How long should a coach be given to turn a program around?

[sportsfan08]

How long does it take? Should you see results after the first year? How much progress should there be in year two? Do you give them a three year blank check and see where they are?

 

With so many jobs opening this time of year, I was curious what everyone thought. Personally, I think they should show improvement from the first day. Year 1 should be progress. Year 2 should be success or on the verge of success (I would define success as winning a district or closing in on the best record in your schools history). Year 3 should show what type of team you have built.

 

If you can't do it in 3 years, can it be done?

[jvdfc]

Winning a District and/or best record in School history in year 2 is unrealistic. Especially if it is a need to turn it around situation. I'll say 4 years total. Though you would want to see interest and/or a culture change and an increase in numbers too show a turnaround is in progress. JMO.

[CoachBuckett]

Coach should be given enough time to graduate his first first senior class. So that would take at least 5 years.

[TRENCHMASTER]

It depends on how much needs to be done and what his vision is. These are questions the coach should be answering in the interview process. I do not think you can put the same time table on it for every situation.

[DragonFire]

Winning a District and/or best record in School history in year 2 is unrealistic. Especially if it is a need to turn it around situation. I'll say 4 years total. Though you would want to see interest and/or a culture change and an increase in numbers too show a turnaround is in progress. JMO.

 

Warren Central was 3-8 two years ago, hired Mike Rogers, tied for their district championship last year and won it this year outright. I don't find it that unrealistic.

 

I would say the program needs to show progress. This is not always equivalent to a specific set number of wins or accomplishments. As jvdfc said, a change in culture or interest can be a sign. I can tell you that when Mike Rogers came to Central, you could immediately tell there was something different. Both in on the field product and in team attitude. The reality is that at many schools you don't have the luxury of just saying a new coach came in, win 10 games within 3 years or you're out. The talent of the school does not always dictate that happening. After all, this isn't college where the coach gets to recruit his guys. They play the hand they're dealt. It's what they do with that team that defines them. I would have guessed Warren Central would've been lucky to win 5 games with the team Mike Rogers inherited, but he went 8-4. The fact that they're 10-2 now and playing for the region this week boggles the mind.

[Larry Warner]

5 years

[bugatti]

This is not like college where you get to hand pick your talent and results are judged strictly on W's and L's. Turning around some programs at the high school level can mean simply changing the culture of a team so that they play hard, are organized, and gaining from the experience. In that sense a coach can leave an imprint almost immediately. By the time a Freshman class is Seniors, they will have all bought in to the concept no matter the results. Obviously you cannot lose every game, but you know what I mean. Wins will naturally come.

[sportsfan08]

Warren Central was 3-8 two years ago, hired Mike Rogers, tied for their district championship last year and won it this year outright. I don't find it that unrealistic.

 

I would say the program needs to show progress. This is not always equivalent to a specific set number of wins or accomplishments. As jvdfc said, a change in culture or interest can be a sign. I can tell you that when Mike Rogers came to Central, you could immediately tell there was something different. Both in on the field product and in team attitude. The reality is that at many schools you don't have the luxury of just saying a new coach came in, win 10 games within 3 years or you're out. The talent of the school does not always dictate that happening. After all, this isn't college where the coach gets to recruit his guys. They play the hand they're dealt. It's what they do with that team that defines them. I would have guessed Warren Central would've been lucky to win 5 games with the team Mike Rogers inherited, but he went 8-4. The fact that they're 10-2 now and playing for the region this week boggles the mind.

 

I agree totally. I think this can be the scenerio when you hire a good coach. It won't happen everywhere, but this should be the norm in most cases.

[JoeFan]

I agree with those that suggest five years under most circumstances. However, in the interim, a school should look for internal signs of progress. Is the off season program operating smoothly and have the kids bought into the system and the dedication that is being sought? Are there discipline problems? Are the coach and his staff providing good roll models for the athletes to emulate? On the field, are they competing each week? Is the coach getting the maximum out of the talent he has on the field?

 

Success is relative but a school has a right to expect some wins, as long as they are providing the program with enough support to enable it to function. If, after five years, the best athletes in the school still shun football and the talent level on the field still is not enough to produce winning seasons and, at least, competitive playoff runs, the school needs to take a look at the cause. In 1A some schools are just too small to be competitive. I don't care if the ghost of Knute Rockne coaches a school with a male enrollment of 90, they are not going to beat Beechwood, year in, year out. If such a school intends to keep playing football, the administration must define success in terms of the benefit to the student athletes. There are still many life lessons to be taught and the experience of dedicating oneself to a team cause should not be overlooked in any program.

[CatsCatsCats]

I think a coach needs 5 years. I think 3 is too short in most cases, because a coach coming into a new school doesn't usually get the full off-season schedule they would normally like to have. So year one is a kind of a waste, it should be about changing the culture of a program and getting the program set up to be successful. Put in schemes, terminology stuff like that. I think year 2 is really like year 1.b. It's a coaches first full year, and should be judged on improvement.

 

First a foremost though I'm with CoachBuckett, I think that a coach needs to be able to graduate a senior class, which is 5 years.

[PurplePride92]

I think each situation is different. Boyle went .500 in 2007, fired Pardue, hired Larry French and went to the state semis in 2008 and State Champs in 2009.

 

At Mercer, I can't remember what Jaggers record in his last year there was but Mercer got worse the next two years without Jaggers.

 

Every situation is different.

[birdseye]

No coach should EVER get less than 2 years.

 

5 is better because so much is out of the coaches control at the high school level.

[BIG BRUDDER]

It takes 2-3 years to straighten your assistant staff out whether its recruiting or dismisal.5 years tops to produce results.But you know,I am watching a couple local school programs experience this situation after 10 year plus teniorships and its obvious that sub par is acceptable.

[Harry Doyle]

I think it depends on the situation, but in most scenarios, I believe 4 years should be the minimum. Most fans don't want to beleive it about their school, but except for a handfull of schools in our state, all programs go through cycles of players. In small communities specifically, you are going to have down years in terms of talent, which typically lead to right around par or sub-par years.

[wideopen]

5 years