JustMyThoughts123
Active member
Where in the world did a basketball coach allow a kid to shoot backwards over their head.
Covington cancels game in 2022
- Thread starter rocco
- Start date
Bring your wallet then.
Let's just leave it at it was a team in the current Three Rivers conference. Coach was a girls Cross Country coach in the fall at a large school in Clark county. During the winter he drove into Miami county to "coach" basketball and in his own words "have some fun". Well, the team was great at having fun, but stunk on the floor . 2005 -2008 time frame.
Squintz
Active member
I’m not even sure what this means.
14Red
Well-known member
That's crazy, and I'm sure there are schools who just don't put a priority on athletics, and it starts from the top. Now I can't address the coach who let a kid shoot a granny FT behind his head, but if all the "serious" ball players just quit, then that's what you're left with. Programs are built way before high school. You get a good group of serious ball players and start grooming them from the 3rd/ 4th grade on up, and do that year after year, the goofballs are not around come high school. If a coach has limited numbers of players, the ability to move away from them is taken away.
As far as college, different animal. Most kids are going to either go to a school who hopefully fits them academically ( yea, I know that's a foreign concept in 2023) but sure the coach matters. But THAT's totally different.
I my mind, I just cannot imaging sitting out my high school days because of the coach? You'd rather NOT PLAY than play for a coach you don't like??? That just seems odd to me.
I tend to agree with this stance. My HS baseball coach for the first three years was a total piece of garbage. He won a district in like 1979 and for some reason that excused lackluster seasons from 1981 to the end of his career. He yelled at athletes for playing other sports and once cut a kid for saying he was interested in cross country to do something in the fall (interestingly, said kid quit baseball and ran, and went to college to run and completed three boston marathons).
I would not have quit over the coach. A couple of kids did who didn't play much. Nor would I have quit over wins and losses (though it did get frustrating). But I do often wonder how we may have done with a guy who knew what he was doing. Senior year we got a new coach (old one retired finally) who played in college and some independent pro stuff and was an assistant elsewhere for three years. We went .500 his first year (had not happened in like 15 prior) and within 10 years they'd won districts 6 times and went to regional finals twice. Like I said, I do wonder...
New coach is no longer there, he settled down with a family but is the winningest coach in history and the guy who took over seems to have them competing every year. I think they went down in a district final this year. It is hard to do a ton up on the lake though.
Mr. Slippery
Well-known member
There's more to it today than just putting up with a coach you don't like 2-3 hrs. a day for 3 months. The offseason volume is significantly greater today in the major HS sports. There weren't passing scrimmages in June, extra summer camp and practice days, lifting "x" number of days a week from the moment the season ends (no way every team waits 30 days after their last game), etc. Basketball is even more demanding with the amount of days that activities are scheduled. Add it all up, and that's significantly more time a kid is spending around the coach in today's athletic environment.
Just curious if you come from more of a large public school background?
I have worked primarily with athletes of private schools. Coaching matters as a draw to these schools. Does your kid want to play AAU? Many kids will not play AAU if the coaching is not at least beyond a certain threshold. Daddy ball won't cut it for a serious athlete. My kid was fortunate, he was able to play for a very good high school coach, and his greatest thrill, playing for a AAU team that all players were looking for a scholarship, head coach was a former high level D1 player and knew todays game as well as yesterday's game.
Small public and private schools certainly have a difficult time finding an entire group of dedicated and serious athletes.
Oil Filter
Well-known member
That's not really a problem unless you consider athletics to be a lifestyle rather than an activity.
14Red
Well-known member
I'm 57 years old played HS ball in the 80's much different time. My grad class was 200, public school. All coaches were teachers. I know people say coaching matters, but it's generally the kids who play like the coaches, the kids who don't have a beef with coaches. Two distint things I see in today's athletes over thsoe from 2-3 generations back.
A. Entitlement - youth sports have exploded over the last 30 years, alot of positive, some negatives. My parents had little to no engagement with my high school coaches other than knowing who they were. It was very hands off then.
B. Too high expectations - and the parents may be worse than the kids. Very few, VERY FEW kids get any scholarships money for athletics. D2 schools are mostly partials, even some D1 and D3 is strictly pay to play. Depending on a kid's size, you're not even going to get a look from a D1 unless you are of a certain high and certain athletic traits. Does not matter how many great stats you put up. Amazingly, few kids and especially parents see this.
So my take away is that if kids (and parents) want to play that game and complain about coaching and transfer to other schools, so be it. But more than likely it's not going to help. That's why I say, play for you, play for your buddies. Most people DO NOT want to coach these days. If you can find someone who is willing to coach, and especially girls sports, and they aren't a knucklehead you'd better hold onto them like gold. The AAU world/ travel sports is slowly eroding high school sports. I always laugh because you'll have parents voluntarily sign their kid up for AAU ball, pay thousands of dollars to buy they kid spot on a team and then complain about the cost? School sponsored sports are mostly free at many public schools.
14Red
Well-known member
This is true, however I will say generally if your program is putting in this kind of time and effort, there is generally success, or at least enough to keep people happy. Normally the bad coaches, bad programs put in minimal time and effort and the results show.
And let's face it, because of these 24/7 schedules that seem to be around high school sports, it does push some kids away. They may not be "all in" and that's fine.
I remember back in the 80's it was a stretch to even get the coach to unlock the gym a few days a week to get the guys together to play pickup games. Coaches were generally teachers and liked their summers off.
nwwarrior09
Well-known member
1) more time spent and invested in a given sport (as mentioned a few posts above)
2) huge costs associated with youth travel sports that delude personal expectations (moreso parents than athletes IMO)
3) tight money. IMO more kids choose to quit things now than they did 10, 15, 20 or more years ago because an increasing amount of parents aren't funding junior's leisure time pursuits. IMO more kids seem to be working exclusively or cutting back to fewer sports in part to work and earn more. Some just to "hang out"
2) huge costs associated with youth travel sports that delude personal expectations (moreso parents than athletes IMO)
3) tight money. IMO more kids choose to quit things now than they did 10, 15, 20 or more years ago because an increasing amount of parents aren't funding junior's leisure time pursuits. IMO more kids seem to be working exclusively or cutting back to fewer sports in part to work and earn more. Some just to "hang out"
nwwarrior09
Well-known member
It's been a long time since things have been that way. To me just about anyone putting in the effort to be "credible" in basketball is playing 25-30+ games in June between leagues and shootouts. It's probably been that way for at least 25 years. The difference is now, the number of "instructional" days has increased (i.e. more practices and more league/shootout dates with the coach coaching), along with pretty much unlimited weight training and small group skills training.
For a kid that also plays a fall sport, they are probably just about non-stop through June with maybe 1-2 weeks that are "slowed down" in late June/early July before that fall sport's summer training and activities really ramp up after the 4th of July. I know that over the last few years it seems an increasing number of districts are mandating their own "dead periods" for 7-10 days in that late June/early July time frame to try to prevent athlete burnout and allow time for family vacations without athletes missing a bunch of activity days.
14Red
Well-known member
For the smaller schools (class sizes of 150 or less) you have athletes who play 2-3 sports, some even 4. You really have to be cognizant of burnout and over use injuries because every coach thinks their sport is the most important. For a kid to try to get a summer job? Good luck. Look I get it, it's the way it is now, but I just hope many in leadership positions are at least understanding of what they are asking of these kids.
Yes, and to this point plus the one about 24/7 those small schools thrived for years on the same kids playing multiple sports - BUT they were not going at that rate, so a smaller pool of kids who plays all the things at today's rates will definitely lead to an increase in injuries. Plus, even in the smaller communities population has leveled if not waned, so there are less kids per family than in the past to fill holes. It is happening despite what the perception may be.
tvsfan
Active member
Jumping back to coaching - it is hard for a small school to retain anyone for very long that is successful. If you have a strong program, then chances are that bigger schools are going to pull in your talented coaches - more pay, more prestige at a big school. And who are you going to attract as a small school - in many cases you will have to offer it to someone who is going after their 1st head coaching job. So it sounds all well in fine to get those perfect coaches, but it is tough for small school athletic directors to pull in talent and retain it.
And the grief that these coaches can get - even at successful programs, I can see why many get burned out and just leave the profession. Most of the coaches that I have met are really trying to improve their athletes, not only in their sport but also as persons.
Having said all that it is too bad for the Covington for the program that things are the way that they are. I think the desire is there from the community and the administration to get Buccaneer football back to where it was. But the coaches are having a difficult time of selling their brand of football to the athletes. My understanding is that the coach comes from the MAC and so he knows what it takes to compete in that league as far as intense workouts and practices. I spoke with a Marion Local player years ago, and they did some brutal conditioning. There is something going on in Covington where the kids aren't buying into the program. Maybe that will change as the younger kids get acclimated with the program from an early age.
And the grief that these coaches can get - even at successful programs, I can see why many get burned out and just leave the profession. Most of the coaches that I have met are really trying to improve their athletes, not only in their sport but also as persons.
Having said all that it is too bad for the Covington for the program that things are the way that they are. I think the desire is there from the community and the administration to get Buccaneer football back to where it was. But the coaches are having a difficult time of selling their brand of football to the athletes. My understanding is that the coach comes from the MAC and so he knows what it takes to compete in that league as far as intense workouts and practices. I spoke with a Marion Local player years ago, and they did some brutal conditioning. There is something going on in Covington where the kids aren't buying into the program. Maybe that will change as the younger kids get acclimated with the program from an early age.
The program has had a lot of success in the past and to do so you have to put in the work. Covington is no stranger to working hard. People tend to overlook the relationship aspect of coach and player.
14Red
Well-known member
Remember the old thing we call culture? This is 100% what goes on in many of the rural, uber successful schools that does not happen at bad programs. Marion Local, Delphos St. Johns, Minster, that whole conference has a different mentality. It's been ingrained into their community for generations. It's a little old school, but it's supporting "tough" coaching. At bad programs, when a coach tried to instill some discipline or toughness, parents are quickly into the AD or Principal complaining. You never build culture that way. There is an adversarial relationship with coach/ player/ parents.
Now I will also say largely in these communities that value tough practices and building kids....solid family structures. Everyone is bought in, kids, parents, grandparents.
My guess is it was a different kind of toughness, or at least communicated differently. The new coach seems to have learned from his mentor, who was and is a guy that does not give one whit what others think of him. That’s fine, but it can be off-putting.
nwwarrior09
Well-known member
I don't know diddly about the Covington coach, but IMO it would be really hard for Stokes to have any longevity with his style without the results to accompany it. If you're not winning with that style and demeanor...I think off-putting may be putting it lightly.
BengalsFan937
Active member
Different toughness may be right but it’s not Dave Miller Tough. That work that guy put them boys through and play he got from them was top notch.