Page 1 of 1
Coaching at different levels.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:59 pm
by AlphaGriz1
I always hear people say things like this:
Mike VanDiest is a good coach at that level (NAIA)
Yeah but Pete Carroll sure sucked in the NFL
They need to bring in a D-1 OC for the head coaching position.
And I laugh.
Coaching is coaching, you are either good at it our your not. It doesn't matter what level your at, the GAME is the same. Very small wrinkles here and there but for the most part it is the same x's and o's.
What is different when you go up the ladder is the players attitudes, work ethic, size and speed.
Discuss.
Re: Coaching at different levels.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:14 pm
by STREETCAT
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
Coaching is coaching, you are either good at it our your not. It doesn't matter what level your at, the GAME is the same. Very small wrinkles here and there but for the most part it is the same x's and o's.
What is different when you go up the ladder is the players attitudes, work ethic, size and speed.
Discuss.
ok then how do you justify
Yeah but Pete Carroll sure sucked in the NFL
??
It is about how good of a coach you are, but you are limited, based upon your thoughts of the game. Just cause you throw the ball for 700 yards a game at the D3 level does not mean that the same game plan will be effective at the D-1 level. A coach has to be willing to adapt, and bring in "Fresh Blood" to his coaching program to be successful as he moves up the latter!
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:15 pm
by Cat-theotherwhitemeat
I think if you're a good/great coach, then where you coach can make all the difference. For example....Joe Glenn. Obviously we know he's a very good coach. Northern Colorado was a decent place to recruit D-II players (not so in FCS). He got the good players to come there and he had the ability to coach them, national championships. Then in Montana, he has the facility, the fan base, etc and he has an easier time getting the good players and again, he has the ability to coach them to a national championship. Now in Wyoming, he's still done an OK job (for Wyoming standards) but he hasn't been able to take them to the top because it's harder to get the great athletes to commit to going there. And he'll continue to have this problem.
Hauck, comes to Montana and can recruit just like everyone before him, and just like coaches before him, he wins. You put him at Utah State, and he'll lose.
You give a coach like MVD the head coaching position at UM, he'll have the recruiting tools and the great coaching ability as already proven, and he'll be able to take the team to the top. No matter what level he's at.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:19 pm
by catatac
I agree 100% that actually COACHING the game of football is pretty much the same at all college levels. IMO though, this theory falls apart because being a college head coach really involves more than coaching. Recruiting is a huge component and it definitely varies across the different levels. PR stuff is important at well... being nonexistant at some schools yet a vital part of the process at others...
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:44 pm
by John K
catatac wrote:I agree 100% that actually COACHING the game of football is pretty much the same at all college levels. IMO though, this theory falls apart because being a college head coach really involves more than coaching. Recruiting is a huge component and it definitely varies across the different levels. PR stuff is important at well... being nonexistant at some schools yet a vital part of the process at others...
You make a very good point. PR becomes more and more important the higher up the collegiate food chain that you go. IMHO, that may have been the very reason that MVD withdrew from consideration at MSU...after going through the all day/on campus interview, I think he grasped for the first time how much non-football stuff was involved at the I-AA level, versus NAIA, and he may have wanted no part of that. If that is true, it will prevent him from applying the UM job as well, if/when Bobby H. moves on.
Also, to cite the Pete Carroll example....the main reason so many successful college coaches fail in the pros, in both football and basketball, is simply that they can no longer recruit their own players, and keep the pipeline filled with talent, year after year. Guys like Coach K, Pete Carroll, and Roy Williams are great recruiters, and are almost guaranteed to consistently compete for NC, simply because they have more talent than 95% of the other programs, virtually every year. All of a sudden, in the pros, this talent advantage is largely nullified, because the talent is much more evenly distributed in the NBA and NFL.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:55 pm
by rtb
I think the reason Carroll is better at USC then he was in the NFL is that USC pays their players more than the Jets and Pats did while he was coaching!
Sorry, it just had to be said.
To stay on topic I agree that Hauck and Glenn have proven they can coach and win at a place where it is easy for them to recruit to. They haven't yet proven if they can win in a more challenging recruiting environment. Van Diest on the other hand has proven he can win in a pretty challenging recruiting environment, the only question I have about him is his ability to do the DI CEO style head coaching. At this level you have to do more leading other coaches and less actual coaching.
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:35 am
by Robcat
Cat-theotherwhitemeat wrote:I think if you're a good/great coach, then where you coach can make all the difference. For example....Joe Glenn. Obviously we know he's a very good coach. Northern Colorado was a decent place to recruit D-II players (not so in FCS). He got the good players to come there and he had the ability to coach them, national championships. Then in Montana, he has the facility, the fan base, etc and he has an easier time getting the good players and again, he has the ability to coach them to a national championship. Now in Wyoming, he's still done an OK job (for Wyoming standards) but he hasn't been able to take them to the top because it's harder to get the great athletes to commit to going there. And he'll continue to have this problem.
Hauck, comes to Montana and can recruit just like everyone before him, and just like coaches before him, he wins. You put him at Utah State, and he'll lose.
I could not agree more.
You give a coach like MVD the head coaching position at UM, he'll have the recruiting tools and the great coaching ability as already proven, and he'll be able to take the team to the top. No matter what level he's at.
Re: Coaching at different levels.
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:18 am
by Billings_Griz
AlphaGriz1 wrote:I always hear people say things like this:
Mike VanDiest is a good coach at that level (NAIA)
Yeah but Pete Carroll sure sucked in the NFL
They need to bring in a D-1 OC for the head coaching position.
And I laugh.
Coaching is coaching, you are either good at it our your not. It doesn't matter what level your at, the GAME is the same. Very small wrinkles here and there but for the most part it is the same x's and o's.
What is different when you go up the ladder is the players attitudes, work ethic, size and speed.
Discuss.
I disagree somewhat. In the pro game you don't see an option game. And, quite frankly, I don't care to see another option team anytime soon.
