thehotsnakes

One thing that I really want, is for him to win a title. He apparently seems like a really good guy and everything like that, and probably deserves it. But, I just want to have a "Coach Champion is a championship coach" type of thread.

That's a strong name, at the very least.

You better not let HIM know you said that. He's like Santa Claus and Mike Tyson combined.

Chuck Norris was named after Chuck Smith.

Consistency and identity. Granted I'm not in their situation, but from everything I saw last year they didn't seem to quite know who they were. They seemed to dabble into different styles and looks, and some of those paid off and others didn't. Going off of their record, it feels like one week they couldn't be stopped and the next week they either lose close to win in OT. I would say that they could compete for a district championship this year, considering they were 8 points away from one last year.

I would dare say there's only about 3 or 4 teams in 1A who aren't concerned with numbers. And, it's just the nature of small school football. It's nothing against coaching or culture or anything of that nature. If there's less than 100 boys in the school, unless you've got 90%+ participation rate, you are going to have that worry.

Dogjackets. Mascot is a dog wearing a sport coat. Best mascot in the state.

That one would feel a little odd, to me. To go from a head position back to an asst?

Bethlehem is currently open.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think a March or April hire really gives that much of an advantage to a team that is, honestly, very not good. 7v7 aren't that hard to find, especially if you aren't going to the big tournaments. If the program is in a bad situation, a new coach won't get to have a complete pick of who to replace and keep on staff. It's hard to find even remotely average coaches, you aren't going to find them coming for this job. You know who you can and can't keep or trust with responsibility pretty quickly in these situations. The only issue would be fundraising that you could be missing out on. But, at the same time, it isn't super hard to get stuff going pretty quickly. They've done things in the past, so those are probably pretty standard items that most teams would do. If the team hasn't had anything to do since October, as in no asst. has taken the lead in any sort of weights program, then I doubt starting a month earlier will be a make or break time frame. I 100% get what you're saying, and it's not that I disagree with you in any capacity. I just think that THIS job isn't like most other jobs. You're taking over a team who didn't score over 20 points in a single game this season, and who hasn't had a winning season in almost a decade. Are all of the things you mentioned valid issues for a program? Without a doubt. But, are those the issues that have been possibly holding them back? I don't think so. It's like going to the ER with a broken hand and a gun shot wound. Those are both things I want to have treated, but one is far more important than the other. Hiring the right coach who can be committed to building the program year round is the single most important issue facing any struggling program. If they have better offerings in May after positions and budget issues become more clear, then you can't fault them for waiting.

Again, I really don't think 2 months is going to make or break the future of this program. Everything can be taught and learned in June.

I think I would rather wait and get a late start, than rush a hire and have them coming into a situation that changed due to positions and budgets. As bad as it sounds, is Grant County really a spring practice window away from competing with teams this year? I honestly think, unless they have positions confirmed, that they aren't hurting themselves by waiting. Have a full list of jobs to better be able to find the right person.

Is spring practice just a window for full contact? Because I've known of people who have their off season stuff after school, and they'll pretty often do a lot of football specific things, just without the contact.

Until today, was this the longest held job in the state?

Let's also not forget if we are using the UCF argument, that they didn't play a single ranked team during the regular season. They only won 1 game against a team that would have been deemed to have unquestionably better players. So, that comparison isn't even close to being valid.

I don't even think it has to be a change towards the bad. If a school willingly moves up to compete in a higher classification, then I think it should be allowed. Although it should be stated that I have no problems with any transfers for any reason. If you feel a school isn't meeting a need you feel to be important enough to transfer over, then feel free. What if a team dropped out of district play? Should they have the opportunity to transfer? They aren't hurting their odds at a championship or for post season play, they're literally eliminating it completely. I say let them transfer. And eat cake if they have it, too!

I don't think anyone said don't work or try to win. But, if 220 (right? 221?) teams set out and say their goal is a title or failure, then 95% of the teams failed. Your goal has to be to play your best game that week. If you win, great. If you lose, learn from it. I've seen a team bring one of their best possible games they could, and come up short. And I've seen that same team have an above average game and absolutely slaughter another team. If I was the head coach of a team, I'd tell them to give their all to win that week. If it's week 0, round 1, or round 5, then give everything you can to come out on the right side of the score board. If I end the season and 4-6, and they absolutely gutted out every game, then I'm going to be proud of what they did. And if they hit everything perfectly and we all get a ring? Then I'm proud, again. Not every team is capable of winning a championship in a given year. We can talk about changing culture and demanding excellence, but we also have to be honest. We can eliminate about 85% of the teams in contention for a state championship, by July. Does that mean they have nothing to play for? Of course not.

In my scenario, who are you picking?

I guess we just need to print off this conversation and send it to a bunch of those schools who are just hoping to get above .500 for the year. Work harder and settle for nothing less than playing at UK in December, and that'll work. It doesn't matter if you're the smallest school, work harder! It doesn't matter if you live in a district with a high student migration and kids in foster care, work harder! Honestly, how many times does a team come from outside a pre-season top 10 and play in a state championship? If Team A works as hard as they possibly can, and in the regional championship goes up against a team who worked equally as hard. Who wins? The harder working team? What if you took the last decade of a teams best players in their prime and gave them all off-season and the summer to get ready to play one game. What if you took another teams JV players and back-ups, and gave them 2 weeks of practice. Who are you going to pick to win the game? You'd probably want to know who the teams are, right? Let's say Team B is Trinity. And let's say Team A is one of the annual teams who finish in the 0-3 wins range. Are you going to stick by your guns and go with the harder working team? Because I know who I am going to pick.

I've never really understood the reasoning behind not playing in a district. Most teams know going in to the season, if they can or can't compete for the district title. And out of those who think they can, not all of those end of being able to. People know who you are and aren't beating. If you drop out and win 8 or 9 games against absolutely awful teams, you aren't impressing anybody. Stay in a district, play who you have to and try and make it work in your non-district schedule to pad those wins if you need the job security. For me, just solely in the off chance that you might catch lightning one season and the right teams are down, I would want to stay in district play. The only reason I could ever personally justify it, would be if I was at a school that was basically on an island. If the nearest school in my district is 1 1/2 hours away, but there's some schools I could compete with and everything like that, I might consider it. But, even then, it just doesn't feel like something I would want. It almost feels like you're ducking out on a challenge.

Work harder is the lazy excuse for any argument about this subject. I really wouldn't have any issue if Kentucky adopted something similar, to ensure that it wasn't the same names every year.

If I recall correctly, last time there were several schools who were on the line to go up or down, who had a student population trending in the same direction. I won't be surprised to see a few new faces in new classes, and maybe some old familiar faces returning to where they used to be.

Awhile back, I looked up all of the location info for the 3 main sites, and what the travel distance would have been for every state finals for roughly the last 10 years. And, while I don't remember the exact numbers, I do remember that Bowling Green was the "closest" location for 1 year, Louisville was for 1 year, and Lexington was for the rest of the time. Even the years Lexington was the best option, it was always a really close 2nd.

Campbellsville is also home to the last Druthers in the world!

If you think of talent and coaching on a sliding scale from 0-100, the lower one is then the higher the other needs to be. When you have both on the high end, good things happen. Both on the low end, you go 0-10. If you make a fair assessment of the talent that a team has, then you'll be left knowing what level coaching they need. There's no set answer for any of this.