What are the requisite attributes/skills shared by successful college head football coaches?

Submitted by CO Blue on

This question is not intended to refute anyone's opinions nor to mock/challenge any previous posts, but rather to put things into perspective regarding our current coaching situation and provide us with an "objective"* means of measuring coach Hoke's potential for success.

* If you find your heart rate increasing, fists clenching, mumbling to yourself, or face becoming flush while reading posts or forming a reply, please step away from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths, and visualize your favorite Michigan football moment (mine is Woodson's sideline interception on the throw away against MSU). If these symptoms persist for over four hours, please GET HELP!

SWFLWolverine

January 16th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^

I think there are so many different formulas to being a successful coach, but being able to communicate to your players what your identity is, instilling that in your players on the practice field, and formulating a sound game plan around it is pretty important.

Edit: Sorry, should have been a reply to OP

greg788

January 16th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

My opinion is that it's both simple and complicated depending on your perspective.

If I look at it simply, a good football coach is one who has a vision of what his program is. To that end he develops and inspires players towards that vision, with a particular emphasis on fundamentals (blocking, tackling, execution, maintaining assignments, avoiding turnovers and penalties, etc.)

If I look at complicated, it involves all of the above but also adds being a good "fit" for a given college/university (don't underestimate this -- ask Rodriguez), being good with politics, the media and schoozing the boosters and such. And then he also has to be a good recruiter and know the NCAA laws, bylaws, etc.

It's not easy being a good coach these days, especially with the "win NOW" mentality.

quakk

January 16th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

is it that rodriguez wasn't a good 'fit,' or people weren't willing to accept him.  it's oh, so easy to blame him for everything, isn't it.

he wanted to be here as badly as hoke does.  his players exhibit good citizenship.  he's a good man.  which doesn't qualify him to coach, but are certainly not reasons to reject him.  his teams didn't win, and in the end, i'm sad, but comfortable that he lost his job for this reason alone.

imhe, he got roasted for the stupidest things:  leaving a job for another one (who hasn't done that?), i could go on.  but i won't.

i think the 'fit' argument is a bs argument for those who want to feel good about hating the man from the moment he left wvu.

greg788

January 16th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^

When I said coaching fit, it wasn't meant to be an excuse. I agree -- in the end, it was about wins and loses, with the emphasis primarily on how bad those loses were.

However, I lived in West Virginia during the Nehlen -- Rodriguez transition and got to watch it firsthand. Most people don't realize that it was very similar to what transpired at UM. Nehlen (who coached under Bo) ran a traditional power running offense. Rodriguez had similar problems (seen in his win/loss record) transitioning the program.

The difference was that Rodriguez had the "Hoke effect" there. He was a local guy. I think he was on staff at one time under Nehlen, too.

Coaching fit is not an excuse, but a good fit induces patience in the fanbase, boosters and college administration during a transition. Also, the Big East is IMO a lesser conference than the Big 10. I honestly don't think Rodriguez's lineman recruits and development would have worked in the Big 10. What should have been our strength this year (O-line and D-line) were inadequate versus good competition. Even Mississipi State pushed us around.

jmblue

January 16th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

I think "fit" is an entirely valid argument - and if anything, it's flattering to RR, because it implies that he is, in fact, a good coach - just not the right coach for this school.

RR obviously wanted the job, but it wasn't his life's ambition like it is for Hoke - or else RR wouldn't have interviewed at Alabama a year earlier.  He did not have ties to this state, and was unfamiliar with some of the peculiarities of the school and its athletic culture (witness the flap over the #1 jersey).  He may not have realized that our admissions department does not look kindly upon JuCo transfers.  And he may not have realized that here, as in many other places, a lot of people tend to irrationally dislike outsiders (and I think Miles has experienced the same down in Louisiana). 

Hoke won't have to deal with a lot of that.  He flat-out can't be accused of not understanding the school or its traditions.  And working here was clearly an obsession for him - he even spoke of it at his introductory press conference at SDSU two years ago.  When you have a guy who understands the school this well, who obviously and openly adores it, and has the near-unlimited resources of the school at his disposal, I think it's likely he'll do well. 

Arsenal Fan

January 16th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

college is much different than the pros, but it is very important for your players to respect and like you and your coaching philosophy. also, college really comes down to recruting, which is why teams like texas and florida will always be good since they have an automatic pipeline.

Arsenal Fan

January 16th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

one bad year every 10 years? that isn't bad my friend, and heck call me crazy but they have also been winning big games. and I am just simply stating that kids grow up in Texas and Florida wanting to play for the longhorns and Gators. not saying we don't have that, but not to the same degree.

swamyblue

January 16th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^

I need to get myself some help. I'm hoping we are able to stop the bleeding - so unnecessary to sack this year's recruiting class. To answer your question, recruiting has a ton to do with being a successful coach. I'm on my way to breakfast and therapy.

Mr Mackey

January 16th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^

i think Hoke should be successful, because some of the main criteria is having love and pride for your job and school (which he obviously does) and conveying that to your players and recruits (which i hope he can do). If he's able to spread that fanatical love for Michigan to the players, they will give their all and put absolutely everything into training and playing for the team. 

I also replied to this because your favorite memory is also my favorite memory, hence my picture or avatar or whatever that's called. greatest catch ever..

Waters Demos

January 16th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^

It appears as though some of the most successful contemporary coaches have the attribute of willingness to go around rules, or to work dubiously within the framework of existing rules. 

Doing it the "right way" does not seem likely to result in more than regional success (IMHE). 

milhouse

January 16th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^

That the best coaches score the most points and don't give up very many.  Which leads to them winning the most games and getting the best recruits.  Because kids want to win games and play for the best teams.

BlueDragon

January 16th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

Pete Carroll, Jim Tressel, and the entire coaching staff of the SEC agrees with you.

I used to be a college game fanatic, but after a shit year like this one, I'm swinging back towards the pros as my preferred football viewing experience.  Plus it's easier to hate teams based on who they have playing for them or who the coach is.

BlueDragon

January 16th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

Taking a test drive to PA isn't fishy enough for you?  Also, the Dispatch article on the number of self-reported secondary violations by the AD (highest in NCAA), as well as the fact that players magically get cars, DVDs, computers etc. even though they "struggle to support their families."

Right.

buckeyejonross

January 16th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^

So if you tell your kids 1,000 times not to do drugs and they end up doing drugs anyway is that your fault? Sometimes people are stupid, and no matter what the coach says they are going to do something stupid. That doesn't mean Jim Tressel didn't tell them 1,000 what they were doing was stupid.

buckeyejonross

January 17th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^

You're wrong. He was a super prima-donna while being recruited too. Remember the long delay? The look at me press conference? The hoopla?Or are you suggesting that he became a douche because Ohio State made him one? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I also never said he was a good person. I defended Tressel this whole time, not Pryor.

BlueDragon

January 18th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^

I'm saying that it takes two to tango.  Being immersed in that kind of permissive environment where anything goes, you can borrow loaner cars, no questions asked, sell rings to adoring fans etc. will turn you into an egomaniac.  Power corrupts, and they have no problem shoveling it on to that team down south.  You're welcome to split hairs on how involved or not involved Tressel was in the whole process, or how involved he is with "fringe" benefits, but he DID have a monumental hand in the shaping of Pryor as a person and a player.

BlueDragon

January 16th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

The dealerships didn't give them the cars out of the goodness of their scarlet-and-gray hearts.  Someone had to pay for gas, maintenance, washing of the cars etc.  It sure wasn't the players.  Seriously, connect the dots for a change.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/12/23/osu-look…

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=ArSueEV0iSL5I_uQlb5aAF4…

I'm sure you remember this guy as having hook-ups on nice electronics (stolen from a borrowed dealership car too!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarett

"Incidents" like this have been piling up since the start of Tressel's coaching tenure at tSIO.  I agree that he deserves a reasonable doubt like anyone else but I'm sorry, this garbage has been going on for eight years now.

BlueDragon

January 17th, 2011 at 2:26 AM ^

Say I'm Tressel for a moment.  In 2002, my highly-touted freshman running back screwed up royally, filing a false police report for stolen property in a borrowed dealership car.  Said player got caught, attempted to leave for the draft after one year, and later had to spend time in prison because of a combination of his own selfish ego and various personal problems.

If I were going to make changes after Clarett-gate broke in the way I educate my players, they would be as follows:

  • Do not take borrowed dealership cars.  Trading autographs or anything else for these cars is bad and is a NCAA violation.
  • Trading autographs for anthing else, such as tattoos, is also a violation.

Fast forward to 2009-2010.  More highly-touted tSIO players make the exact same mistakes and get caught, although not in exactly the same way.  Somewhere along the path, the athletic department is liable for the actions of its own players.  You're welcome to say that the AD didn't openly pay the dealerships in exchange for loaning the players cars, but the whole situation is sketchy, and worst of all, it's hardly new.  The corruption is deep and the corruption has been around for quite a while in Columbus, and to say that Tressel is squeaky-clean in all of this is absurd.

Don

January 16th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

and the ability to tell referees, pouty QBs, arrogant ADs, and self-important donors to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

readyourguard

January 16th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

Getting kids to "play for the coach."

Even average-talent kids can do amazing things if they understand what they're being coached and believe in the system.  Coaches acheive that level of support from their players by being enthusiastic, honest, committed, and caring.  Once a group of kids get behind their coach, the schemes make more sense, kids play faster, and the breaks start to go your way.

I know it seems hokey (no pun intenteded) but in all the years I've coached, that's been the formula for success.

kmanning

January 16th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^

In this day and age, I think there's a few things.

1) Ability to recruit good players that will fit needs. Charlie Weis could recruit top players but not so much guys that fit in well for what they were trying to do. For top schools I think this brings the added dynamic of getting the superstar players to commit. Guys like a Dee Hart, Michael Dyer, Marcus Lattimore, etc. It's a lot easier to recruit when you aren't going up against Saban, Meyer, Spurrier, and co.

2) Ability to teach different types of people so they get it. You can be running a spread read option, you can be running the run and shoot. Or you can be running the triple option. It will work if you are able to make everyone understand what they're doing. At a college level this is more about actually teaching than in the pros where it's more about explaining, I would say. Anyone who's taught for any period of time knows that there's many different ways that people will learn, and the ability to teach things in a variety of ways so everyone gets it is one of the hallmarks of a good teacher.

3) Ability to bring in assistant coaches that you share similar beliefs with but will add something to the team that you aren't able to do. Be it teaching certain principles, be it recruiting, be it calling plays. Whatever it is.

4) Ability to be prepared for any game situation and know what to do. When to punt, go for it, or kick a field goal. When to call a timeout or take a penalty and save it. A lot of that can be mathed out pretty easily, but being able to have all that information memorized or quickly accessible and the ability to act on it correctly is huge, in my opinon. Les Miles may be absolutely awful at clock management, but he appears to be pretty good at when to go for it/punt, or when to call fake FGs/punts. Note: I absolutely did not want Miles here.

 

Now, does Hoke matchup well with those things in my book? Hard to say this early. My instinct says #1 won't be a strength of his, but he's never really had a chance to recruit somewhere good. #2 looks encouraging. #3 will be hard to say until he finishes out his staff. Borges doesn't look like a great get, but he seemingly did a good job with his DC at SDSU. #4 I don't think you could say without watching a lot of SDSU/Ball State games. If I had to guess, he will be incredibly conservative like Carr was, leery of making any decision which might appear risky.

Don

January 16th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^

The "fit" stuff made his job more unpleasant and marginally more difficult for him, but ultimately he failed because he wasn't good enough at being head coach. He didn't choose Greg Robinson because the "fit" was bad; he chose Greg Robinson because his judgement in constructing his staff was flawed. I was/am an RR supporter, but I believe that he wasn't as good as we thought he was when he was hired.