UMGriz75
Well-known member
The history of the UM program speaks to this blogpost directly in an interesting way. It has often made a huge difference, but, once the direction of the program has been changed, changing coaches generally continues the success pattern of the past, or, as it was, the failures of the past. What is interesting is the why's of how a given coach can reverse a program trend -- in either direction. For all the interest and money involved in collegiate and professional sports, there are not a lot of studies out there. There are great books written by great coaches that give insight into high level coaching skills and demeanors, but since poor coaches generally don't write about their failures, the literature fails to offer the ability to distinguish key characteristics.Grizzoola said:Yeah, but there are always the Beau Baldwins, the Chris Petersens, and the Craig Bohls.buckingthesun said:Here is another perspective on this same subject;
http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/
What the blogpost fails to note is that head coaches are not, in general, selected by head coaches. They are most often selected by managers who have no coaching experience themselves. Those are the real and literal "principal clerks" identified by Adam Smith -- and may very well be the key to the homogeneity found in coaching records.