RedDirtFan wrote:I don't think there's any way to accurately evaluate coaching at the Class B level unless you actually understand the game enough to see what tactics they're applying, how they adjust in-game, and how they figure out their rotations in order to get the best groupings on the floor. Winning can't matter that much because the unfortunate truth is that some B schools have many, many more athletes than others. You look at the bigger Class B towns over the last 5-10 years and they've supplied many of the great teams. It's unfortunate but a lot of little towns are dying out and more co-ops are forming. Many smaller areas tend to produce great teams in spurts and then fade out for others, and it's really about the athleticism, size, and interest of the kids involved. Obviously, basketball is bigger in some places than others.
Anyway, my point is that you can take any coach we deem great in this thread and find places where he or she won't produce wins and it would have next to nothing to do with his or her competence as a coach. It's a generational thing. Continuity is so rare because the population isn't going to produce extremely athletic groupings over and over again. I don't mean this as a criticism--perhaps the generations that aren't as athletic excel in things like speech or drama or music, and that's just as impressive as excelling in sports.
Anyway, just thought I'd leave my 2 cents.
knowledge wrote:There are a number of ways to evaluate high school coaches. Wins and losses are apart of the game, but as mentioned there are many good coaches in places that are less likely to produce talent, regardless of how many hours the coach is in the gym -- the players & their families need to be committed too. It's also widely know that the smaller the district, the more often the talent will cycle.
These are a few examples:
Game tactician - makes in-game adjustments, changes defenses, adjusts offense, well timed time-outs, scoring opportunities after time-outs, substitution patterns, etc....
Scouting Report Coach - Team seems well prepared for what an opponent has done throughout the year. It is obvious to see that this coach has his/her team prepared to produce on that one night v. that opponent.
Program Coach - they do what they do, and they do it well. Success is dependent upon the athletes in the program if they are getting it done at a higher level. Ex. - This team runs the flex - you know it's coming, you know they'll be really disciplined in it, but if they don't have the kids to execute it, they'll be much less successful than in the year's they do.
To be honest, the best coaching staffs have one of each of these types on them. Then there are few weaknesses, if they all accept and acknowledge their roles on the staff and the head coach doesn't micromanage.
I do think that there are three simple questions to ask when it comes to HS coach evaluation:
Who gets the most from the least?
Who's kids are prepared, motivated, and make the adjustments when they are favored?
Are you biased? - Set this aside, answer the first couple questions and you'll be able to figure out who the quality coaches are.
ndbluetwo4 wrote:http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/623754/Rags-to-riches--Feller-transforming-ORCS-into-perennial-power.html?nav=5016 this teams progress in the last decade is crazy
Run4Fun2009 wrote:ndbluetwo4 wrote:http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/623754/Rags-to-riches--Feller-transforming-ORCS-into-perennial-power.html?nav=5016 this teams progress in the last decade is crazy
We can't read the article because of MDN's stupid 'subscribe to read anything' system
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests