OT: Slightly OT Define Coaching Success

[Puppy Love]

In any situation, where there has been a coaching change, and sometimes the situations where there are long-term coaches, the fans are known to expressed their displeasure with coaching performance. I’m very curious, as a fan, how do you define coaching success? For high-level teams, the goal is always a national championship, but that isn’t always a realistic expectation. It’s success only defined by winning your league? What if your league is ultra competitive with two or three top teams that are capable of winning a national championship every year? Is it defined by good recruiting? Or something else?

Please don’t call out individual teams or coaches. I just want to hear your definition of success.

 

[Blond D.]

I think it starts with recruiting. Not only the talent of the girls recruited but the character. Then how well does a coach use that talent, what does he expect and what can he get out of those girls. How does he treat the girls and does he make them better players and better people. A great coach cares about his players and they care about him. Also a great coach wants the best for them even after they graduate. And one very important thing is does the team feel like a family and do they remain part of the family even after they graduate and go on in their life.
"Once a Husky, ALWAYS a Husky"!!

 

[Next 12]

I think it starts with recruiting. Not only the talent of the girls recruited but the character. Then how well does a coach use that talent, what does he expect and what can he get out of those girls. How does he treat the girls and does he make them better players and better people. A great coach cares about his players and they care about him. Also a great coach wants the best for them even after they graduate. And one very important thing is does the team feel like a family and do they remain part of the family even after they graduate and go on in their life.
"Once a Husky, ALWAYS a Husky"!!

Well analyzed and you hit the answer 100%AND I agree with you 100%. GO HUSKIES!!!!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I think it starts with recruiting. Not only the talent of the girls recruited but the character. Then how well does a coach use that talent, what does he expect and what can he get out of those girls. How does he treat the girls and does he make them better players and better people. A great coach cares about his players and they care about him. Also a great coach wants the best for them even after they graduate. And one very important thing is does the team feel like a family and do they remain part of the family even after they graduate and go on in their life.
"Once a Husky, ALWAYS a Husky"!!

This is all true. It is not exclusive to UConn, of course. Many coaches, especially long term ones, and who have shown their players that they actually care about them, end up with ex-players considering themselves a family. In fact, many coaches use that "family" as part of their recruiting.

But the original question addresses actual results that are expected. As was correctly pointed out, expectations are different at different schools. For non-power conference schools, besides (of course) winning records, I think fan bases expect the school to contend for a conference championship and therefore to make the NCAA tournament; a program with a history of success at that level leads to this becoming a necessity for the coach to satisfy the fanbase.

I think only at UConn can there be an expectation of an annual Final Four, because there are so many of them. I think most school fanbases expect their team to contend for the conference championship and / or make the NCAA's with an at large bid. For most schools, consistently making the sweet 16 would be satisfactory as long as there is a chance of going deeper. The better the program the higher the expectation.

 

[Monte]

I've said this many times: Good coaches don't win with bad players, but bad coaches can win with good players.....and YES, it does come down to recruiting.

 

[DefenseBB]

Funny that you should ask this question as I have been assessing the 76 teams and coaches in the Power 5 and BE for a post in the next few days.

My thread will talk about specific coaches under scrutiny but that assessment will be using the following criteria:

1. Overall record W/L at the current school
2. The conference W/L record at the school,
3. The average placing within the conference ( 2nd, 5th, 7th etc.)
4. Type of post season appearance-WNIT, NCAAT,
5. success within the tournamen
6. Records against better and similar programs
7. what trend is the program showing- improving, declining, flat.

While many state recruiting as a nice easy item, it’s much harder to assess given the inconsistencies of projecting HS players and shear numbers of programs vying for those players (14 scholarships x 76 teams = 1,064 players), so how do you discern a #38 rank vs. #87? I am saying LSU just won with very little HS recruiting success on that roster but very high transfer success and an established HOF coach so actual coaching skills do matter.
Collegiate ADs look at those conference results first as that is their direct competition and their close allies. Coaches can pad their OOC records, so that is less important than conference games.
Frankly, character while on the list of criteria ADs and coaches should look at, and is a strong talking point for the public is far below winning as the criteria. I am not being a cynic with that statement, only stating the obvious.

 

[Zarathustra]

"Hoosiers!" The Movie!

 

[visitingcock]

Success varies GREATLY based upon a school's and coach's history. It also varies from the perspective of the fans and that of the administration.

First, let's eliminate UConn from discussion. Geno is sucessful by any definition. Next, let's eliminate Dawn, Brenda, Tara & Kim. Probably Vic, Adia, Lisa and Jeff too. Everybody who has been to The Game is successful in the past ten years is successful (that year). I guess anybody who has been Elite 8 for 4 or more of the last ten years is successful,

I would say that a conference championship two out of five years is successful at the P-5 level. Three P-5 championships out of five is exceptional. What about 5 out of 5 runnerups to one of the Powerhouses? Is that successful well, it is if the school did not have a history of greater achievements in the past.

For coaches of non P-5s i guess it's all based on tournament appearances. Two out of every five years is successfull?