Matters of "Principles"

Coaching changes happen every day. In every sport and at every level, coaches are replaced for a variety of reasons - some that make perfect sense; others....not so much.

I can accept the general philosophy that at the professional level or at the major collegiate levels, coaches are relieved of their duties if they fail to win at a rate necessary to put (and keep) paying customers in the seats. Why they don't win is open for great debate, but since you can't "fire the team", they are often forced to make a move that offers the least chaos-inducing scenario.

What has become a rather disturbing trend though, is that high school coaches are being fired/re-assigned/non-renewed/asked to resign from their positions for reasons that are far too close to the rationale that exists at the professional and Division I college demographic, and at a rather alarming rate. If a coach has violated the standards that the school and community have established, or the student-athlete's safety is at risk, then a coach should be open for removal. But if their main "crime" is that the program is not winning enough games, then I believe we have to examine what are the real principles in that athletic dynamic that would warrant a coach to be replaced.

Recently, I have watched a high school football coach be re-positioned (essentially "fired", but cosmetically structured by having him remain with the program as an assistant) after two winless seasons as the head coach. The reality is that the actions taken by the administration to "remedy" the situation have opened themselves up for rather intense scrutiny by not only community residents, but by outside observers as well. Here are some general thoughts/observations that come to the fore when I intellectually (as opposed to emotionally) examine this particular case:

Why was the recently re-positioned coach hired in the first place? After a long string of losing seasons, the school decided it needed to make a change. They hired a young guy who they believed could bring energy and enthusiasm back to the community and their football program - and since he had been successful at his previous stop, one could only assume that he would be the solution. After a brief two year stint where he won zero games, they made the move. I don't claim to know the deep intel that surrounds the program - maybe he was too negative or incompetent - if that is the case, then the right move was probably taken. But if he is the wrong guy now, why was he the right guy then? And if he was a liability for the school, why was he allowed to stay on?

What are the principles of the athletic department as a whole? I am well-aware that every high school athletic/activities department has a carefully worded vision/mission statement that is (more or less) fully committed to offering the student-athlete a safe and rewarding experience. I would be willing to bet the ranch that you would be hard-pressed to find the phrase "committed to providing a safe, rewarding, and WINNING program" on any of those vision/mission statements at any high school. Yet time and time again - and with greater frequency that ever before - high school athletic directors and administration remove coaches for failing to provide a trophy/medal experience for the athletes. The lack of integrity (or consistency) in their statements and actions is stunning. If enough parents raise the level of annoying chatter to administration, they will strongly consider making a move, if it means that things can be quieter....even if it is only a temporary fix.

I have said time and time again that if you want to be a program committed to accumulating trophies, banners, and medals than just say it out loud. What is the great disservice to all (and quite frankly, a recipe for chaos and confusion to rule the day) is to claim some sort of noble and egalitarian purpose, but function in a diametrically opposed manner. An organization cannot succeed if their actions do not match their words, for in the end of that reality, people will see that weakness and eventually use that failing as a weapon against the administration.

What you eventually produce is a paradigm where nothing ever changes substantively, and a Culture of Mediocrity is established within that void

Who is responsible for advancement of the program?

What is ultimately illuminating in this whole matter is how certain populations are held fully accountable for the failings of the team; some are given tacit responsibility; and others still are provided a free pass. In this case (and frankly in most every other case of this type in high schools across this country), the coach is deemed 100% at fault for the losses. Far too many parents will cry that what this program needs is true leadership - yet no one really ever defines what that "leadership" really means. Administration will shoulder some of the blame, but they can be both nimble and obtuse when defining a rationale for coaching change. Parents (who often drive the movement of a "coaching coup") are usually only temporarily satisfied with the change, as long as it greatly benefits their own child. One could say they are given a free pass too, since a great number of administrators lack the will to stare them down and functionally keep them in place. And in the final tally, the "kids" (yes, they are always called "kids" when there is a significant attempt to portray them as innocent victims in challenging situations) are not to be viewed as having any responsibility in the program's moribund record. The program has been losing consistently for over a decade. Coaches have come and gone. Class after class has come through and graduated yet the losing continues. Yes; leadership and direction are needed at the top....but players need to step up and take SOME ownership of what is needed to make a winning football experience.

It is patently absurd and intellectually dishonest to believe that with a new coach, that all of the ills of the program will dissipate. I can't take a pack of mules and train them to be thoroughbreds. It is quite possible that the numbers and the will of the community - including the players - will not lend itself to be a championship program. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the desire to win at least some games on a consistent basis, but again, it harkens back to the premise of what do you want the program to represent....what principles do you intend to function with? What is sad in all of this is that most of the people who I know in this situation are good, decent people. But the modern-day high school paradigm does not lend itself to finding solutions that are defined in a functional manner when the truly HARD questions are asked. It takes too much time, and frankly, school boards - which shape the policies and procedures of any school within their jurisdiction - are far more interested in doing what is politically tolerable. Administration simply follows the wishes/desires of board members.....case closed.

One parent, amidst all of this turmoil, was quoted as saying: "...there is nothing wrong with the water [here]. It takes finding the right coach....and giving him the proper leadership support to make this program successful."

If it were only that simple.