Jump to content

When does the program become the new coaches?


AHUDDLESTON

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AHUDDLESTON said:

So, in a small school (no spring football), how long does it take for a football program to be considered the new head coach's? For example, if you come in the previous April , does it take a full year before the new head coach gets the Credit/blame?

LOL! For some folks around here, you get credit, or more likely blame, as soon as you are announced.

Me personally, you should see improvement after the first season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WOSgrad said:

LOL! For some folks around here, you get credit, or more likely blame, as soon as you are announced.

Me personally, you should see improvement after the first season.

This^

After the first season, but not everybody sees it that way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

LOL! For some folks around here, you get credit, or more likely blame, as soon as you are announced.

Me personally, you should see improvement after the first season.

 

4 minutes ago, NetCat said:

This^

After the first season, but not everybody sees it that way 

Y'all are right. Depends on your starting point though. I can see a coach needing a 2 season "buffer" if the situation is pretty bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hooohead.com said:

I would say going into 3rd season...your Freshmen will be juniors and you should know what you have and whom you have molded to be an asset....

It will be a rare community that gives a coach 3 years though. Most demand results NOW! 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might depend on Coach’s, and the teams, past record, and his pay.  Westerberg, at Barbers Hill was getting some bad post on here right off the bat.  Now, not so much.  Fans of a bad program will be more tolerant.  You get named HC at WOS or Carthage, you better come out of the gate kicking booty.  There’s a lot of variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach owns it in the first year.  I usually give first the year a pass.  Got to have time to implement the program.  Second year should show marked improvement.  The third year should be challenging for a District title.  But, with that being said, it does take some elite coaches  more than three years to have their team in a position to challenge for a State Title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reagan said:

A coach owns it in the first year.  I usually give first the year a pass.  Got to have time to implement the program.  Second year should show marked improvement.  The third year should be challenging for a District title.

Your response might be because you follow a tradition rich school.  Take a team like Huntington.  Heck, a Coach that could just get a winning record for several years, could be Mayor (King) of that town.  😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

The 2nd season. When those seniors from 3 years of old coaching have graduated.

I tend to agree with this in some points.  Our SR class this year had no other head coach’s. But they have bought in and we look a lot different then we did last year.  Still a ways to go.  No if there was a lot of negativity and no buy in from the SR class then yea it wouldn’t happen till they are gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, GCMNation5 said:

I tend to agree with this in some points.  Our SR class this year had no other head coach’s. But they have bought in and we look a lot different then we did last year.  Still a ways to go.  No if there was a lot of negativity and no buy in from the SR class then yea it wouldn’t happen till they are gone. 

In the 1st year, senior leadership is almost as much a factor as the coaching change itself. Many people discount how much effect seniors have on lower classes in practice and attitude. You are right that seniors buying into the system can go a long way for the new program. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

In the 1st year, senior leadership is almost as much a factor as the coaching change itself. Many people discount how much effect seniors have on lower classes in practice and attitude. You are right that seniors buying into the system can go a long way for the new program. 

No doubt about it.  Unfortunately we have been part of it twice. One of my boys is a Sr this year. His sophomore year was a whole new staff and first year. Sr leadership was bad and it showed. Fast forward to now. He is a Sr with new staff again and his SR class leadership has paved the way.  It’s been total night and day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GCMNation5 said:

No doubt about it.  Unfortunately we have been part of it twice. One of my boys is a Sr this year. His sophomore year was a whole new staff and first year. Sr leadership was bad and it showed. Fast forward to now. He is a Sr with new staff again and his SR class leadership has paved the way.  It’s been total night and day.  

Congrats on raising a young man who can accept change at a young age, and show leadership as an upper classmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...