oldschool2

I guess I should be specific. When I say wins.. I mean deep win. Successful playoff runs. Etc. Of course it's possible to win a lot of games with bad players and good coaching... if the schedule is weak. Just like good players and good coaches can have mediocre/poor seasons if the schedule isn't conducive for success. And bad coaches can have a heck of a run with good enough players and a weak schedule. Each of those scenarios play out literally every year. Make no mistake, there are more bad coaches winning with good players than there is good coaches winning with bad players. Will someone please freaking address my Bill Belichick example?.. Jeez. His record WITHOUT Tom Brady is less than .500. WITH Tom Brady he has like 9 super bowl appearances in two decades.

You're purposely ignoring the point. Not surprised. 16 numbered roster juniors.. no idea how many started. Ed Orgeron went to LSU and won a national title his first year. Coaching? Or quarterback that went #1 (and many others)? That's my point. Coach O went from national coach of the year to fired in a short period. Because he lost what was initially inherited. You claim success will continue?... It's championship or bust, right?

Still didn't answer either question. Does the new coach get credit for someone else's seniors? Will he replicate this year's success without the 35 senior's he's losing?

I have a very serious question. A question that may require some thought... and it's about PNG. You're obviously very high on their new coach's success (rightfully so). So.. here's my question(s): On Maxpreps it shows that PNG has 35 seniors. Is the new coach solely responsible for those seniors' success? Didn't a different staff "build" them into what they were before he got them? Also. Will they have the same success next year? Do you think they should? He's losing 35 seniors... Tell me where you stand on that.

I'm not exactly familiar to the circumstance to which you're referring. But.. my post that you replied to happens so often that I'm comfortable saying it's definitely the norm. Yes, I know there may be exceptions. There are always are.

players > coaching. Way more often than not. players + coaching + level of competition = wins. Missing any of the 3 is likely detrimental. Let's stay on Lumberton. A couple years ago they won the district championship in basketball. Their coach was unanimous COY for the district. Not so much as a sniff the next year... or since. What happened? Same exact coach. Still Lumberton kids. Oooohh.. that's right. They had a 6'6 D1 signee on the team. Funny how kids make coaches successful. Disclaimer: I know Coach Mitchell personally and think he does a fantastic job. But... it takes players to have success. I'm positive you'll ignore the example I just gave and the endless others.. but it doesn't change anything.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

I'm sure it's closer to never. I'd bet that they don't even meet with any of these coaches that they so openly ridicule behind a computer screen.

I've said this very thing before.

Do you know what Bill Belichick's record is without Tom Brady? You should look it up. And remember.. for the better part of a decade, Belichick was considered one of the greatest football minds alive.

Not the right decision in my opinion. Sometimes change is necessary for various reasons.. but wins/losses are influenced by much more than the ability to coach. Many times, coaches only have what they have and nobody could've done any better. But making boys into good citizens, that's quite a feat.

Coaches all over the state are fired all of the time for not producing in the "W" column... even if they greatly impact the lives of the players they coach.

First of all.. I wasn't saying that you said that. There's a frequent poster here that believes in the "7 years or you're gone" philosophy. That person knows that I'm referring to them. Second... um... Newton was 12-2 this year. They lost in round FOUR. What are you talking about?

Doesn't matter.. even if you're correct. State title or bust, right? 7 years to get it done or you're fired.

Incompetent officials? Thanks a lot, Russia. smh

Anyone who eats at McDonald's expecting to get their order correct... deserves it to be wrong. Similarly, expecting much help from any minimum wage employee might lead to disappointment. Expect it. You can always accept the fact that human error is a part of it and know that if you're seeing missed calls, it's probably happening to the other team as well. Evens out. They'll get better with experience and believe it or not, there's pretty extensive training they have to go through. Much more than McDonald's employees I'm sure.

Know what post I've never seen? I've never seen someone say, "I decided to become an official and help. I've heard there's a shortage and I'm not satisfied with the product I've seen during games when it comes to officiating... So I'm going to be proactive." What I HAVE SEEN... is a seemingly endless amount of whining and complaining. I suppose it's easier to be an expert from the bleachers.

Curtis Barbay won two state titles in 36 years. That's a lot of "7 year windows" that he didn't get it done. Maybe they should just leave him alone.

When a high school coach has a great year in the first year they're there, they did it with someone else's kids. Players that were technically developed by the coach/coaches that were there before they took the job. Same thing could be said about college/pro. Unless... they're bringing their own players or players showed up the same year. Or... something as simple as a league/classification change literally makes all the difference in the world. That's happened so many times that it can't even be imagined. Which is another conversation. It is definitely plausible to assume that they changed the system or used the players in a different capacity... but they're still not "their" players. However.. when a coach does have significant time to actually develop players and implement a system and set of expectations... that doesn't mean that the players will have championship caliber ability. Maybe they became better and more competitive than they ever would've been otherwise. That would be masked by a less than "expected" season according to the mob/community. Everyone will always have different definitions of success. To some, it's a championship. That should always be the goal but there's a long path from playoffs, district championship, area championship, region championship.... to state championship. And assuming that 4-7 years is the "deadline" to make it happen.. the number of factors that influence that other than the right coach is immense. Stop growing, move, lose interest, classification change, fail, get a girl pregnant, opposing teams transfers (the getting of), and so many other factors that can change a season that the coach has zero control of it's not even funny. These conversations just make me shake my head. I can't emphasize this enough: There are multiple places in the state/country that could NOT have won it all with the current players they have, no matter who the coach is or how long they've been there. I really don't care who disagrees with that.

Can't stop it.

Imagine responding to a post seriously... not knowing that you're being made fun of.

Looks like Hardin played KV to a couple possession game. Don't discount them as a potential win either.

I think 7 is all you get.. according to some. Of course, very rarely does anyone stay that long for various reasons.