn't care to see again. I think I trust the opinion of those closest to the program. John Wooden quote: (from memory-(it's close but I'm sure I'm off a little).."Be more concerned with your character over your reputation; character is what the people around you know about you; reputation is merely what the rest think they know about you". ...Just my thoughts...

I'm guessing they'll play good defense and be competitive!! Talent runs in spurts at all small schools, and while they probably won't be up to this year's standards; they'll hold their own against a tough schedule.

 

 

Couldn't agree with you more, they may not have a bunch of "star" talent coming back but you have to roll with their track record, they've been solid for a decade in my eyes.

I'll try to define success, not necessarily best.

 

I think that you are a success as a coach if your kids come back after their basketball careers are over. If they come to your games, sit in on practice, and simply stop in to chat, or better yet, they get into coaching themselves.

 

I think that you are successful if you can look yourself in the eye in the mirror and honestly say that you have done the best that you could with what you had to do it with - regardless of what others might say.

 

I think that you are successful if you can run your program internally and there is not a parade of parents/detractors running to the principal and athletic director's office.

 

I think that you are successful if you put your kids in a postion to win, get them to play to their maximum ability and have them die trying.

 

I think you are a success if they still want to play one more game and hate it that it is over and their careers have come to an end when the time comes.

 

Some schools and teams simply don't have the talent and wherewithall to win titles and hang banners in the gym, but they still manage to "overachieve", enjoy what they are doing, and twenty years later look back on their high school careers as the best days of their lives.

 

Success is relative. In some schools it is measured by trophies and titles won, but the least common denominator is the players themselves. If they were given every opportunity to contribute, regardless of their capacity, and consider themselves successful, then I think the coach can consider himself a success, regardless of win loss records or trophies in the case.

Great post, Mustang ...

 

From what I've seen over the years, it would be tough to top Faust, Schlarman and Code ...

I'm guessing they'll play good defense and be competitive!! Talent runs in spurts at all small schools, and while they probably won't be up to this year's standards; they'll hold their own against a tough schedule.

 

 

I expect the same as you, and don't doubt Code as a great coach. I just will be curious next year to see what he can do without names like Cooper, and McDole in the lineup. He had inherited possibly the 2 most talented Brossart senior classes ever.

Define "Best Coach" .............The best coaches I've had are guys that, win or lose, held the respect of each and every player they had. They did win a lot, but the legacy for them has been more attributable to their genuine, honest, consistent and competent leadership. I've played for a couple of 'winners' who I wouldn't care to see again.

 

This is the best part of this post. It's more than winning, it's about how the kids feel about the program.

I'll try to define success, not necessarily best.

 

I think that you are a success as a coach if your kids come back after their basketball careers are over. If they come to your games, sit in on practice, and simply stop in to chat, or better yet, they get into coaching themselves.

 

I think that you are successful if you can look yourself in the eye in the mirror and honestly say that you have done the best that you could with what you had to do it with - regardless of what others might say.

 

I think that you are successful if you can run your program internally and there is not a parade of parents/detractors running to the principal and athletic director's office.

 

I think that you are successful if you put your kids in a postion to win, get them to play to their maximum ability and have them die trying.

 

I think you are a success if they still want to play one more game and hate it that it is over and their careers have come to an end when the time comes.

 

Some schools and teams simply don't have the talent and wherewithall to win titles and hang banners in the gym, but they still manage to "overachieve", enjoy what they are doing, and twenty years later look back on their high school careers as the best days of their lives.

 

Success is relative. In some schools it is measured by trophies and titles won, but the least common denominator is the players themselves. If they were given every opportunity to contribute, regardless of their capacity, and consider themselves successful, then I think the coach can consider himself a success, regardless of win loss records or trophies in the case.

 

Coudn't agree with you more mustang.....it could well have been me posting this message:thumb: