Coaching evaluation outside of wins and losses

[Turbine]

In my opinion evaluating a coach’s performance outside of wins and losses is a red herring when it comes to whether a coach should be retained.

Those are items that if lacking can get a coach fired, but if in place can never justify retention on that basis alone.

I do think evaluation in this area is required after a successful season. It is an exercise in futility however to analyze class attendance. Did the coach do what is required of him off the court? Did his players graduate?

Winning is job one in college sports.

Time on this subject of academics is spent on the next coach and making sure he can do what he is required to do in this area.

Lacking in this area can get you fired but 'having it' can't retain a coach if he can't do job One.

[cajun4life]

_ In my opinion evaluating a coach’s performance outside of wins and losses is a red herring when it comes to whether a coach should be retained.

Those are items that if lacking can get a coach fired, but if in place can never justify retention on that basis alone.

I do think evaluation in this area is required after a successful season. It is an exercise in futility however to analyze class attendance. Did the coach do what is required of him off the court? Did his players graduate?

Winning is job one in college sports.

Time on this subject of academics is spent on the next coach and making sure he can do what he is required to do in this area.

Lacking in this area can get you fired but 'having it' can't retain a coach if he can't do job One.


Posted via http://igeaux.mobi _

Spot on!

[AstroCajun]

_ In my opinion evaluating a coach’s performance outside of wins and losses is a red herring when it comes to whether a coach should be retained.

Those are items that if lacking can get a coach fired, but if in place can never justify retention on that basis alone.

I do think evaluation in this area is required after a successful season. It is an exercise in futility however to analyze class attendance. Did the coach do what is required of him off the court? Did his players graduate?

Winning is job one in college sports.

Time on this subject of academics is spent on the next coach and making sure he can do what he is required to do in this area.

Lacking in this area can get you fired but 'having it' can't retain a coach if he can't do job One.

Posted via http://igeaux.mobi _

I'm going to take you up on this debate.

From a fan's perspective wins and losses are everything.

But if that's the main criterion, then you need to look no further than the mistakes made by Nebraska and, more recently, Auburn, in firing perfectly good coaches becauses they were not "successful enough".


I say that it is a factor, but not the main factor. This is because a mere win or loss is subject to vagaries which sometimes fall outside of the coaches' control. (I.E. does a healhty Desormeaux and Fenroy lose to UTEP?) How about an absurd buzzer beater?


Sometimes you only have the talent on hand to take you to .500. Is that the fault of coaching? Only if your talent is capable of .500 ball and you fall short. Is the coach making the most of what he is given?

No. I say you look at how the team has progressed in the season. Has it gelled? Has it improved over the course of the year? If it has, has it improved enough? Has the coach gotten ever ounce of talent out of the players and left it out on the court/field/etc.?

Regardless of the W/L if you answer any of those questions no, I think you need to look for another coach.

IF you answer those questions yes, most of the time, the W/L record will reflect that.

W/L is the ends, not the means, by which a coach should be evaluated.

And with that, I believe that in both mens and womens basketball, our coaches fail the test.

[Turbine]

AstroCajun the time and unforeseen vagaries of a season should be considered in evaluating Job One.

I agree an administration should avoid ever focusing so much on the W/L column that they fire winning coaches with winning track records because they ignored the vagaries a particular season. In my mind when you determine if a coach should be fired based on W/L you are considering the vagaries.

I am saying if a coach does in fact deserve to be fired based on his Win/Loss record, then there is no need to look at academic success, student-athlete eligibility and retention and the potential for successful recruiting as a reason for retaining an otherwise failed "coach" the time involved in that evaluation is better spent on the next hire.

David Walker said "If the only criteria for a program's potential for success were wins and losses, the evaluation would be unnecessary."

He is partially right. That evaluation should take place every post season when the coach deserves to return based on his win/loss record and history. However spending that time, looking at academic success, student-athlete eligibility and retention and the potential for successful recruiting are irrelevant factors if the coach can’t coach and doesn't deserve to return.

True, not doing those duties are fireable causes, but why go there if he didn't pass test one?

That time needs to be spent finding a new coach who can and should do those same things and yes one who can also do Job One.

[Frenchie35]

Please don't think to little of me when I ask what "Vagaries" mean. I can't find it in the Webster's. Unless it has something to do with being vague......if it's should be considered in the evlauation process, please enlighten me to it's meaning......

[Turbine]

_ Please don't think to little of me when I ask what "Vagaries" mean. I can't find it in the Webster's. Unless it has something to do with being vague......if it's should be considered in the evlauation process, please enlighten me to it's meaning...... _

This definition comes from 'caprice' a synonym of vagary. A sudden, unpredictable action, change, or series of actions or changes.

Examples of vagaries this past season include players getting injured or suspended. I wouldn't consider waiting for eligibility a vagary because it was a known commodity going in. Almost every team experiences vagaries from year to year.

[awadelewis]

I am saying if a coach does in fact deserve to be fired based on his Win/Loss record, then there is no need to look at academic success, student-athlete eligibility and retention and the potential for successful recruiting as a reason for retaining an otherwise failed "coach" the time involved in that evaluation is better spent on the next hire.

Yet, aren't being successful at things like academic success, eligibility and retention, and recruiting some of what leads to a positive W/L ratio? That's what I think makes the evaluation of coaches difficult at the college level (esp. at the mid-major level) as the head coach has to be both a good leader on the floor AND a good manager of basketball operations.

That's why I think Don Maestri up at Troy is one of more under-appreciated coaches in our league because of his ability at both dealing with both sides of that coin. Steve Shields at UALR is another example of that type of coach. The question that our AD is got to figure out is whether or not Robert Lee has shown the same sort of abilities based on the program's performance during his tenure as coach. I'm glad I'm not the guy that as to make that call as I don't believe that to be as cut & dry as lot of people like to think.

[zephyr]

_ AstroCajun the time and unforeseen vagaries of a season should be considered in evaluating Job One.

I agree an administration should avoid ever focusing so much on the W/L column that they fire winning coaches with winning track records because they ignored the vagaries a particular season. In my mind when you determine if a coach should be fired based on W/L you are considering the vagaries.

I am saying if a coach does in fact deserve to be fired based on his Win/Loss record, then there is no need to look at academic success, student-athlete eligibility and retention and the potential for successful recruiting as a reason for retaining an otherwise failed "coach" the time involved in that evaluation is better spent on the next hire.

David Walker said "If the only criteria for a program's potential for success were wins and losses, the evaluation would be unnecessary."

He is partially right. That evaluation should take place every post season when the coach deserves to return based on his win/loss record and history. However spending that time, looking at academic success, student-athlete eligibility and retention and the potential for successful recruiting are irrelevant factors if the coach can’t coach and doesn't deserve to return.

True, not doing those duties are fireable causes, but why go there if he didn't pass test one?

That time needs to be spent finding a new coach who can and should do those same things and yes one who can also do Job One. _

I don't think that one bad season means a coach can't necessarily coach his team. I don't think it is as black and white as you make it look. It appeared coach Lee could coach in 04 when this team should have beaten Louisville in one of the more memorable games of the tourney. To that degree, it seems like he should have been given a nice extension with the season that team had but he wasn't. Why? Maybe he was evaluated closely after that season for criteria other than just wins and losses. I don't think many people were doubting his coaching abilities at that time with the season that took place.

[DestinCajun]

In my opinion evaluating a coach’s performance outside of wins and losses is a red herring when it comes to whether a coach should be retained.

Those are items that if lacking can get a coach fired, but if in place can never justify retention on that basis alone.

Turb, I'll disagree with that.

A coach's W&L record will always be the main criterion for retention but there are certainly exceptions to every rule and UL football these past 5-6 years is just such an exception. There's no way Knute Rockne or Vince Lombardi, let alone Rickey Bustle, could have come in here in 2002 and won in the usually allowed timeframe.

All of the "other things" related to job performance (and I do mean all of the other things) had to be dealt with literally from ground level up and that has taken time, certainly a lot more time than any us wanted. However, that is simply the reality of how bad our situation was.

For what it's worth and looking at the staff, the roster, our facilities and the fan support last season, I believe we are now at a point in the process where Cajun football fans can and should have expectations related to playing for football championships and in bowls. I really do.

[CajunZ1]

_ In my opinion evaluating a coach’s performance outside of wins and losses is a red herring when it comes to whether a coach should be retained.

Those are items that if lacking can get a coach fired, but if in place can never justify retention on that basis alone.

I do think evaluation in this area is required after a successful season. It is an exercise in futility however to analyze class attendance. Did the coach do what is required of him off the court? Did his players graduate?

Winning is job one in college sports.

Time on this subject of academics is spent on the next coach and making sure he can do what he is required to do in this area.

Lacking in this area can get you fired but 'having it' can't retain a coach if he can't do job One. _

Post of the Month Nominee