College coach problems

CTbballDad posted:

PABaseball posted:

The word abusive needs to stop being thrown around. Too many coaches lose their jobs because players don't like the way they make them feel.  Just because a coach is mean, or cold, or intimidating does not mean he abuses his players. For every coach labeled "abusive" by a player there is probably a line of teammates, former players, and coaches ready stand behind him and defend him. Being rude, not watching bullpens, and speaking to a player in a unpleasant tone is nowhere near abusive. 

1/2 the players and parents on my son's HS team strongly dislike the coach, he does this, doesn't do that, so on.  Those are the kids who don't get a lot of PT.

The other 1/2, who play, speak highly of him. 

I can say he reached out to my son many times this summer, asking how recruiting was going and what he could do to help.  I'm sure the coaches who came to watch our HS games were also there because of him.  One offer my son received was a direct result of his feedback.  

People are going to play the victim card when they don't get what they want.  Unfortunately, this is the direction our culture has been moving towards for several years.

What I'm about to type is not directed at the OP or her sons situation.

That being said,  CTbballDad's HS survey post is spot on. Playing time always dictates coach evaluations. If your son doesn't play the HC is a clueless fool. If your son plays, he's fine. It's subjective and unfair but that's just how it is. 

Most parents don't understand what dictates playing time. Playing time is based on one simple rule: Coaches play the kids that will help them WIN. Period.

This is true at the HS level, Travel ball level and especially at the NCAA level. NCAA D1 HC Salaries start well into six figures and big program HC's make 1 Million+ . These guys are paid to WIN and will absolutely get FIRED if they don't.

It's a talent issue

It's simple. But the problem with that equation is that in the case of a kid not receiving playing time , The Parents are forced to face the reality that their kid may not be as talented as they thought. Most parents are unwilling or unable to accept that.

Some coaches just aren't very good at communicating. I've heard stories of some from friends and although at times my son's college coach and he were at odds about an issue, he was the first guy he went to see this week while back at Clemson. He really respects Coach Lee.

Sorry to hear about your son and this issue, keep us informed of what happens. I hope it doesn't drive him away from the game.

Chico Escuela posted:

RJM posted:

In almost every college baseball environment half the players will fail and transfer or quit freshman or soph year. Many have never failed before. It can’t possible be they weren’t up to the task. It must be the coach’s fault. Failing as a freshman or soph as an athlete doesn’t necessarily mean the kid can’t play. If you think the competition to get recruited is stiff wait until it’s about getting on the field at college. 

Respectfully, I'd say you're changing the subject.  Do kids today need to be better at handling failure?  A lot of people think so.  No one in the thread has said we should blame coaches if our kids can't cut it, or if that coaches shouldn't hold players to high standards and let them know if they fail to meet them.

But why do we accept behavior from coaches that we would not from accept from business managers, teachers (as PitchingFan noted), or just about anyone else outside a military or correctional context?  Is it more effective?  Does it make a team cohere better?  

There are tough coaches out there. My son had a jerk after the first coach took a different job. My experience from talking to other dads and stories my son told the jerk coaches aren’t as bad as the players who don’t cut it make them out to be. It’s also a matter of how much the player takes it personally. For these kids it’s the first time they’ve failed athletically. They have trouble accepting it’s partially on them. 

Some kids and their parents don’t understand college athletics is the real world. The coach is feeding his family and paying the mortgage based on what he can get out of his players. Failure means getting fired. Those players who don’t get it done are swept aside. It doesn’t mean they can’t play. It means they won’t be playing there. 

RJM posted:

OskiSD posted:

OK - here you go.  Augie Garrido was a great coach and teacher who would rip his teams when necessary (check YouTube).  His players loved him.  He cared about them, and made that clear.

Bobby Knight, though he won a lot of basketball games, is not like Augie Garrido.  A nasty, needlessly cruel person.  

I'd draw the line somewhere between those two.  

A lot of former Indiana players worship Bobby Knight. They say he taught them discipline, self management skills and to grow up. Plus, his players graduated. 

Beat me to it.  In addition to being a baseball player my son played AAU basketball at a fairly high level.  We used to play a team coached by a couple of ex-IU players.  One of the players was pivotal to the famous chair throwing incident.  Anyway, over the years I had the opportunity to get to know this player.  His coaching style was direct opposite of Bobby's but he spoke very highly of Bobby Knight.  Lots of respect for him.

Chico Escuela posted:

real green posted:

To think this doesn't happen in the business world is a bit naive.  Especially what was described by the OP.  

It happens, but no company would condone it.  No management training would suggest that it is effective or appropriate.  No business school would suggest managers act this way.  Why do we expect it from coaches? 

 

I actually had someone who was not my direct manager call me into his office and chew me up and down, yelling, spit spewing type of chew out.  I was doing some work in one of his stores (this is in retail) and one of his employees gave me some attitude that I did not appreciate so I let that employee know it.  The manager took offense to that as it was his store and his employee.  I sat there and took the chewing out.  Let him know I was sorry and we moved on.  In fact we went out for a beer the next day.  Thing is I was young in my career, just out of college and sports, and he was an ex-NFL player who came out of the old school coaching world.  At the time we both saw it as "normal".  I don't think I would stand for it today.  I will say in the retail world "management by intimidation" is not dead.  

Not sure how accurate the movie "Miracle" portrayed Herb Brooks and his actions to the players ... but those actions unified the team - and we know what that result was.

I know there are lots of folks who support Bob Knight - I've worked with a few Hoosiers in my day.  He does have lots of players who say really nice stuff about him.  

I still wouldn't want my son to play for a guy who hits his players and puts tampons in their lockers because they're "pussies."  Just my opinion.  

Different sports and the skills needed for each sport are different.  Football / Basketball... anger and rage can be used / harnessed for an advantage.  Not so sure that reaction helps a baseball player - or a golfer.  Personalities play into it as well... some respond to yelling - others need a pat on the back.  One style does not fit all, but both styles can be successful.   Think of the difference between Tom Landry / Jimmy Johnson ... Bill Parcells / Bill Bellichek ... Billy Martin / Joe Torre.  I had a wrestling coach that used to slap a wrestler  in the back of the head to wake them up before a match... not hard - not what anyone would consider abusive... but for me - it would be a distraction ...  I told him ... flat out ... the head thing doesn't work ... then I started getting it on the ass.  That didn't bother me.  Just saying - everyone, every situation is different.  A coach will use what works to get wins - until they keep losing.  

What a great topic this has turned into.  Many different perspectives based on what each individuals priorities are for their sons/daughters.  I find it fascinating that we will accept borderline physically/emotionally abusive behavior from coaches at all levels if they are "winners".  Now we will draw a line at the physical abuse, although we will waver on that line if they win enough, meaning administrators/AD's/fans....hard to know where the line is on emotional abuse because it is different for every parent/player combination and that is to be expected with everyone coming from a different perspective....But why do we allow winning  to be defined at the HS/D1,2,3 levels by only the score on the scoreboard?  Why do fans stop showing up for games if the scoreboard isn't in their favor often enough?  What makes a good coach? 

• Help develop players into solid, conscientious adults?
• Players show consistent progress toward a degree as a way to  hopefully better provide for themselves/family in the future?
• Teams are visible, active part of the community in which they play?
• Teams compete their tail off every time they step on the field and work their tail off to come out on top the next time after they fall short?

OR recruiting the best players to win the most games without really having to "coach" anything...

I am always amazed that a coach who does the former will lose his job because fans will stop showing up....and people will rally around the latter example solely because of the scoreboard...If I / you / we want coaching to change we must change how we define what makes coaches "winners"

No question Bob Knight and other “old school” coaches (I’ll avoid the word “abusive”) can be winners. But did their old school tactics make them successful?  Could Knight have won just as many games (or maybe more) if he had used a different approach?  Did he NEED to behave the way he did to win?

I keep saying it: If being a jerk is so successful, why isn’t there a single business school or management guru out there advocating it?  I think (?) we all agree that managing people in the working world isn’t supposed to work that way (although sometimes managers are jerks, too). So why do we expect something different from coaches?  

I think Newumpire nailed it. People are different, my son and daughter did not like to be yelled at. I responded to the yeller. It's like time out, worked for my daughter only had to do it once for a minute. If my dad would have put me in time out, I would have been like, "Let me get this straight, you're gonna put me in this comfortable chair for 1 minute per my age and I'm not gonna get a spanking, sweet sign me up!" 

As far as Bobby Knight, I would have no problem if he was my son's coach, but not sure he would like it. If Knight put a tampon in my locker, me and the guys I played with would have laughed so hard we would have had an aneurysm.

Agree with your definition of a good coach ...  but change takes time ... sometimes generations.   It is not just with coaching - it is with all social norms.   Mixed race marriages in the 60's were nearly unheard of ... now - at least in my neck of the woods - no one gives it a second thought.  Gay rights are making that transition now.  Slowly, the "old School" coach is fading as well.   Looking at the NFL, I find it difficult to find a screamer.   The likes of Sean McVeigh, Hugh Jackson, Bill Bellichek, Andy Ried, Todd Bowles.. are changing the way the game is coached.   Same in the NBA - Pop, Brad Stevens, Kerr, Doc, - In baseball ... Cora, Francona, Boone, Maddon, ... even ex players - Molitor, Mattingly ... maybe our grandkids will be benefators of the trickle down effect into College and HS ball once they see that there is a positive that translates to wins.

Chico Escuela posted:

I keep saying it: If being a jerk is so successful, why isn’t there a single business school or management guru out there advocating it?  I think (?) we all agree that managing people in the working world isn’t supposed to work that way (although sometimes managers are jerks, too). So why do we expect something different from coaches?  

Authoritative Management is what we are discussing.  Yes, it is still very common in the job market...  

Chico Escuela posted:

No question Bob Knight and other “old school” coaches (I’ll avoid the word “abusive”) can be winners. But did their old school tactics make them successful?  Could Knight have won just as many games (or maybe more) if he had used a different approach?  Did he NEED to behave the way he did to win?

I keep saying it: If being a jerk is so successful, why isn’t there a single business school or management guru out there advocating it?  I think (?) we all agree that managing people in the working world isn’t supposed to work that way (although sometimes managers are jerks, too). So why do we expect something different from coaches?  

OK, Chico, I'll throw this out there...

First, I think there are more than one ways to be successful.  Me, personally, I would say I am more progressive than old school but some of my players would probably disagree.

I am going to make an analogy to the military.  Of course, I am not trying to say it is the same level of importance or that losing has the same severity of consequences.  But there are many similarities, philosophies and perhaps an argument for old school tactics.  You have a large group of young men from widely varying backgrounds and levels of life experiences, mostly quite limited and not yet nearly prepared for what they are about to face.  They have to be whipped into shape in very short order and fully prepared to go out and do battle from the first day the war begins.  Having comradery and teamwork fully developed day one is an important but elusive goal.  So is full conditioning and exposure to as much simulated warfare as possible before the real thing begins.  Toughen them up and prepare them for anything and everything.  How does the military do this?  Pretty much the same way as the old school coaches do it.  I think the Herb Brooks analogy is really good.  Calculated breaking down of the individuals, along with purposeful development of resentment of the coach in effort to create team unity among the players.  Then push and push some more, beyond what they think they are capable of.  (Can't do that by coddling and telling they are all wonderful, just the way they are   )

I think many coaches use some of these tactics.  On the other hand, I also know that some coaches do it, not having a clue or specific plan.  It's just the way they are.  

NewUmpire posted:

Agree with your definition of a good coach ...  but change takes time ... sometimes generations.   It is not just with coaching - it is with all social norms.   Mixed race marriages in the 60's were nearly unheard of ... now - at least in my neck of the woods - no one gives it a second thought.  Gay rights are making that transition now.  Slowly, the "old School" coach is fading as well.   Looking at the NFL, I find it difficult to find a screamer.   The likes of Sean McVeigh, Hugh Jackson, Bill Bellichek, Andy Ried, Todd Bowles.. are changing the way the game is coached.   Same in the NBA - Pop, Brad Stevens, Kerr, Doc, - In baseball ... Cora, Francona, Boone, Maddon, ... even ex players - Molitor, Mattingly ... maybe our grandkids will be benefators of the trickle down effect into College and HS ball once they see that there is a positive that translates to wins.

Did you just put 1-31-1 Hue Jackson in the same category with Belichick?Wow...and I hate Belicheat, I'm mean Belichick...

real green posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

I keep saying it: If being a jerk is so successful, why isn’t there a single business school or management guru out there advocating it?  I think (?) we all agree that managing people in the working world isn’t supposed to work that way (although sometimes managers are jerks, too). So why do we expect something different from coaches?  

Authoritative Management is what we are discussing.  Yes, it is still very common in the job market...  

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that Authoritative Management Includes throwing things, belittling your reports in front of their peers, and the other kinds of behavior I have in mind. 

cabbagedad posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

No question Bob Knight and other “old school” coaches (I’ll avoid the word “abusive”) can be winners. But did their old school tactics make them successful?  Could Knight have won just as many games (or maybe more) if he had used a different approach?  Did he NEED to behave the way he did to win?

I keep saying it: If being a jerk is so successful, why isn’t there a single business school or management guru out there advocating it?  I think (?) we all agree that managing people in the working world isn’t supposed to work that way (although sometimes managers are jerks, too). So why do we expect something different from coaches?  

OK, Chico, I'll throw this out there...

First, I think there are more than one ways to be successful.  Me, personally, I would say I am more progressive than old school but some of my players would disagree.

I am going to make an analogy to the military.  Of course, I am not trying to say it is the same level of importance or that losing has the same severity of consequences.  But there are many similarities, philosophies and perhaps an argument for old school tactics.  You have a large group of young men from widely varying backgrounds and levels of life experiences, mostly quite limited and not yet nearly prepared for what they are about to face.  They have to be whipped into shape in very short order and fully prepared to go out and do battle from the first day the war begins.  Having comradery and teamwork fully developed day one is an important but elusive goal.  So is full conditioning and exposure to as much simulated warfare as possible before the real thing begins.  Toughen them up and prepare them for anything and everything.  How does the military do this?  Pretty much the same way as the old school coaches do it.  I think the Herb Brooks analogy is really good.  Calculated breaking down of the individuals, along with purposeful development of resentment of the coach in effort to create team unity among the players.  Then push and push some more, beyond what they think they are capable of.  (Can't do that by coddling and telling they are all wonderful, just the way they are   )

I think many coaches use some of these tactics.  On the other hand, I also know that some coaches do it, not having a clue or specific plan.  It's just the way they are.  

You make some very good points.  I’m cogitating about what parts of this would apply in business settings and which would not, and why. Even with a group of very young, very “green” employees, the military model generally wouldn’t be used. Maybe it should (to some extent)?  

For the record:  I’m ok with old school to the extent it means demanding. And chewing somebody out can have its place.  I think we all know “abusive coaching” when we see it, even if we don’t always agree. 

Interesting thread. I’m going to retire from the field for a while...

greatgame posted:

I think Newumpire nailed it. People are different, my son and daughter did not like to be yelled at. I responded to the yeller. It's like time out, worked for my daughter only had to do it once for a minute. If my dad would have put me in time out, I would have been like, "Let me get this straight, you're gonna put me in this comfortable chair for 1 minute per my age and I'm not gonna get a spanking, sweet sign me up!" 

As far as Bobby Knight, I would have no problem if he was my son's coach, but not sure he would like it. If Knight put a tampon in my locker, me and the guys I played with would have laughed so hard we would have had an aneurysm.

As my WWII Marine veteran father (who also played Big 10 football) said to me when I complained about a high school coach ...

You can be a pussy and quit. Or you can man up and figure out how to deal with it if you truly want to play.

No matter what the coaching style and the era the advice still fits.

NewUmpire posted:

Not sure how accurate the movie "Miracle" portrayed Herb Brooks and his actions to the players ... but those actions unified the team - and we know what that result was.

Brooks had them skate sprints until the players were dropping. One of the players realized and yelled out he played for the USA not his college. Some of the players weren’t getting along due to a college rivalry and an incident (not explained in the movie) in one of their games 

This has turned into a very interesting and respectful discussion. You guys were busy on here today! A busy day at work kept me from responding until now, but I enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. 

CABBAGEDAD:  I appreciated your advice to me. It was excellent, but I can assure you that I already had no delusions that a college baseball player's "fun" experience is anything similar to the average student's "fun" experience. My use of the term "fun" was intended the way you described it for college athletes (camaradarie, etc.). I'm still glad you provided that advice though in case anyone else in the future comes across this thread and doesn't have a realistic perspective of life for college athletes. (I know when I first found this site last year, old threads were extremely helpful.)

Chico:  I agreed with pretty much everything you said. 

The more I think about this topic, I honestly think it's as simple as this:  if the coach is an a-hole in all the other areas of his life, then he's most likely going to be an a-hole coach. If he's a decent human being in his personal life, then he's probably going to be decent to his players. Keep in mind, most of us in this disucssion have reached a consensus that "mean/abusive" (whatever term you want to use) is different than "tough." Each parent/kid has to decide if they want to deal with mean. Personally, I don't think kids should have to deal with that in any area of their life, including sports. The perfect example from above is the teacher/coach comparison. We put up with behavior from coaches that we would never tolerate from any other professionals. Hopefully there is a change underway. 

Someone above opined that acceptable behavior/styles of leadership have already changed drastically in the business world, and that coaching styles may be moving in that direction as well. I think this is the case. The younger generation of coaches may repsect the "mean" coach they had, while also recognizing that style is not the best way to motivate players and win. I will put forth Nick Mingione as an example of this newer generation of coach. He's been successful, his players respect him, he's tough, but he's also a good human being who treats his team like family. 

OP's post hit home for me. My first job out of law school, after switching careers, I had a total a-hole boss. He was the Bobby Knight of bosses (except no one respected him). He is the perfect example of the guy who is an a-hole in all areas of his life. I was miserable. It got so bad that I had to file a formal complaint after he got in my face and I thought he was going to hit me. He was forced to attend anger management type classes. He eventually was such an a-hole to a judge in open court that the news media picked up on it, and he was fired in a very public way. (His anger management was obviously not successful.) I would not wish that type of coach/boss on anyone. Could I handle it? Yes. Should I have to put up with it in a business setting? No. Was it a learning experience? Yes:  I should never let ANYONE treat me that way. I should've quit long before I did. But just like with players who have tough coaches, some of my former co-workers chose to continue working for him until he was fired.

Which brings me back to the one thing we all seem to agree on:  whether you agree with the "mean coach" philosophy or not, your kid might end up playing for one like OP's son did. If that happens, each player has to decide if he wants to deal with it or not. I just hope that if a kid decides he doesn't want to deal with it, his parents will be as supportive as OP was with her son.