COACHES / COMMUNITIES / SCHOOLS

[FANOSPORTS]

I've been around awhile and have seen numerous coaches come and go in all sports at a lot of different schools in SEO and along the river in West Virginia. Since it's basketball season and we're on the basketball forum I have a question. Some people coached for decades and were close to the mountaintop (Carl Wolfe, Larry Jordan, Carroll Hawhee, Grant Barnette, etc.) and others have not quite reached the base of the mountain (Jim Osbourne, etc.). After years and sometimes decades without winning it all but every now and then winning a Sectional or District title, is that enough nowadays for the schools and communities ? Every now and then you'll have a young coach that has incredible talent to work with such as Mark Kreischer(South Webster) or Scott Aronhalt(Zanesville) that win it all when they're young and can rest on that championship for the rest of their careers if they want to or maybe even run for mayor. On the flip side of that you have coaches after decades of trying such as Gary Kellough (Chilly) or Norm Persin (Oak Hill) that found big time success after switching jobs and finding the right types of players to finally get that ring. I guess my question is that in today's society has there been such a priority put on winning that it's a win at all cost for the athletes, coaches and the schools and to hell with what's wrong with the way we're doing it at the high school level ? I think that's part of the reason you don't see coaches staying at the same schools for years the way they once did. Thoughts ?

[blockcharge]

Just my perspective; I don't know if the change is so much in "coaches/communities/schools" or our perception, due to the fact so much more information is available (i.e. internet) and that it seems that the media is more apt to report stories that wouldn't have made the "news" back in the day. When I was in high school i remember petitions being presented to get rid of a coach. In 4 years of High School I had 3 basketball, coaches, 3 baseball coaches, and 1 football coach. In basketball my senior year we went .500, which was coaches first year, he coached 1 more year and was non-renewed. In baseball my 10th grade year we were .500, my 11th grade year we were 21-11, after that year the BOE told coach that there were complaints from parents about to many games so they limited the # of games to 18 and coach resigned, we won about 8 my senior year. In football, we were just starting so my jr and sr years were the first 2 varsity seasons, we improved each year to reach .500 my sr year, Coach resigned the next year due to family obligations. The one thing i think has changed is the lack of respect for coaches and the game by the parents and hence the kids.

[sparky]

when i was in high school we had four different head coaches in the four years i was in school. and no, hopefully i didn't get any of them fired. actually only one was fired and he cut the board president's son.
even back in the day that was a kiss of death.

[Eaglesnest]

Very interesting thread here. I believe the major problem with athletics today is the parents. Parents need to love and suppor their kids, but anymore they seem to go over board with it. Parents get involved in youth league...then yell the entire time their son/daughter is in junior high....then do their best to coach from the stands while their son/daughter is in high school. Many parents "run down" the coach to their child after every game. Parents primary interest is always that of their kid (as it should be). Coaches have 1o or so kids that they have to look out for. Not an easy job. My point is that disgruntled parents (mad cause their kid didn't get "whatever") are making longevity impossible for most coaches. This is especially a huge problem in school systems with weak administration people or school boards.

[earp]

Eaglesnest that might be the best post I have seen on here!ON POINT!

[JChipwood]

To elaborate on a very good post by eaglesnest, I think in addition to running down the coach in front of the players they also fail to encourage kids to play and work even if they are the worst on the team and it is a conclusion that pt will be very limited. Rather they tell kids that all the work is not worth it and encourage quitting or non-participation. A team is only as good as it's weakest link because practice time far outnumbers actual gametime and improvements happen during the off-season and during practice.

Now in certain situations I have seen first hand that longevity is not the plus that everyone makes it out to be. I have seen some coaches slide as time passes and especially in relation to changing according to talent rather than staying the course with what has worked (or not worked in some cases) for years. Certainly longevity makes non x & o stuff easier and should also make a coach a better role model and allow them to set a standard of life for his players but let's face it, the kids work hard to compete and get better at their sport. That should be the main focus of ANY coach is make his players better at the games they work and strive to become better at. If coaches want kids to give their all, especially year round, then they need to make the primary focus teaching the game and adjusting to attempt to be more competitive. The other falls into place if they respect the coach for giving 110% to be better. Same could also be said about getting ALL potential prospects out to play every year. Too many good players don't play and the common reason goes back to coaching, problem with that is alot of these kids are multi-sport athletes who would benefit the programs and are certainly not some lazy stoner kids deciding to party rather than play.

[trojandave]

I think the days of coaches lasting 35-40 years are coming to an end........I know at Portsmouth, we have had 10 coaches since George Heller ended his 17 year coaching career in 1968........not one of those 10 coaches have lasted more than 7 years.......there are most of the time high expectations in the community in regards to tournament accomplishments........hanging 4 state championship banners on the wall serves as a reminder to that......losing in the sectional a school record 6 years in a row with some talented teams has made Portsmouth one of the most underachieving programs in the SE District.......but still firing a coach for poor performance is rare at PHS.......most generally a coach will step down for various reasons, but coaches most generally get a fair amount of time to prove themselves.

The goal at Portsmouth is to eventually win another state title.......but along the way, Trojan fans want to see a competitive team (over .500) in most years that will make a decent tourney run. The 2009-2010 Trojans posted the first winning season in 8 years....(12-7), which made a lot of fans feeling good.......but the first round exit in the tourney vs. Valley was a major disappointment, considering PHS had defeated Ironton, Chesapeake, Wheelersburg, and Warren......all schools that are playing for a district championship this weekend.

[trojandave]

gahs4ever: I agree with your post.......winning makes fans want to win more......case in point Portsmouth for so many years.......and if you don't have decent players, the best coach in the world can't win the game for them........coaches do influence games, though.......I have seen many talented teams over the years that didn't beat someone they were supposed to beat because of flawed strategy by the coach.......and I have also seen teams not so talented beat more talented teams because of brilliant coaching.......so it works both ways.

[Panther 4 Life]

Trojan Portsmouth in my opinion was the hottest team heading into the tourney. I was glad to see portsmouth have a winning season they are a great program. When I was a kid Portsmouth basketball was it man they were great year in year out(70's and 80's). It was unfortunate they exited the tourney so early but now they can begin and continue to restore Portsmouth basketball to once attained greatness.