Winning, losing and building a program

Nothing is impossible, but some people simply know how to win.  They know what it takes and they do what it takes.  We see it a lot in college sports.  We see it sometimes in pro sports.

Oddly enough, it seems like in professional sports those that don't win, just move on to the next high paying job.  There are coaches in just about every pro sport that get fired, get hired, get fired, get hired, so on and so on, several times.  Must be due to experience, but all they have experienced is losing, everywhere they go.

I think you have to have been a winner or been around one at some point.  I look at my son's HS football coach is someone that I would point to as someone that I would replicate if I were coaching.  They had won 6 state titles in 13 years and are on their way to another one this year while being the smallest school in their class.  They don't allow excuses.  I think that is the #1 thing that drives them forward.  It's too easy to say we can't win because of our academics, size of the school, the history, etc.  You need someone that says this is how we are going to do things and we are going to win.  It's how Gonzaga became a top 20 basketball program or how Baylor and TCU become solid football teams.  They have every built in excuse in the world but it took a coach who could see past those and not allow players and staff to use those excuses.  

I believe that there is a strong correlation between being on winning/championship teams and carrying that trait to the next level.  

It is part of the culture stressed that makes teams and their players winners, not only in the game but later on when the player moves on. For example, the Cardinals have a handbook given to the players on that philosophy.  You often see the milb teams of winning big clubs win league championships because that philosophy trickles down.  Often times you will see a less talented team be successful than a more talented one because there are certain standards of conduct and rules that you expect and demand from your players.

I have had a change in philosophy over the past several years.  Seriously, who wants to be on a team that loses more than it wins, no matter what the level. I would rather see my player on a winning team in a smaller conference than a losing team in a big conference.  

Obviously that coach doesn't have a clue about what it takes to be a coach, or she would have gotten better results from her players.

I think that this WS is a perfect example of how that winning philosophy works. Two winning managers that have had their players buy into what they were selling.

I think part of what makes it hard for a coach of a perennial loser to turn things around is the fact that they just can't get the top level recruits.  In most cases, the top guys want to go to the top programs....then it trickles down.  It's kind of why Purdue doesn't beat Michigan, Ohio State and Wisconsin in football....they are recruiting the same kids....but the top kids go to the top programs....meaning Purdue has to play those guys every year with kids who may not be up to the level of the kids at those other programs.  It's the same for every sport....and maybe more so in baseball where recruiting is even more challenging because of having to divide up the 11.7 schollys

Interesting topic, especially for college baseball, which, in my view, can be very different from football/basketball in building a winner, but there can be  no better example to support my view than what happened with Stanford football when they hired coach Harbaugh.  He made a difference but Stanford realigned itself in meaningful ways to hire him and the realignment  extended far beyond the football field.

For baseball, 11.7 is one very important challenge,  but not the only one, by a long shot.

In my view, this is not just a coaching issue. It may not even start with the coaches.  It often times starts with the AD and administration and their commitment. That commitment is to baseball, building a program, having a goal for what that looks like, and committing facilities and resources.

The obvious example in college sports is Stanford and Harbaugh but in baseball it is Vanderbilt and Coach Corbin.  Looked at together, Vanderbilt and Coach Corbin have  been hugely successful. If Coach Corbin had been hired with the view (and facility) which existed when the prior coaching staff was let go, I wonder if he would have been successful. Toward the other end of the spectrum, Coach Peters (Rex) is well known on the West Coast as being one of the very, very best in coaching baseball and recruiting.

However, with an athletic program not being fully funded and facility issues coupled with questionable administration support and turnover at the AD position,  he could not sustain a competitive program in the Big West. He built it but could not sustain it.

If one wants to see a top quality program disintegrate, one could follow the history of Stanford softball which was one of the very best up to about 3-4 years ago and now is seemingly on the other end.  Again, from the outside, the fall does not appear to be the result of poor coaches who were let go or poor coaches who replaced them.

For college baseball, I don't think a program sustains success without a big footprint of support from the AD and administration.  That support is facility and resource oriented and driven. Sometimes it can start with the AD and administration. Sometimes it can start with the coaching staff which pushes hard for that type of support. I am skeptical success happens without quality from both sides, however.

I agree with you, winning attitudes begin at the top of the food chain and trickles down.  In college sports strong athletic programs are supported by the Administration and AD as well as fundraising efforts.  In professional sports it's about how the owners hire competent staff.

This topic came up after asking a friend to get together. He said he was going to be away next weekend to watch his daughter play. So I looked up how the team and she were doing. Dads don't keep their friends up on what's happening when the kid is losing every game.

Now, I'll look at my kid's high school. Before my daughter arrived in (class of 07) the high school was the league doormat in most sports. As the football coach once said to me, "It's challenging recruiting off the mean streets of the country clubs." The football team was usually down 35 or 42-0 at the half. 

The year before my daughter arrived a new AD was hired. He was the assistant AD at a long time powerhouse. He used the same game plan attracting coaches. He went after top assistants in powerhouse programs. It's how you start a wining attitude in a losing environment. Someone has to know what it takes to win. I know two of the rules were win or be fired and parents will no longer get coaches fired. By the time my son was a soph (four years younger than sister) every team was winning the conference or on their way to winning the conference in his era.

During this changeover to winning their was a lot of bitching by parents. The AD protected his coaches. Parents were accustomed to running the show, influencing lineups and getting coaches fired. The AD ran off the complaints. The ones we heard about as parents were absurd. My kids were leaders in the sports they played by the time they were juniors they were mentoring new varsity players on how to carry themselves as classy and winners. I'm sure it was going on in other sports. 

In college I believe in order to transition a loser into a winner there has to be a coach who can tell a recruit, "I was a winner as a player. I was a winner as an assistant. I know how to win. We will win. I want you to be part of it."

It's hard to go from last to first. As someone mentioned a perennial loser can't attract the top talent. But a coach with the right attitude can attract talent that gets the team to .500. Then he can sell, "I got this team this far. I want you to help get us the rest of the way."

There are a ton of factors in building a winner, you really need to have a correct group mindset of everyone being "all-in", from the coaching staff through the players, the trainers, the strength & conditioning coordinators, even the administrative people in the athletic department.

At the same time, you are right:  a coach needs to know how to win, it isn't going to happen through guesswork or just stumbling upon a correct formula

Best way to turn a program around is recruit incredible pitchers.  Easier said than done

RJM posted:

It's hard to go from last to first. As someone mentioned a perennial loser can't attract the top talent. But a coach with the right attitude can attract talent that gets the team to .500. Then he can sell, "I got this team this far. I want you to help get us the rest of the way."

There is no doubt in my mind that winning is an approach, a culture and result of the daily grind done properly. It starts with the head coach who sets the vision and creates the path, the assistants drive the vision in operations and approach on a daily basis...winning isn't about special talent.

Don't get me wrong, it takes some talent to win games and it takes some special talent to win titles but the program can / should and needs to create an environment that raises the bar to success.

Business has many of the same needs, there are some business men who can start or take over a company, see a vision for it, hire a few key people and it just happens...but it is never as simple as it just happens - the unseen is the culture, the work ethic, the clear set of objectives, the daily grind to the numbers, the accountability to success and so on.

There is no doubt in my mind that the great coaches in sports cross over - you think John Wooden wouldn't have been a great baseball coach? you think Joe Paterno wouldn't have been a great lacrosse coach? you think Augie Garrito wouldn't have been a great football coach? Those guys would have won regardless of the sport. Obviously those are just a few cherry picked names and there are other great examples.

One of the great things about sports, I believe about baseball in particular, is the relationship to life and business. How to see it, structure it, work for it, create a team to do it because you can't do it alone and repeat it...how deal with failure / losing but never accept it. Those are the things that make baseball great and the lessons that make baseball players great men.

Best way to start turning a loser into a winner is to change everything you can change quickly and easily.  It takes a different mindset to go from losing to winning and sometimes people can't handle it.  By creating change in how they dress, do warm ups, fundraise, work out and many many many other things that don't seem like much start changing the mindset.  Losing takes place because people get comfortable in their ways and create excuses.  If you make wholesale changes in little things those who cannot adjust to the change you need to let go or minimize their impact.

Second thing is create a set of high standards and stick to them.  This helps to instill discipline which will eventually translate to the field.

Third thing is you better actually know how to get talent and / or develop talent.  None of that stuff matters if you're not making / getting better players through better skill development / recruiting.

There is a fundamental difference between winners and losers. A different attitude and mindset. Behavior and tolerance. Losers accept what happens to them and winners force their will. 

My best friend and ex teammate got a job coaching baseball at a school where I was coaching football. The school was a powerhouse in the region in both sports. My friend was a top tier assistant and exceptional recruiter who was being offered head jobs by many public and private high schools in the area as well as colleges. 

I warned him to take his time and make the best choice from ALL the factors. He took a job with a school who had not been to the playoffs in an inferior league in over a decade. He began to implement the same system that was so succesful for our school, at his new one. The upper class kids and parents  rebelled against the extra hard work and new set of rules installed. His new recruits bought in totally . There was a divide between the new parents and new recruits and the old parents and upperclass players who felt threatened by the new players. The workload and expectations were much more than they were used to having. The team made the playoffs in his first year and won two rounds before being eliminated. The parents continued to fight with the coach and petitioned the AD to fire him. He was forced to resign and  couldnt understand why....

I told him that with winning dictates a different set of standards and behavior than losing. Losing is very easy. Not much effort is required to lose. Not much coaching , not much player development, not much quality recruiting, and not much off field work. Winning is hard. A lessor percentage can list themselves as winners in any conference. The effort it takes is much more. Much harder work, constant competition, hard practices, strict rules, and each player being held personally responsible for their roles. Until the Head Man and the AD are ready to accept this , the coach cannot win. The coach must have the backing of the higher ups. The coach must have been in a winning system to know how to implement a winning system. The players must buy in completely. The players must have some level of talent or the coach must go out and recruit players who will fit his system with at least the minimal amount of talent to satsify what the coach believes he needs to win ..... 

My daughter was being "recruited" by a local D-II but not heavily.  In fact, the coach told us that he knew he didn't stand a chance to get her.  The program bounced back and forth between ok and bad.  Still, we went to some games to watch this team play.  That coach was replaced by a coach who was recruiting my daughter to a D-I.  He made the type of promises mentioned in the OP.  In fact, he told my daughter that if she came, he would build a team around her and they would contend for a national title. 

This seemed to be pie in the sky since we knew some members of the team and their parents.  Yes, I said their parents.  More than one or two were toxic.  Long story short, my daughter decided to go to that program.  The coach had made the same statement to 4 other top notch players and so, all showed up together to form their version of the "fab five."  The upper class players were to be in for a little shock therapy.  All five started and played every game.  They turned that program around with an outstanding coach and won their conference 3 out 4 years.  They were ranked #1 in the nation when injuries took players like my daughter down.  While they never won a national championship, they set all kinds of records. 

So, not it is not impossible to change a program from habitual losers to winners. 

CoachB25 posted:

So, not it is not impossible to change a program from habitual losers to winners. 

If they are buying what you are selling, it can happen.

An advantage at D2 and D3 is if the coach can recruit and sell he can convince players to play down a level and still have a great experience. CoachB25's daughter could have played D1. I'll bet the other four of the Fab5 were in the same situation. Also with women it's Team USA or nothing after college. It makes selling down easier than men's sports.

RJM posted:

 

...

Can a college head coach who has never been around winning as a player, assistant and head coach build a winner? My feeling is you have to have been around a winner to learn what it takes administratively, recruiting wise, and mentally. What do you think?

 

I agree that you have to have "been around winning.. ".  Obviously, when a school hires a HC, they are looking for a guy who has already proven he can win, so if you haven't, it's tough to get in the door to begin with.  For the sake of argument, I do think there are a some circumstances that are not too uncommon in the college baseball scene that would allow for a HC to come in and develop a winning college program even though he hasn't been directly associated with one.

Some of those circumstances...

1.  There is a lot more supply than demand for college HC's and assistants often make very little money so aspiring coaches are likely to take any immediate assistant job that comes up as they try to climb.  This can mean stepping into spots with losing programs and roles with a limited sphere of influence.  This doesn't mean that the assistant doesn't have the competitive nature, desire, ability or mentality to run a winning program.  Remember, most of these guys played the game through four years of college or more.

2.  The coaching fraternity is a small one where coaches share information with one another.  An aspiring assistant could potentially learn quite a bit about a winning program without being directly associated with that program.  And, in sharing stories and comparing, one could learn a lot about what NOT to do and can identify some red flags more quickly because he has experienced those things first hand .  Along the way, there were hundreds of instances where they said to themselves... "If I were the HC, I would have done it differently"

All that said, the proven winner has multiple advantages if we're otherwise talking apples and apples.

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

RJM posted:

An advantage at D2 and D3 is if the coach can recruit and sell he can convince players to play down a level and still have a great experience. CoachB25's daughter could have played D1. I'll bet the other four of the Fab5 were in the same situation. Also with women it's Team USA or nothing after college. It makes selling down easier than men's sports.

Yes, the other girls were also being recruited for D-I schools.  Two of them were from the West Coast which is huge in softball recruitment.  Also, they had a young lady visit for the next year that was committed to a D-I in a major conference but which didn't have her major.  My daughter was her guide and they spent a weekend together.  She decommited and came to my daughter's school.  She became a 4 time All American. 

You don't have to win a championship to be a winning coach.  I am not sure that would be the goal year in and year out, in any division it's really tough getting to that final series. In most cases, it takes more than just talent, which includes your team having few injuries, the sun and moon and stars all aligned up and Jupiter rising.  It's that difficult.

When your son is being recruited and interviewed, you should do some interviewing too. Ask him what his goals for the team are, seriously.

If he doesn't say, to make regionals, or win a division championship, I don't think that sounds like a winner to me.

JMO

Agree that top down commitment is necessary but another key ingredient is when the players take ownership of team success. Certain leaders on the team hold others accountable and demand excellence from them. A guy like Dansby Swanson comes to mind. He led by example first and set the tone day in day out. It shouldn't always have to come from the coaches. 

Nick Saban stated that he knew his team got it when he heard upper classmen telling freshmen "we don't do it that way at Alabama."

hshuler posted:

Agree that top down commitment is necessary but another key ingredient is when the players take ownership of team success. Certain leaders on the team hold others accountable and demand excellence from them. A guy like Dansby Swanson comes to mind. He led by example first and set the tone day in day out. It shouldn't always have to come from the coaches. 

Nick Saban stated that he knew his team got it when he heard upper classmen telling freshmen "we don't do it that way at Alabama."

You are right, good point. And thats part of the buy in, developing the culture (winning) that you have to take personal responsibility and ownership.

A big part becomes the team running the team and then its all good.  

TPM posted:

hshuler posted:

Agree that top down commitment is necessary but another key ingredient is when the players take ownership of team success. Certain leaders on the team hold others accountable and demand excellence from them. A guy like Dansby Swanson comes to mind. He led by example first and set the tone day in day out. It shouldn't always have to come from the coaches. 

Nick Saban stated that he knew his team got it when he heard upper classmen telling freshmen "we don't do it that way at Alabama."

You are right, good point. And thats part of the buy in, developing the culture (winning) that you have to take personal responsibility and ownership.

A big part becomes the team running the team and then its all good.  

 

Agreed. Only happens when the players buy into what the coach is selling. That's why you will see coaches do some house cleaning early on and sometime later to send the "my way or highway" message.

You want everyone on the same page.  

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. The recruits would probably think the coach is full of BS. Plus the coach wouldn't be recruiting top shelf talent the first two or three years. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference titles, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

On the back of the Clemson players cap there is a tigerpaw and the word Omaha.

A gentle reminder of the expectations each year.  

There are more factors here than just the coach.  For a new coach to win depends upon several factors including support from the AD and the university.  It depends upon the ability of the new HC to be able to bring in the assistant coaches that they want.  When I took over as a HC at the HS level, I was told that I had a couple of years to win or I would be gone.  I had tremendous support by the administration and was able to bring in my assistant coach who I had coached in HS.  We won right away.  Turning a program also depends upon things at the collegiate level in softball such as schedule.  My daughter's Spring Trip was to Arizona 2 of her 4 years to play the best teams in the nation in the kick off classic.  That helped a lot with recruitment.  Many teams take a trip to Florida.   Is the program fully funded?  Many aren't.  If they aren't, that elite pitcher is headed to your competition.   What does the school have to offer.  For us, as parents, my daughter's school had such a great reputation for the degree she wanted and then the provided services like a study hall with tutors.  In that setting, computers, printers, ... all were provided and athletes had to attend all their freshman year and then, were allowed to miss at times when their GPA was solid. 

I actually did take a job at a perennial losing college.  And yes I recruited many outstanding players, telling them our goal was to win a National Championship. And yes, I believed we would have a chance to do that.

We never even made it to the National Tournament, but we did set records each year for wins and we did win the conference championship or finish second every year.  

If I would have told recruits our goal was to win the conference championship, I would have missed many of our best players. I don't think that would have tripped their trigger.  These were players that had a lot of confidence in their ability.

We were a small college and we had two pitchers end up pitching in the Big Leagues, our CF in AAA.  Our SS was sitting in the Cubs dugout tonight, he is their S&C coach. We had three others sign with MLB clubs.  

There is nothing wrong with having gigantic goals.  Everyone knows how difficult it is to reach those goals.  Trying to reach them is what counts.

Funny - heard the head coach of a prestigious, history-rich football program say after an ugly loss earlier this year say "Our goal was and still is to win a (name of conference) championship." My immediate thought was that he won't be there long. The school's standard is national championships, not conference championships. 

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

Bottom feeders don't get to recruit top shelf players. Top shelf players get to select from top shelf programs.

TPM posted:

CoachB25 posted:

So, not it is not impossible to change a program from habitual losers to winners. 

If they are buying what you are selling, it can happen.

As new coach, if you take over and the existing team leadership isn't buying...cut them. preferably the best player or 2 who is not buying in....you will see immediate returns. there is no place for not buying in, a new coach might as well establish that from the beginning. This is part of what I meant when I said set a vision and hold accountable to it.

There is going to be a change from day 1...you may take a step back but the program is already losing so who cares.

RJM posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

Bottom feeders don't get to recruit top shelf players. Top shelf players get to select from top shelf programs.

RJM posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

Bottom feeders don't get to recruit top shelf players. Top shelf players get to select from top shelf programs.

RJM posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

Bottom feeders don't get to recruit top shelf players. Top shelf players get to select from top shelf programs.

RJM posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

Do you believe a head coach who was an assistant can come into a perennial loser and sell "we're going to win a national championship" to recruits who will only be there the next three or four years? Chances are the coach is starting without any championship quality talent if he's inheriting a losing program. I don't believe the new coach can get the attention of the kind of players needed to win a championship. I would think a realistic coach would want to be competing for his conference title once he has three or four years of his recruits. Once winning a couple of conference title, making the NCAA tournament and possibly being ranked the team is ready to sell the next step.

Agree that there has to be progression and winning the conference is the first step but the ultimate goal is to win the national c'ship, especially if you're recruiting the top-shelf players. 

Bottom feeders don't get to recruit top shelf players. Top shelf players get to select from top shelf programs.

Agreed but sometimes coaches get lucky with kids who want to play for the school that they've rooted for all of their life.

Example, a local program (bottom half of conference) recently ended up with a top 5 recruiting class because a few big time prospects didn't get drafted as highly as anticipated. 

Something I tell younger / newer head coaches at the high school level is that when you take a program over you're not going to get much out of seniors.  They are set in their ways and it's hard to break them.  If you do then you should have a fairly decent season.  With juniors you can start to develop leaders for the next season but it's going to be 50/50 if they get it or not.  You're going to make your change with your sophomores since you will have them for three years.  Obviously the freshmen are yours so make it happen.

Totally agree that you have to have support from the upper levels.  I've been lucky that all my principals have either been athletic minded people or left coaches alone.  My first head coaching job was when I was 22 and I did a lot of the things I talked about in changing everything.  It did not go over well with the community because that's not the way they did it.  Well in 35 years before me they only won 3 District Championships so what they were doing wasn't working.  When I left we won 4 in 9 years and was a regional finalist along with many many other accomplishments.  We never won or got to the big dance but we were definitely MUCH better than when I took over.  My first couple of years was very very difficult because the parents tried everything they could to get me fired.  Principal told me a few years after I started how often the parents were in his office but he supported me 100% (he actually took the program one year because they couldn't find a coach because of the parents).  Looking back it was the best thing to do to keep me from knowing what the parents were doing.  I'm not sure if I could have handled it to be honest at such a young age.  After our first practice my third year my AC and myself went to a local restaurant to talk about cuts.  Before we got started he looked at me and said "congrats".  I asked what for and he said I had survived the longest out of the last 4 head coaches including the principal.  When I left after 9 years I had almost full parental support.  The thing to remember is if you have admin support you will outlast the idiot parents because their kids will graduate and you'll get your kids phased in and through your program.

In my playbook I hand to every player a recurring phrase I put in there that has it's own page each time is "Leave the program better than when you started it".  It helps to create ownership because they are building on top of what the previous classes did.  I knew we had turned the corner when it got to the point my seniors were able to run practice without coaches or very little from coaches.  I noticed early in the season when it came to conditioning the seniors would ask if we were doing baserunning or sprints.  I would tell them and next thing I know they were doing it on their own and doing it well.  Seniors led and everyone else followed at 100%.  During drills when a younger guy would mess something up before me or a coach could say something an older guy would pull them off and work with them so we could keep the drill running.  One day I was going to be super late to practice due some meeting or something and two of my assistants had something going on.  So it left my varsity, JV and freshman teams with about 40 kids total with one coach.  I thought about giving them the day off but we had a pretty big game coming up so I wanted to see how it was going to go.  When I got to practice I kept out of site and watched what went on.  They were getting after it and getting some good work in.  My assistant was basically overseeing everything going on while the guys ran drills.  He did have to get off my practice plan because it was too difficult to do with just one coach and 40 kids but I had no problem with that.  It was obviously one of our best seasons in my 9 years.

I guess the one thing we can all take away from all these posts is there are many factors that go into winning and sometimes what works at one place may not work at another.  Finding that formula to success is difficult which illustrates why winning is so hard to do.  If winning was easy then everyone could do it.

Winning at the HS level can be very difficult.  Too many things beyond your control.

Winning at the college level (any level) is much easier.  There are coaches that I am certain will win big, no matter where they go.  It is true in all sports, not just baseball.  I think a lot of folks knew what would happen when Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Liberty, etc., hired new coaches.

Sure many have obstacles to overcome.  Academic requirements, small recruiting budgets, facilities, no athletic scholarships, losing program, etc.

IMO, these are obstacles, not excuses.  Winners simply figure out what needs to be done in order to win. Talent, Effort, Intelligence, Luck... Those are the ingredients for success in players and they are also the ingredients for success in coaching.  Some just want it more than others.

I just want to take a moment to say Coach Corbin is an Ohio Wesleyan Grad. Class of 1984. Just saying. 

http://prideofthebishops.owu.e...e-road-to-head-coach

PGStaff posted:

If you want to recruit the best possible talent, you need to tell kids your plan is to win championships. The goal is to win National Champlonships. And if you tell them that, you have to believe it yourself.  It's all about getting talent and then developing that talent into big winners.  Big winners  feel like they enter every game as the favorite.  They might even be out talented but they are never out prepared, out smarted, or out worked.  They find a way to win and when they lose they learn from it.  Winning becomes second nature.  

Problem is, some of the best HS coaches I know are not considered big winners.  The disparity in talent is so great that it is nearly impossible to win championships.  Yet, truth is,these guys are big winners because they can really teach the game and develop kids.  They also create a love for the game in their kids and that can last a lifetime. These coaches never get the credit they deserve.

While I agree there is a talent disparity in high school, you can still win (or at least compete).   But the coach makes all the difference. Our HS is the weak sister talent wise in our area.  But we had a lifer as a baseball coach.  He won a lot.  Even a couple of regional championships.  After 14 years or so, he retires young.  Administration won't let him coach as a non-teacher.  They won't hire his long time assistant, who he wanted to succeed him.  Fast forward several years and 3 coaches later the damage has been done. We are on the verge of being a doormat program.  Current coach could have done it, but he had a few parent issues last year and seems to now have different interests. 

PGStaff posted:

Winning at the HS level can be very difficult.  Too many things beyond your control.

I totally disagree with this but I guess we would need to define winning.

IMO it would be a record of over 500 for a sustained period of time, mix in some near misses, a title every so often...that type of thing. you know, the team that ever year the consensus is "they are going to be a tough" - they don't need to be dominant or the team to beat every season.

Again IMO GOOD coaches at the HS level can accomplish almost at will with average support from the district and parents.

PGStaff posted:

Winning at the HS level can be very difficult.  Too many things beyond your control.

Winning at the college level (any level) is much easier.  There are coaches that I am certain will win big, no matter where they go.  It is true in all sports, not just baseball.  I think a lot of folks knew what would happen when Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Liberty, etc., hired new coaches.

Sure many have obstacles to overcome.  Academic requirements, small recruiting budgets, facilities, no athletic scholarships, losing program, etc.

IMO, these are obstacles, not excuses.  Winners simply figure out what needs to be done in order to win. Talent, Effort, Intelligence, Luck... Those are the ingredients for success in players and they are also the ingredients for success in coaching.  Some just want it more than others.

how would you weigh recruiting skill vs Coaching/Managing skills? in some cases they are probably related (especially pitchers who aspire to pre pros sometimes Chose programs with well regarded pitching coaches) but still getting top Talent is of course related to success.

good coaches probably recruit better but that might also be influenced by top coaches chosing programs which have enough Money to recruit the top guys (although they also might have the skill to get more Money from the college he works for)

Of course its obvious that the top college programs will always recruit the best talent they feel necessary, best coaches and more money to spend.

Someone recently told me a successful program for some is winning championships and for others its keeping your program over 500.

Very difficult... Not impossible!

My point is the coach that finishes in the middle or even lower in his conference could easily be the best coach in the conference.  

Winning is just one of the definitions of a good coach. IMO

When your top pitcher throws in the 70s and they have four guys that throw 85 or better, it makes winning more difficult.  Especially if they are also more talented at the other positions. More difficult... Not impossible.