LITERATURE REVIEW

COACHING EFFECTIVENESS 

The literature review focuses primarily on coaching effectiveness.  An abundance of research has been developed on this subject over the past ten to twelve years.  The research has taken differing paths.  The first that I will detail has been a comprehensive review of coaching behaviors and its impact on athletes both beginner and more advanced.  Additionally, a number of studies looked at how coaching behaviors affected athletes as a whole but also delineated between the perceptions of athletes based on whether they were low or high anxiety types with respect to cognitive and somatic anxiety measures.  The concept of coaching feedback, its definition, its usage, and the positive and negative aspects of it also has been studied. 

The second path has been a number of research studies on the issue of coaching training in an effort to determine whether or not advanced or specialized training of coaches will result in changes to the way athletes view their coaches as to creating a positive or negative environment and/or experience.  These studies also attempt to determine whether coach training will result in changes in coaches’ attitudes, behaviors, and the manner in which they go about their business.

The first research path focusing on coaching behaviors reveals results that provide indisputable evidence that coaching behaviors clearly affect their athletes and how the athletes view their playing experience.  It was found that early and late adolescent athletes participating in youth sport programs want a coach that allows athletes greater participation in making decisions pertaining to group goals, practice methods, and game tactics.  These athletes preferred a coach who develops warm interpersonal relations with team members and creates a positive group atmosphere (Martin, Jackson, Richardson, and Weiller 1999).  This same study showed that both boys and girls preferred a democratic style of coaching.  Positive feedback, training, and instruction were very important.  They preferred a coach who provides social support, who is emphatic and sympathetic to the needs of the athletes.

Observation of coaches for high school basketball found that verbal instruction accounted for 49% of all coded behaviors, encouragement accounted for 18%, and managing the practice session accounted for 15% (Lacy and Goldston 1990).  A second girls high school basketball team study (Curtner-Smith, Wallace, and Wang 1997), found player performance in competition adversely affected by the time coaches spent in managerial functions.  It was found that the level of player performance in competition is more closely related to how players spend their time in practice than how coaches spend their time.  This study also revealed that coaches ratings of players’ abilities were positively related with team point differential and win percentage.

Another study revealed that there were no significant differences in feedback patterns between coaches identified as high and low experience.  Years of coaching experience appear to have little effect on the quality of feedback or its differential usage except that coaches do provide high expectancy athletes with more instructional and praise feedback than their low expectancy teammates, regardless of years of coaching experience (Sololmon, DiMarco, Ohlson, and Reece 1998).  The study would seem to negate the premise that coaching effectiveness improves with experience.  A second study in this area looked at coaches’ stability in their perception of athletes’ ability over a season and whether coach expectations based on athletes’ improvement is stable or flexible over the course of a season (Solomon and Kosmitzki 1996).  It was found that coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ ability were stable over time, and that coaches’ perceptions of improvement were rather flexible over the course of the season. Additionally, coaches’ expectancies about player’ ability were not systematically related to coaches’ behavior during practices over the course of the season.  Athletes who were expected to improve more received more overall feedback than did athletes who were expected to improve less, indicating that coaches’ expectancies of improvement appear to be a valuable predictor of feedback patterns, particularly in the early season.

Two of the studies looked at athletes perceptions of coaching behaviors as differentiated by their varying anxiety levels (Kenow and Williams 1999).  They found support for trait anxiety, state cognitive and somatic anxiety, state self-confidence, and coach-athlete compatibility as variables associated with athletes’ perception and evaluation of coaching behaviors.  Athletes who felt more, compared to less, compatible with their coach experienced fewer negative cognitive/attentual and somatic effects from their coach’s behavior during game situations. Athletes who felt more compatible with their coach also felt more supported by their coach and evaluated his/her communication ability more favorably.  When compatibility was controlled, trait anxiety, cognitive and somatic state anxiety, and self-confidence were still significantly related to athletes’ perception and evaluation of coaching behaviors.  Coach-athlete compatibility and athletes’ cognitive anxiety are the best predictors of the way athletes will perceive and evaluate their coaches’ behavior. 

The same two authors studied the relationship between anxiety, self-confidence, and evaluation of coaching behavior in another setting (Kenow and Williams 1992).  The cognitive subcomponent of state anxiety appeared to be a major variable affecting how a player will evaluate and perceive a coach’s game behavior and a coach’s cognitive anxiety.  The study revealed that a coach’s behavior may contribute to the cognitive anxiety that athletes, already high in this aspect, experience during a game, that a coach’s sideline behavior seems to affect his player’s cognitive anxiety.  These behaviors include negative body language, facial expressions, and foot stomping.  Also perceptions of a coach’s inability to clearly communicate may be related to the cognitive anxiety an athlete experiences.  The studies support the addition of state cognitive anxiety, but not somatic anxiety, as an individual difference variable that mediates athletes’ perception and evaluation of coaching behaviors.  Also the addition of the athletes’ perception of the coach’s state cognitive anxiety as an individual difference variable is supported.

In looking at coaches’ perceived behavior compared to their actual behavior some interesting results have been found (Wandzilak, Ansorge, and Potter 1985).  Coaches utilize a greater number of behaviors in games than in practices.  Coaches tend to be more encouraging in games, but utilize more organization and instruction in practices.  It was revealed that coaches are only partially effective in perceiving their own behaviors correctly.  Coaches believed that they encouraged players to a greater degree than what actually occurs in practices and games.  This inability of coaches to predict their own behaviors in two categories supports previous findings.  The findings suggest that coaches who lack competence in a sport will emphasize encouraging statements in their repertoire because they have little else to offer.  Coaches who have a stronger knowledge or skill base in the sport are more secure and try to provide information that will help player as opposed to attempts to increase arousal.  Coaches should be provided feedback on their observed behaviors.  They need additional information on teaching techniques, a stronger knowledge base, and assistance in improving player/coach interaction.

Work in the area of feedback given to athletes based on coach’s expectations of their abilities and their affect on athletes revealed significant findings (Sinclair and Vealey 1989).  Coaches exhibit differential patterns of behavior towards high versus low expectancy athletes.  High expectancy athletes received more individual communication and more precise performance information than low expectancy athletes.  Low expectancy athletes received more instruction and error correction.  When self-confidence of the athlete was shown to change over the season it was due to the immediacy of feedback provided by coaches.  The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy has also been looked at with regard to coaches’ expectation messages (Solomon, Striegel, Eliott, Heon, and Maas 1996).  It was found that head coaches offered greater rates of feedback to high expectancy athletes in every feedback category.  In every case athletes ranked as low expectancy received significantly less feedback than high expectancy athletes.  This certainly confirmed the self-fulfilling prophecy in this study.  Additionally the study showed that assistant coaches consistently offer more instruction to low expectancy athletes.  This study also revealed that high expectancy athletes perceived coaches as having high expectations and as helping them raise their own performance expectations while low expectancy athletes perceived coaches as having lower expectations and as less helpful in raising their personal expectations.

The effectiveness of a coach’s leadership has usually been determined by the outcomes of individual or team performance and athlete satisfaction.  One study examined the relationship of various leader-related factors with the outcomes of team performance and athlete satisfaction (Weiss and Friedrichs 1986).  It was found that certain leader behaviors would be associated with more satisfied athletes.  Rewarding behavior was the best predictor of team satisfaction.  Democratic behavior and social support were important contributors.  A democratic decision-making style was identified as the leader behavior that contributed most to the relationship with individual athlete satisfaction.  A coach’s social support behavior was predictive of athlete satisfaction with teammates, school, and basketball related work, while autocratic behavior contributed only to basketball-related work. Clearly, coaches can affect the satisfaction of their athletes in the sport environment.  The use of a democratic decision-making style, providing contingent positive feedback and reinforcement, and showing support behaviors of care and concern for each athlete were demonstrated to be associated with satisfied athletes.

One illuminating study involved the observation of an expert basketball coach over the course of a season (Bloom, Crumpton, and Anderson 1999).  It was discovered that the successful coach of a college basketball team spent 29% of the practice time on tactical training.  The next highest category was hustles at 16%.  It is speculated that this would occur only at the elite athlete level, as this was not found at the beginner or intermediate levels in other studies.  At the elite level most of the practice time is spent on the cognitive and tactical aspects of the sport.

Developing and refining the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) has been on ongoing process.  One study worked to refine the scale to make it more reliable and valid (Chelladurai and Saleh 1980). In the revised edition 13 additional items were added and tested.  From this effort five overall categories emerged.  They were; Training and Instruction with 13 items, Democratic Behavior with 9 items, Autocratic Behavior with 5 items, Social Support with 8 items, and Positive Feedback with 5 items.  The revised LSS provides the researcher with a valuable tool that has advantages over other proposed factor structures.  The LSS could be used profitably in the analysis of coaching behavior and its effectiveness.

One paper dealt with the notion that an athletic program is always a reflection and sometimes an extension of the personality of the coach (Lanning 1979) As a result the coach must consider the effect of his or her personality on each athlete.  Coaches must begin to learn how to know themselves as well as their athletes. Coaches need to know what motivates athletes, their style of learning, their reaction to the coach, their arousal levels, and more.  All athletes will not respond to a coach in the some way.  These are issues that must be considered during recruiting and each athlete’s personality must be considered.  Athletes must be compatible with each other and the coach.  Another element is the selection of assistant coaches.  Head coaches should hire coaches who are different, but compatible with themselves.  To hire a carbon copy is self-defeating. When the assistants are supplementary to the head coach then the entire program has more “degrees of freedom” in the type of athlete who can fit into the program.

Another study attempted to describe and distinguish motivational factors of a group of coaches and create a measure that identifies such styles (Frederick and Morrison 1999).  The study presented and validated a scale designed to measure coaching motivation.  Five coaching motives were identified.  They were; intrinsic, extrinsic, social, educational growth, and professional relations.  Coaching motivation was shown to relate to decision-making styles and personality traits of coaches.  Coaches with a predominately intrinsic style of coaching are those who coach with openness and warmth. Predominately extrinsic coaches exhibit high dominance, low warmth and ineffectiveness in decision-making.  The style of the coach will certainly impact on team climate and also on athlete satisfaction and performance.

With regard to research on the education of coaches, several studies are reviewed.  One such study proposed to determine whether there are: 1) gender differences in managerial potential and instrumental-expressive traits, 2) gender differences in the perceptions of selected task characteristics in teaching and coaching, 3) gender differences in preferences for teaching and coaching, and 4) systematic relationships between preferences for teaching or coaching and perceptions of task attributes (Chelladurai, Kuga, and O’Bryant 1999). It was found that male participants scored significantly higher in coaching than female participants and women scored significantly higher in teaching than men.  No gender differences were found in managerial potential.  The results did show that men are more likely than women to seek coaching jobs in educational institutions.  Men perceived greater variety and control in coaching while women perceived greater variety and control in teaching.  Both genders perceived higher job status and greater ease of motivation in coaching than in teaching.  Both also perceived greater job significance and job identity in teaching than in coaching.  Female respondents were willing to forego the status and ease of motivation available in coaching in favor of the significance and identity of the job in teaching.  The task factors had relatively greater influence on the preference to teach or coach than individual difference factors.  Men preferred more to coach, whereas women preferred more to teach.  Preferences for teaching and coaching were influenced by the participants’ perceptions of task attributes, especially the ease of motivating students or athletes, and perceived job variety.

A second study looking at male dominance in coaching found that the proportion of female coaches declined from 1978 to 1990 (Knoppers 1992).  The study reviews individual, structural, and social relational approaches used to explain sex segregation of waged work as will as the existence of the revolving door for women in these jobs.  The study asserts that to truly understand coaching as a male dominated occupation we can no longer focus on the qualifications of women (individual approach) or assume gender neutrality of structures, jobs, workers, or workplaces (structural approach).  Instead we need to use the social relations approach to ask questions that focus on definitions of coaching.  We need to explore how the definitions of coach are constructed, challenged, and negotiated.  The study asserts that if we want toe social groups who are minimally represented in the coaching ranks to enter coaching and not exit through the revolving door, then we obviously have to change the dominant definitions surrounding the occupation of coaching.

Another study investigated development and assessment of an experimental training program to enhance the ability of Little League Baseball coaches to relate more effectively to their players (Smith, Smoll, and Curtis 1979).  The results indicated that the experimental training program exerted a significant and positive influence on overt coaching behaviors, player-perceived behaviors, and children’s attitudes toward their coach teammates, and other aspects of their athletic experience.  Children who played for trained coaches evaluated their coach and interpersonal climate of their teams more positively.  Children who played for the trained coaches evidenced significant increases in self-esteem scores as opposed to those who played for untrained coaches.

Another study reviewed the two assessments of coaching expertise; that of behavioral assessment and coaches’ knowledge base assessment (Abraham and Collins 1998).  The study reviewed knowledge acquisition, outcomes of knowledge, and the expertise and nature of problem solving.  In the assessment of the nature of coaching expertise from the behavioral assessment point of view revealed some interesting findings.  It was noted that the Coaches Behavioral Assessment System (CBAS) data does not differentiate between expert and less expert coaches.  CBAS only measures direct styles of coaching.  With this in mind along with other CBAS criticisms the authors developed the Coach Analysis Instrument (CAI), which produces quantitative data while also taking into account qualitative factors that can affect coaching behavior.  Effective coach education must explicitly challenge candidates to rationalize, and critically reflect on, the particular blend of coaching tools that have been used.  Coach educators need to know what knowledge to teach so coaches can reflect on declarative knowledge to improve procedural knowledge.  Knowledge should be well developed and transferable.  If a methodology of coherence is to be transferred to a coach education system using a cognitive/experimental approach it is imperative that instructors and mentors know what is required of them to make the approach work.

No review of coaching effectiveness would be complete without looking at issues which are fairly new to the profession, are not traditionally part of the mainstream, and yet which any coach of female athletes must be cognizant of, and be equipped to understand and function within that arena.  Homophobia, Sexism and Lesbians in Sport (Griffin 1992), is a study of this issue.  This article discussed the issue of lesbians in sport from a feminist perspective that analyzes the function of socially constructed gender roles and sexual identities in maintaining male dominance in North American society.  Manifestations of homophobia in women’s sport is divided into six categories: 1) silence, 2) denial, 3) apology, 4) promotion of a heterosexy image, 5) attacks on lesbians, and 6) preference for male coaches.  Sport governing organizations and school athletic departments need to enact explicit non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies that include sexual orientations as a protected category.  Professional standards of conduct for coaches must be developed that outline behavioral expectations regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Everyone associated with physical education and athletics must learn more about homophobia, sexism, and heterosexism.  Increased visibility will help counteract homophobia as well as the formulation of coalitions of heterosexual and lesbian women.  Eliminating the trio of sexism, heterosexism, and homophobia in women’s sport will take a sustained commitment to social justice that will challenge much of what has been accepted as natural about gender and sexuality.                                          
.

MIKE  LAMSON

COACHING PHILOSOPHY 

When a person chooses or decides to enter the coaching profession an assumption is made that there is a reason or reasons for doing so.  It may be financial, love of the game, enjoyment of working with athletes, confidence in one’s ability to be successful, ego, or a whole host of other possibilities.  Whatever the reason(s), it is not done in a vacuum as a person’s thoughts, ideas, motivations, values, beliefs, and character traits go with him or her.  These thoughts, ideas, motivations, values, beliefs, and character traits are a part of what makes up an individual’s personal philosophy or philosophy of life.  This personal philosophy becomes the framework from which their coaching philosophy is developed or evolves.

Earl Zeigler discusses philosophy from various constructs and relates it to Sport and Physical Education.  In his book (Zeigler, 1977), he divides basic philosophy into axiology, speculative, epistemology, and logic constructs as a framework (Zeigler, 1977, p 381).  He also discusses the various types of teaching through a philosophical analysis of different types of teachers, which include the experimentalist, the reconstructionist, the realist, and the idealist (Zeigler, 1977, pp.140-143).  The experimentalist provides students with broad freedoms to learn.  The reconstructionist views learning as a cooperative venture with teachers being democratic leaders.  The realist utilizes scientific methods to transmit truth, and the idealist allows students to choose their objectives and activities with the teacher there to offer guidance.  From these differing views a teaching and/or coaching philosophy emerges.

Zeigler also reviews the need for coaches to have a coaching philosophy (Zeigler 1975).  Coaches need a philosophy “to view their professions as a whole” (Zeigler, 1975, pp. 53-54).  He also states (Zeigler 1989), that “…the most persistent problem that the sport and physical education teacher/coach faces is the necessity for the ongoing determination (or re-affirmation) of his or her personal values”, (Zeigler, 1989, p. 205).  “Sport administrators and managers need to understand their own philosophical stances - whether implied or explicitly developed – in order to meet persistent problems logically and consistently”, (Zeigler, 1989, p. 344).  He reviews “five stages of philosophy development: 1) ostrich or head in the sand stage, 2) cafeteria stage (some of this and some of that), 3) fence-sitter stage inclining in one direction or another, 4) stage of early maturity (attitudes are developed and philosophical position staked out), and 5) philosophical maturity to know where we’re at and continue to search for truth” (Zeigler, 1989, pp. 362-363).

From this discussion one can more closely examine the absolute necessity to have a coaching philosophy that has been thought out, intellectually processed, and tested against one’s life values.  However, before this can be done a coach must come to grips with why he or she are coaching, what is important to them in coaching, and what are the fundamental critical lessons and/or messages they want to impart to their athletes.  They must define the basic objectives of their coach/athlete relationship and maintain a consistency that their athletes know, understand, and feel secure in the relationship.  To a large extent the developing philosophy will be inherently founded on a person’s basic ethics of right and wrong.  In Developing a Personal Philosophy of Sport (Lumpkin and Cuneen 2001) state, “Examination of one’s attitudes, beliefs, and values is an essential first step in understanding why we act as we do” (Lumpkin and Cuneen, 2001, p. 41).  In Coaching as a Profession:  Ethical Concerns (Haney, Long, and Howell-Jones 1998), four ethical principles are identified: 1) respect for participants, 2) responsible coaching, 3) integrity in relationships, and 4) honoring sport, (Haney, Long, and Howell-Jones, 1998, p. 241).  These are critical issues, which provide a part of the framework and genesis from which a coaching philosophy is developed.

Edward Shea has stated (Shea 1996), “Ethics is the study of right and wrong, of good and bad, in human conduct”, “…to answer the question, what should (ought) I do?” (Shea, 1996, pp. 5-6), and “Ethics is a “philosophy of morality”…which critically examines, clarifies, and reframes the basic concepts and pre-suppositions of morality in general”, (Shea, 1996, p. 7).  Shea also discusses normative decision-making concerning the choices a person should make and descriptive decision-making concerning the choices a person actually makes.  He states “winning is the only thing”, means, “the end justifies the means with…no obligation to be honest, truthful, and obedient to the rules of the game…”(Shea, 1996, p. 138).  “The knowing or understanding of what is right, fair or good is based on one’s beliefs or values…the doing or acting upon one’s courage to do so is presented in terms of traits that comprise character”, (Shea, 1996, p. 183).  Grantland Rice has been quoted as saying, “when the one great scorer comes to write against your name, he marks not that you won or lost, but how you played the game”.  Likewise, Plato is reported to have said, “neither are the two arts of music and gymnastic really designed, as is often supposed, the one for training of the soul, the other for training of the body.  What then is the real objective of them?  I believe, I said, that the teachers of both have in view chiefly the improvement of the soul”.

In Coaching for Character (Clifford and Feezell 1997), the authors point out that “everyone knows it’s only a game, but we need to state the obvious because it’s easy to become so absorbed in the game that we forget the obvious”, (Clifford and Feezell, 1997, p. 91).  They also differentiate between playing as if it were the only thing that mattered and truly believing it is the only thing in the world.

As my personal coaching philosophy has evolved over the years I don’t believe that I have consciously thought about many of the points made by the fore mentioned authors.  I believe my inherent values are consistent with the points, the ideas, and the reasoned thinking they have described.  However, as was stated earlier, it is so very easy to get so absorbed in the game that one has to consciously remind themselves that it is only a game as the athletes will take their cue from their coach and behave accordingly.  If the coach gets carried away so will the athletes.  With this in mind, Joe Monesco (Shank 1974), makes no distinction between a coach and a teacher, (Shank, 1974, pp. 53-54).  Robert Ivory talks about the necessity for a coach to be them self, be honest, and the treating of each person as an individual (Shank, 1974, pp. 57-58).  I also personally agree with many of Joe Paterno’s thoughts (Paterno 1989).  He states, “Just winning is a silly reason to be serious about a game, (Paterno, 1989, p. 15).  He also talks about the importance of not confronting a kid with an important challenge until he has a chance to succeed at it, (Paterno, 1989, p. 86).  I completely agree with his premise, “Success to me is not winning a game…it’s the glorious struggle…the human striving that made it possible.  Success is perishable and often outside your control.  In contrast, excellence is something that’s lasting, dependable, and largely within a person’s control” (Paterno, 1989, p. 125).  Red Auerbach writes about the absolute necessity of always providing one’s best effort, of differentiating between what the coach says and what the athletes hear, (Auerbach, 1985, pp. 153-155).  Bill Walsh likewise makes important points when he writes about the coaching ethic of commitment and personal sacrifice and the importance of teaching and preparation (Walsh 1990).

My personal coaching philosophy has evolved gradually over the years.  As I think back to where I was 20-25 years ago I have to admit that I wasn’t very smart about a lot of the attitudes and values I held relating to coaching.  Years ago I believed that the success or failure of a team I coached reflected directly on my ability as a coach.  Winning at whatever cost is what mattered.  I now know how foolish and shortsighted that was.  There are so many factors outside a coach’s control that impact the game that to base one’s worth on each win or loss is complete nonsense.  Wins and losses are quickly forgotten, especially at the youth level. The athletes move on to the next issue and whether they won or lost a game a month ago they probably cannot even remember.  Many young people I work with cannot even remember which games they won or lost last weekend. I truly believe that life’s lessons learned through sport can be long lasting.  A major part of coaching is making the effort to teach athletes about the importance of preparation to meet the task at hand, of maintaining a positive and uplifting attitude about what they are doing and why, of learning to respect their teammates, their opponents, their coaches, and the game they have chosen to participate in.

I believe in attempting to teach athletes that success is not always defined by winning and losing.  Improvement in their effort and ability will be far more long lasting than whether they won or lost a particular game.  Playing the game with integrity, respect for the rules, the officials, and the reasons they play will serve them far more in life than whether or not they defeated a particular opponent.  They should never involve themselves in actions to win at the cost of their self-respect, their integrity, or their moral values.  I do not believe in yelling and screaming at athletes as I simply do not believe it is productive and whatever short term gains one may realize the long term consequences are far more pronounced and more costly.  I do not believe a coach can truly affect an athletes inner desire to get the most out of their ability and continually strive to improve with yelling, screaming and intimidation.  A successful coach has to coach an individual in such a way that they themselves want to improve and contribute to the team effort to the maximum of their ability to do so.  They need to learn and understand personal sacrifice and how it contributes to the team success.  I believe that hard work, learning how to give one’s best effort, and doing all that one can to properly prepare for the task at hand will lead to personal success.  I do not believe a coach can impart those lessons by screaming and yelling.  The athlete must believe in their coach because they accept that person as someone who is right knows what he/she is talking about and can help them.  That is not accomplished through intimidation.

In my particular situation of coaching female athletes it is important to understand that female athletes internalize criticisms and coaching behaviors slightly more than male athletes.  The issue of what is said, what is heard, and how it is interpreted becomes more pronounced and must constantly be attended to.  Fortunately, at least one study of the differences between male and female coaches of female college basketball teams revealed little difference between the coaching philosophies of male and female coaches, (Fitzen and Pratt 1989).

Up to this point it may sound like I do not believe that winning is important.  That is clearly not true.  Winning is very important to the athlete playing the game.  That is primarily why they are playing.  It is simply a matter of keeping it in the proper perspective.  Winning is important to coaches, that is primarily why they coach.  Winning is important to athletes parents.  Winning is important to school administrators as winning can make the difference between a budget surplus and a budget deficit.  It can mean increased or decreased alumni giving.  It can mean increased or decreased enrollment when school pride through winning is factored in. Winning is important.  It is important to everyone associated with an athletic team or program.  However, the effort and actions taken to win must be proper.  I believe winners become losers when they win at the expense and sacrifice of the integrity of the program, the game, their school, and their respect of teammates, coaches, opponents, officials, and fans.

MIKE LAMSON

COACHING PHILOSOPHIES  

My coaching philosophy has evolved over the years through the observation and participation with others.  I have probably learned more about how not to do things from being involved with others and thinking about how I disagreed with what I saw happening.  If there is one person I have admired the most over the years, it would be Tom Osborne at the University of Nebraska.  He has always seemed to have thing in the proper perspective.  He is a Christian man who attempts to impart the proper life’s values in all he does.  He does not yell, raise his voice, or use foul language at any time.  In various interviews his players have stated that they knew Coach Tom was angry is he used the words “doggone it”.  That was as strong as it ever got.  Tom Osborne never set out to win the National Championship.  His goals were always the process of teaching the lessons he wanted the players to learn, and that if they did the learning he wanted everything else would take care of itself.  Tom Osborne was a teacher first, and every thing else came after that.

Many benefits can come from a seminar setting.  Being able to listen to others and evaluate whether you agree or disagree can be enormously helpful if one is willing to really listen and not thinking of a response while another is still talking.  A seminar setting away from the field allows one to be exposed to new ideas, new ways to do things, and new or different ways to get your message across to those you are coaching or teaching.  It is always interesting to hear other views and be able to pick and choose the parts you may agree or disagree with.

I think that when I am coaching, a self-assessment of what I am doing and how I am doing it is a constant never-ending process.  A big part of the process is attempting to read the feedback of those you are involved with.  An accurate reading of the feedback is fundamental to tailoring the message in a way that it is received and accepted.  I don’t believe that any player is going to change the way they do things unless they believe themselves that the change will help them improve or they have a degree of faith in the person instructing that they will automatically accept what he or she says.  Most players today are not automatic acceptors.  If the things that are being said do not fit into the ideas they already have they will not automatically accept it.  Over time they have to be convinced that what you are saying is right and it will make them better players.  I believe the monitoring of feedback is paramount in the evaluation of ones philosophy.  Are the players buying into what you are attempting to do?  Do they improve as a result?  Does the team improve their performance as the season develops?  Does the team come together and believe in each other to a greater extent as the season develops?  Do the communication channels between the coach and the players improve as the season develops?  Do the players start to trust the coach more as the season develops?  Do the players begin to place team goals ahead of individual goals as the season develops?  These are all factors that must be monitored as the season progresses and are factored into the assessment of ones coaching philosophy.

Over the past five years my personal philosophy has moved more and more to the notion of setting and achieving performance and process goals as opposed to outcome goals.  I have come to realize more and more that success does not always mean winning and losing.  Respecting the game, getting the most out of ones ability, playing the game with integrity, and being able to put the competition part of the game into the proper perspective in the context of all that goes on in life is just as important if not more important in some respects than always winning every game.  Sometimes the cost of winning a game is too high.  There are other factors that are more important.  Staying calm, professional, always taking the high road, and maintaining ones integrity in the face of adversity will do far more for the young people a coach is in involved with than winning at any cost.

 

COMMITMENT IS A TWO-WAY STREET

 The dictionary defines commitment as a pledging of oneself to a position.

 Commitment is the favorite word for most ASA coaches in Northern California.  They held tryouts at least twice a year for their teams and preach the requirement for total commitment to their team from the parent and the kids.  They demand total commitment to attend all practices, attend all games every weekend of the spring, summer, and fall and to pay the required fees ranging from $400 to $1500 for the summer plus additional amounts for the fall program and additional amounts if they go to Nationals.  With the advent of NSA, AFA, and whatever else along with ASA, everybody now goes to a National Tournament of some sort.  I am told that one 14 & Under ASA coach in Sacramento has such an overblown ego that he has told his kids that unless they make the high school varsity team as a freshman they must play in the spring with his ASA team and skip Junior varsity ball.  That is another issue unto itself; let me return to my main points.

 With all this total commitment from the parents and kids to the teams I always ask the parents what kind of a commitment the coach and team make back to them.  The answer is always “none”.  There is no commitment to playing time for their money, there is no commitment to fair and equitable treatment, there is no commitment to treating their kids with dignity and respect, there is no commitment to not embarrassing their kids on the playing field, there is no commitment to not trying to recruit additional or better players at any point during the season who have not attended the tryouts, and there is no commitment to a long team relationship with their team to help coach them and make them better players.

 Some may at this point think I am talking about high school age and above kids.  WRONG!  I know of a 9 year old girl who played on a 10 & under team during the fall and has now been told she has been replaced on the team by an 11 year old for the spring and summer. Just try to imagine what that 9 year old is thinking and feeling now.  Not only the emotional toll of being told at 9 years old that she isn’t good enough anymore, she now has to try to find another team to play on just to get to play.  This whole process has gotten completely out of control and the values that parents expect their kids to learn from athletic competition have been turned totally upside down.  I don’t believe disgraceful is too strong a term to describe some of the things that are going on.

So Parents--------The next time your kid goes to a tryout for an ASA team and the coach, manager, or whatever starts to talk about the commitment required, please ask these few questions.

 1. How many players will you carry for each position and how will you rotate them?

 2. What is your position regarding adding additional players once the season starts?

 3. What is your position regarding removing a player from the game in the middle of an inning 
     for making an error?

 4. What is your position regarding changing pitchers in the middle of an inning for walking one     
 or two batters?

 5. What is your position regarding a long-term commitment to the kids or will you require them to tryout twice a year and throw them aside if you think you found a better one?  I.e. did you teach and coach as well as you should have?

 6. What is your position regarding speaking to the kids in a calm respectful manner at all times and refrain from yelling, screaming, and criticizing them during games?

 7. What is your position regarding the use of foul and/or indecent language in front of any and all kids under the age of 18 years?

 8. What is your position regarding allowing high school age kids to attend school functions i.e. dances, proms, homecoming, Senior trips, all-star games, etc. if there is a conflict with a tournament?

 9. What is your position regarding the competitive nature of the team?  i.e. Do you expect to win at all costs or is the development and learning process of the kids more important?

10. What is your measurement of team success?  Games or tournaments won or positive growth on the part of all players and participants?