Coaches vs Instructors

I have picked this up from other threads. I have been reading a lot about a coach that is hire that is not a teacher and their success. I have read how the admin. Is hiring instructors then letting them coach over an outside source and this bring programs down. Now question is is this just a bunch on unsatisfied parent talk or is there evidence of this being a trend. Try not to drag names thought the mud. Who has been more successful?

 

depends

like all things in life...it just depends

also like all things in life, there needs to be a balance. when you have a coach or coaches that are not teachers, they sometimes don't have as good of a sense of the "student athlete" part. but when you have a coach who doesn't work at the school they often are able to work on the fields more, raise more money because of contacts in the private sector, etc.

having coaches that are teachers, you have that contact during the school day. they have a better idea if kids are struggling in the classroom or being a knucklehead. there are better lines of communication within the school typically as well. what times you are getting the kids out of class, etc.

just my thoughts, i've been on staffs in both situations

 

I understand the intructor coach having more contact with players and able to keep up with grades, conduct and other such things. I was really looking to see if one was more successful on the field than the other. I don't mean just state championships but over all programs.

 

What do you mean?

Coaches vs Instructors or Coaches that are on the school staff or coaches that are not on the school staff?

A coach is a coach. An Instructor is a person that instructs on a certain phase of the game like a pitching instructor or a hitting instructor.

I can speak for the On Staff Coach vs Non Staff Coach because I have done it. I am not employed by the school. I have been the Head Coach in this situation and currently an Assitant Coach as a non staff member. As an assistant coach its really a benefit to not be on staff if you have a job that allows you the time and or schedule to work on the field etc. As a Head Coach its really tough to be the Head Coach and not be on staff. I found myself constantly having to make phone calls about scheduling situations , players out sick etc etc. The AD needs to being able to get up with you whenever he needs to. A staff Head Coach is just a much better situation than a non staff Head Coach. You are at the school you can deal with situations as they arise and not have to hear second hand about what is going on.

As far as who is the better coach that has nothing to do with it. There are alot of fine on staff coaches and then there are some not so good ones. There are non staff coaches who are very good and then there are some non staff coaches that are not so good. Being on staff is the best way to go for the head coach.

 

Coach May is right on. I don't know if this is the case in every county, but in Meck County, it doesn't matter how successful a non-employee head coach is. If there is an employee at the school that wants the position, they will receive it.

In my opinion, it creates a difficult position for the non-employee. They invest their time and commitment to re-shape the program (if the program was in good shape, they would not be seeking candidates outside of the school system) only to see their hard work swept out from under them by an in-school security officer with very little experience in the sport. That is not always the case, but it does happen.

Fortunately, in Char-Meck, most of our schools have oustanding coaches. It is an attractive place to coach baseball.

 

I was bring up what has been voiced in other threads. To me the student side of things is to the advantage of a Instructor (staff). The non staff coach is at a disadvantage. Now, With to non staff & staff coach cleared up. Which do you feel overall has had the best programs. I am looking for the wisdom of the old guys I guess. Success is measured many ways. I mean truely how many non staff coaches are out there. If we are looking at a 30% non-staff and 70% staff. And the non staff make the playoffs 75% of the time, win championships 10% of the time, then one could say that is success. I am just curious.

 

It just depends

on who the coaches are. The ability to actually coach has nothing to do with wether you are on staff or not. Let me just put up a couple of examples.

Posistion is open at a school. The school has a PE coach that never played baseball. But he wants the job and he is on staff. He takes the job because he has always wanted to coach and he never played in HS because he wasnt good enough to make the team. Now this is your sons new HS coach. Hey, he is on staff.

A former College coach retires to your community. He is bored with retirement and wants to get back into coaching. The school has a policy that you have to be on staff in order to be considered for the job.

Which one of these guys would you want your son to play for?

Then you can have a school with no one qualified to coach the baseball team on staff. No one wants the job. A local guy who has played some college baseball and coached legion etc for many years wants the job. The school does not have a policy against it so he gets the job.

Or you could have a situation where no one wants the job and no one is qualified on staff. You have a dad that wants the job and he has coached the local rec league for years. So you give the job to him.

As you can see there are numerous situations you can be left with. Some are nightmare scenarios and yes they do happen. Some are good situations and sometimes they happen. The ability to coach and be a good coach has nothing to do with being on staff or not being on staff. The ability to handle the logistics of coaching at the HS level are much better suited for a guy on staff. I know because I have lived it. I was a HC not on staff. We did very well. But it was a huge headache for me. When my old pal Coach F-3 wanted to come back and coach I gladly handed the reigns back to him so I could just focus on coaching and leave the headaches to him.

Alot of times you will see a person on staff with little experience or knowledge get the Head job because he is on staff. Then you will see someone in the community that is not on staff who has a great deal of experience and knowledge come and help the coach out. It the two guys see eye to eye and work well together this can be a good situation. But there are a ton of scenarios. You just can not say "Guys on staff win more" or "Guys not on staff win more" it just doesnt work that way.

The coaches with the best players win alot. The coaches with the best programs win consistently. The coaches with the best players and programs win all the time.

 

I certainly don't know every school in all of the classifications that have gone on to State Championships, but I would hazzard a guess that it is less than 1%. I would be interested to know if any of them (non-employee) have.

What I probably didn't do a good job in explaining myself is this. IF a program has any success by a non-employee, he will soon be replaced. I would be surprised if the actual % of baseball programs run by someone outside the school is anywhere near 5% across the state.

 

If that many

Very very few are ran by employees that are non staff members. Let me also say that alot of times the most qualified person for the job is on staff anyway. And any good coach is going to surround himself with quality people.

 

sports are an extracurricular activity for students.