Are there some schools that just can't win?

[CS]

I have been thinking about the perennial losers and wondered this. I have seen and heard of teams that turn it around that have traditionally been a loser.

just wondering what anybody else thinks because I feel their are some places that just need to give up.

[carookie]

I dunno about giving up, I think that kids can get a hell of a lot out of football other than just wins, rings, and patches. That being written I do know of some perennial losers that have some difficult socio-economic bridges to overcome. I think of one school in particular, the best it has done in the past 30 years is go 6-5 and make the playoffs as a wild card (and most of those wins came from loading up on significantly smaller schools).

The problem is they are located on the rural outskirts of their league's area; and while the schools in the more suburban parts succeed, have money, and more ready talent, they do not. The school is over 100 years old and has a significant population of poorer migrant families, many of whom never heard of football (although they have won some rings for soccer in the past decade). There is also a major gang problem at the school and they havent had a coach last more than 5 years in as long as I can remember. Conversely, there are teams in their league who will play against and compete with nationally recognized teams.

Fact is, even if a coach came in doing all the right things, other coaches near them are doing the right things too; and those programs have money, nicer/newer schools, a population that is wanting to play football (and capable-not having to work).

I imagine there are schools like this all over the place

[Deleted]

I used to think that the only thing that could ruin a school year after year was the attitude of the principals and administration meddling in a program and cutting its legs out from under the HC. Then I worked at one of those schools last year.

That was also a rural school. No money. No equipment to practice with. No budget to buy anything. No real success except for a few .500 years over the past few decades when they had tons of talent for that level. Lots of awful parents and community politicking.

The kids put forth average effort, but just getting them to practice was an adventure because of the geography being all spread out and parents not seeing practice as a priority. Parents had no interest in helping out and the moderately successful basketball coach did his best to hoard all the best athletes starting in MS, mostly by scaring moms into thinking their boys would be crippled if they played football and scheduling his open gyms at conflicting times and telling players they had to be there.

In a game, if we weren't leading by the end of the first quarter, the kids would just hang their heads and give up. Losing had conditioned them to see failure as inevitable. We were 0-4 and won a game when kids started checking out, skipping, and quitting. Even the HC's offensive strategy was "let's just kill clock until the mercy rule kicks in."

I'd thought the struggles were mainly the consequences of an incompetent HC who didn't want to work, but after I left, he left, then they hired someone else from the MS to take over. They now have only two coaches inside the building--one is an assistant principal who named himself OC to install a grab bag mess but only shows up to practice one day a week, etc. They already had their work cut out for them, but this is how admin has chosen to run the program. Coaching is not even a consideration when filling teaching openings, not even for PE or jobs that had been filled by coaches.

In circumstances like that, I don't know how anyone could build a winner. Even a good HC would be all alone and in a nest of vipers who don't know (or care) what a team needs to do to become a winner.

There are others I know of, too. For example, one of the largest (and the highest paying) schools in our state wants to run a 100+ kid program with only 4 coaches. Another was an elite program just a few years ago, but the AD there has them on their 4th coach in 4 years and they look horrible now. Then there are the county schools who lose all their top athletes to recruiting by suburban schools with more resources and "exposure." Not sure how anyone could win there, either.

[sweep26]

I may be in the minority, but I believe that any school's football program can have a decent amount of success if their Administration truly wants it, and is willing to support the football program through proper staffing, funding, etc.

To begin with, I am talking about hiring a HFC that has a proven track record of developing and maintaining a successful football program. Then: (1)allow the HFC to surround himself with a good staff; (2) provide the coaches with enough funding to procure at least all of the necessary basic equipment that is needed to properly develop the kids both in the weight room and on the field; (3) provide some academic support for tutoring, etc.; (4) Strongly support the coaches when the phone rings with menial complaints from disgruntled parents/fans.

[coachphillip]

I'm gonna say that there are definitely schools that just can't win because they are in situations in which you just can't win. As long as those schools stay in those situations then they will continue to lose until something changes.

There is a school around where I live that is absolutely terrible. Nobody can last for longer than three years and it would be a miracle for them to have more than three wins in a year. They are classified as a school you can't win at. But, they were a perennial power in the 70's and 80's. What happened? Their circumstances changed. Their town grew and opened up a new school. They became a pretty decent 9-10 win team. Then their town grew some more and opened up two more schools. They became a good 7 win team with playoff runs here and there. Then the towns AROUND them grew and now there were seven high schools in the old area of the one powerhouse. They are garbage now. It's the circumstances that are losers, not the schools.

[brophy]

How much can the coach control? He can control what comes out for football and recruit kids that are enrolled.

If the talent at your school doesn't have close to better athletes than the norm for your district/conference, you're gonna have problems. If the school has a reputation for poor academics / security, families aren't going to invest in sending their kids to the program. If the school has poor facilities it will not help in convincing those on the fence of enrolling.


Lets just be clear (and realistic) about what we think a coach, administrator, a staff can control.

[flingt]

I coached at a school for 8 years, about 5 too long, that averaged 3wins per year. I thought for a while that it wasn't a very good coach, but when I moved on to a much more successful school with better talent my players played much better. I realize coaching at a school with lesser talent I had to coach every detail over and over and that made me a better coach.

If this school were in a lower classification they would be much better because their talent is more aligned to a smaller school. The county and administration don't seem to care if the school does poorly as long as the parents don't complain about something other than wins and losses. The school has good support from the parents and the expectations seem to be low, so losing is basically status quo, as long as the coaches are good to the players, and they all get to play, everyone is happy.

[coachd5085]

I think that all schools can be perennial powers if they just run the right system and any school with a sub .500 record is because that coach isn't running the right system...

/ Sarcasm off.

Sadly, entirely too many people...fans and apparently (from reading this and other forums even COACHES) seem to think the above statement has merit.

[CS]

I think you can overcome a lack of talent to an extent if the football culture is there. The saying tradition doesn't graduate has got to hold water somewhat.

[flingt]

Sept 1, 2014 17:31:10 GMT -6 CS said:

I think you can overcome a lack of talent to an extent if the football culture is there. The saying tradition doesn't graduate has got to hold water somewhat.

The rub there coach is how do you develop a "football culture" when there isn't one?

[coach2013]

Aug 31, 2014 17:06:49 GMT -6 CS said:

I have been thinking about the perennial losers and wondered this. I have seen and heard of teams that turn it around that have traditionally been a loser.

just wondering what anybody else thinks because I feel their are some places that just need to give up.

Havent you ever seen a school scrimmage out of their league and do very well......then when they play their schedule in a very tough league, they get smacked around.  The schedule makers are not kind to every school.

[CS]

Sept 1, 2014 17:48:47 GMT -6 coach2013 said:

Aug 31, 2014 17:06:49 GMT -6 CS said:

I have been thinking about the perennial losers and wondered this. I have seen and heard of teams that turn it around that have traditionally been a loser.

just wondering what anybody else thinks because I feel their are some places that just need to give up.

Havent you ever seen a school scrimmage out of their league and do very well......then when they play their schedule in a very tough league, they get smacked around.  The schedule makers are not kind to every school.

I have. But I'm talking about the real tragic programs. The ones who just can't seem to get it going no matter who comes in.

[Deleted]

There are tons of community factors at play that have nothing to do with the administrative support or the coaches' skill.

For example, I know of places where the local church runs everything. If you don't cut your practice short on a Wed. evening, they will make your life hell and you'll be lucky if half your players show up. If the pastor there doesn't like you, forget about it.

Others have awful demographics of poverty, drugs, violence, etc. You night have talent and get a winning team out of there every few years, but building a consistent winner in those environments is very difficult. What about when your hardest working kid misses practice consistently to help his dad do odd jobs so they don't get evicted? What about when your kids can't make it to summer lifting because mom is strung out or in jail and he has no ride down from the mountain? What about when your kids are losing friends and family to drivebys on a regular basis?

Then you get the ones with a transient student population. Migrant workers' kids, military kids, co-op kids, etc, It's tough to build an identity and tradition when you never know who's staying and who's going.

Then you get the communities of single moms who are paranoid their little boy might get hurt. The NFL concussion paranoia isn't going away anytime soon, and that's all that many moms need to hear to keep their kid off the field.

Then there's small town politics. Maybe you want to hire that DC with the proven track record and glowing resume, but some local bigshot has a nephew who needs a job and does well on Madden, or he has an old buddy who wants to coach HS football and cure all the problems ailing the program by installing the Facemelter. Maybe you want to start that kid who busted his tail all offseason at QB, but the Superintendent's lazy, talentless son plays the same position.

There are lots of other things I'm not even thinking about.

[fantom]

Sept 1, 2014 17:10:43 GMT -6 coachd5085 said:

I think that all schools can be perennial powers if they just run the right system and any school with a sub .500 record is because that coach isn't running the right system...

/ Sarcasm off.

Sadly, entirely too many people...fans and apparently (from reading this and other forums even COACHES) seem to think the above statement has merit.

Yeah but there's a lot of space in between "perennial power" and "perennial doormat". Although I agree that there are some schools that can't win I don't think that there are THAT many. I think that with good coaching, most schools can be competitive most years, contending for league championships every now and then, and rarely being really bad. If the administration and fans are realistic and can accept that then I don't know that there are that many hopeless programs. 

[coachd5085]

Sept 1, 2014 18:16:59 GMT -6 fantom said:

Sept 1, 2014 17:10:43 GMT -6 coachd5085 said:

I think that all schools can be perennial powers if they just run the right system and any school with a sub .500 record is because that coach isn't running the right system...

/ Sarcasm off.

Sadly, entirely too many people...fans and apparently (from reading this and other forums even COACHES) seem to think the above statement has merit.

Yeah but there's a lot of space in between "perennial power" and "perennial doormat". Although I agree that there are some schools that can't win I don't think that there are THAT many. I think that with good coaching, most schools can be competitive most years, contending for league championships every now and then, and rarely being really bad. If the administration and fans are realistic and can accept that then I don't know that there are that many hopeless programs. 

Agreed--- however, those schools that have the potential you describe yet are perennial underachievers are NOT so because coach runs _________  and not ________

[brophy]

how is it that we think that COACHES, if they are any good, have the ability to will a losing program into a winning top-flight program.....yet, whenever we question the effectiveness of STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, we immediately cite parents and administrators as being the only thing that determines if a kid learns a subject or not?


I don't have a dog in this hunt and it is obvious that coaching the right things matters (primarily it is not doing the things that kill consistent performance), I just want to make sure that we don't go erecting any strawmen with a fanciful delusion of what coaching is.

[dubber]

I believe you can ever know if a school an "unwinnable" place.

We aren't built to buy into never.

[CS]

Sept 1, 2014 19:27:55 GMT -6 brophy said:

how is it that we think that COACHES, if they are any good, have the ability to will a losing program into a winning top-flight program.....yet, whenever we question the effectiveness of STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, we immediately cite parents and administrators as being the only thing that determines if a kid learns a subject or not?


I don't have a dog in this hunt and it is obvious that coaching the right things matters (primarily it is not doing the things that kill consistent performance), I just want to make sure that we don't go erecting any strawmen with a fanciful delusion of what coaching is.

The thing is society blames teachers for failure in the classroom. We blame everyone else and for some good reasons but the fact is the learning isn't getting done.

newspapers, alumni, parents are all going to blame the coach for losing. Admin is probably going to throw the coach under a bus to make so and so's mom/dad happy and the program is right where it left off.

but we can't just say that coaching has nothing to do with it. Even a good program can be brought down if you get a slap-@ss coach at the helm

and we aren't talking about a top flight program just a competitive one.

[blb]

A bad coach can do more harm to a good program than a good coach can do for a bad program.

There are some communities-schools where the attitudes, environment, conditions make it impossible to have a successful football program.

For example, our state has had 11-man playoffs for 39 years. Since 1999 256 schools (about 40%) qualify each year. Yet there are still around 100 schools who have never made the playoffs or won a playoff game.

They haven't all had bad coaches that entire time.

[headhunta52]

I think a good coach can make ANY situation better, even if its just winning 1 more game. You just have to rethink the way you do things...you have to be realistic in your situation and not try to act like "one of the big boys".

I coach at one of the few schools in south florida where football is not a priority. When I took this job last year they told me it was a "blackhole" for coaches. There is no football culture here and the administration here is totally agaisnt sports.

Going into year 2 I have decided that "less is more". Less players (keep only the ones that are interested, went from 50 on varsity to 25), less scheme, less practice (no weekend practice).

First year I tried to build that football culture by letting more kids out, going two platoon, having a complicated offense...but all that did was dilute my efforts. By "downsizing" our operation and keeping only the truly interested kids (playing them both ways) and simplifiying our schemes we've become noticibly better thus far.

[newhope]

Yes, some schools are at a tremendous disadvantage and aren't going to become powers. They can be successful periodically. However, giving up isn't what's needed--there is value in high school football even if you don't win every year, or even in most years. I know of coaches who have spent their careers working in schools without winning championships, but have contributed greatly to the young people of that community.

[coachwoodall]

Sept 1, 2014 12:29:47 GMT -6 sweep26 said:

I may be in the minority, but I believe that any school's football program can have a decent amount of success if their Administration truly wants it, and is willing to support the football program through proper staffing, funding, etc.

To begin with, I am talking about hiring a HFC that has a proven track record of developing and maintaining a successful football program. Then: (1)allow the HFC to surround himself with a good staff; (2) provide the coaches with enough funding to procure at least all of the necessary basic equipment that is needed to properly develop the kids both in the weight room and on the field; (3) provide some academic support for tutoring, etc.; (4) Strongly support the coaches when the phone rings with menial complaints from disgruntled parents/fans.

THAT kind of HC probably isn't going to take this type of job.

[coachjps]

Being in a program that went 8-32 over the past four years, I can say yes, there are some schools that can never win. I am at a winning program now, and here is what they have. 1st, great coaches at all levels, many who coached for a year or two at a bad school and moved on to a winning program. 2nd -Depth, if your 1st team tb who you count on misses practice, the 2nd team back isn't too far behind, not true at most losing programs. 3rd support from parents, admin and the community. Most losing programs parents/admin/community don't care about anything, grades, if their kid shows up to practice, if their kid plays or if the team wins or loses or for that matter if the coach is any good. At winning programs, parents/community and Admin care about all of the above, which can be a pita but better than the alternative. God bless those coaches who stay at programs that can't win, but for competitive people, it is almost an impossible task. I still feel that the states athletic associations can do a better job by putting those losing programs in the same conference. As a coach, and I am sure a kid, it feels better going into a season knowing you can be competitive in almost all your games compared to going in and thinking wow, we might be able to win two or three if everything falls right.

[headhunta52]

Sept 2, 2014 21:30:24 GMT -6 coachjps said:

Being in a program that went 8-32 over the past four years, I can say yes, there are some schools that can never win. I am at a winning program now, and here is what they have. 1st, great coaches at all levels, many who coached for a year or two at a bad school and moved on to a winning program. 2nd -Depth, if your 1st team tb who you count on misses practice, the 2nd team back isn't too far behind, not true at most losing programs. 3rd support from parents, admin and the community. Most losing programs parents/admin/community don't care about anything, grades, if their kid shows up to practice, if their kid plays or if the team wins or loses or for that matter if the coach is any good. At winning programs, parents/community and Admin care about all of the above, which can be a pita but better than the alternative. God bless those coaches who stay at programs that can't win, but for competitive people, it is almost an impossible task. I still feel that the states athletic associations can do a better job by putting those losing programs in the same conference. As a coach, and I am sure a kid, it feels better going into a season knowing you can be competitive in almost all your games compared to going in and thinking wow, we might be able to win two or three if everything falls right.

I agree with you, states should look at a different way to putting conferences together. In our situation our enrollment has dropped, we will probably drop from 7A to 4A...it looks like we will be reclassified in the same district next year with defending national champs Booker T. Washington... not exactly a fair proposition for a team that has been 5-15 over the last 2 years.

Ive always been a proponent of a "promotion and relegation system" where teams that win get moved up a classification and teams that lose move down. Overall it will group together teams with similar ability levels and greatly enhance the competition.

A few years ago some of the local teams here that where at a serious competitive disadvantage (no football culture, dont recruit) dropped out of their state mandated conferences and formed an independent league where week in and week out they had a chance to compete.... might do that again next year

[John Knight]

www.illinoishsglorydays.com/id446.html

In week four of the 2004-05 season, the newly formed West Carroll co-op with Mount Carroll and Thomson broke a 74-game losing streak with a 41-14 win against Polo. The losing streak is the longest in state history and was even mentioned in a Sports Illustrated article. Nevertheless, the kids played hard game in and game out.

[germanjohn]

Aug 31, 2014 17:06:49 GMT -6 CS said:

I have been thinking about the perennial losers and wondered this. I have seen and heard of teams that turn it around that have traditionally been a loser.

just wondering what anybody else thinks because I feel their are some places that just need to give up.

I'd have to say that programs with perennial losing teams generally are accompanied by communities that don't value athletics. Just about anybody who wants to coach is hired, offseason programs are lackluster at best, and game attendance is low. Depressing, but I don't think any school should give up their program, solely because as long as you can still field a team, it keeps the sport alive in your town. Fledgling, but alive nonetheless.

[coachiron]

Sept 1, 2014 12:57:14 GMT -6 coachphillip said:

I'm gonna say that there are definitely schools that just can't win because they are in situations in which you just can't win. As long as those schools stay in those situations then they will continue to lose until something changes.

There is a school around where I live that is absolutely terrible. Nobody can last for longer than three years and it would be a miracle for them to have more than three wins in a year. They are classified as a school you can't win at. But, they were a perennial power in the 70's and 80's. What happened? Their circumstances changed. Their town grew and opened up a new school. They became a pretty decent 9-10 win team. Then their town grew some more and opened up two more schools. They became a good 7 win team with playoff runs here and there. Then the towns AROUND them grew and now there were seven high schools in the old area of the one powerhouse. They are garbage now. It's the circumstances that are losers, not the schools.

It's the circumstances that are losers, not the schools. Well said. The opposite is also true. There are  a couple of schools around here that win Championships about every 3-4 years, the funny thing is because it is a different coach almost every time. Even funnier the coaches are hailed as the second coming of Lombardi because they did such and such, but here's the really interesting part, those guys go and take "another Dream Job" then not ever win another Championship. Coach? Players? or School area and structure? IMHO its the last two. Can't do it w/o players and a support structure.

[windigo]

Yes, we have a school that cannot drop to a low enough student body to drop down and their student body is made largely of military so it is alwasy transient. That team cannot win.

Generally in my experience there are 3 types of eltie programs. You have the rich school with resources. You have the middle class school that gets the athleat transfers as their families move up from the poor neighborhoods. And you have the poor school with that has figured it out and got their kids to beleive.

[sweep26]

Sept 2, 2014 13:15:47 GMT -6 coachwoodall said:

Sept 1, 2014 12:29:47 GMT -6 sweep26 said:

I may be in the minority, but I believe that any school's football program can have a decent amount of success if their Administration truly wants it, and is willing to support the football program through proper staffing, funding, etc.

To begin with, I am talking about hiring a HFC that has a proven track record of developing and maintaining a successful football program. Then: (1)allow the HFC to surround himself with a good staff; (2) provide the coaches with enough funding to procure at least all of the necessary basic equipment that is needed to properly develop the kids both in the weight room and on the field; (3) provide some academic support for tutoring, etc.; (4) Strongly support the coaches when the phone rings with menial complaints from disgruntled parents/fans.

THAT kind of HC probably isn't going to take this type of job.

Then again, some of those HC's do not mind a challenge.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained!!

[Deleted]

Sept 3, 2014 6:13:53 GMT -6 headhunta52 said:

I agree with you, states should look at a different way to putting conferences together. In our situation our enrollment has dropped, we will probably drop from 7A to 4A...it looks like we will be reclassified in the same district next year with defending national champs Booker T. Washington... not exactly a fair proposition for a team that has been 5-15 over the last 2 years.

Ive always been a proponent of a "promotion and relegation system" where teams that win get moved up a classification and teams that lose move down. Overall it will group together teams with similar ability levels and greatly enhance the competition.

A few years ago some of the local teams here that where at a serious competitive disadvantage (no football culture, dont recruit) dropped out of their state mandated conferences and formed an independent league where week in and week out they had a chance to compete.... might do that again next year

I like the promotion/relegation idea and I wish we'd so that here.

Does your state allow you to "play up" a level? Ours will let schools choose to play in a larger class than their enrollment dictates if they choose, though it's rare for obvious reasons.

For a time in the early 2000s, my previous school had played up two full classes above them because they wanted to avoid 2-4 hour drives to every district road game in the smallest class and then didn't want to share a district with of the nation's best small school programs in the next one up. They won about 3 games over 4 years doing that, going up against schools nearly 3 times their size every week.