Releasing a coach, when and why?

[Finfan]

I have observed Women's D-lll coaching over the years and I still can't grasp the thinking behind the hiring and firing process. The standard fare is to release a underachieving coach after a string of poor seasons usually executed in the spring. I understand that many A.D.'s feel it is unfair to release a coach without giving them an opportunity to "recruit" their team thus a three or four season run. Really? In most other levels of hockey a coach is expected to show improvement over his or her predecessor during their first season. Perhaps not monumental improvement, but improvement just the same. Let me provide an example of two coaches who started as a head coach the same time and on two bottom rung programs. Coach Kivi at Marian has a record of 11-49-4 over her three seasons there. Coach Syrowik at Finlandia has a 1-56-0 record over the same period. Both coaches were players and assistant coaches before taking over their respective programs. Both are within a couple of players of having their "own" team. They are currently the last and second from last place teams in their conference. Kivi took over a program with a 4-65-4 record. Syrowik's predecessors had a 28-158-11 record. In my opinion, one coach has improved her team, the other has not. Granted Coach Syrowik has developed goaltenders who are capable of facing 141 shots in a two game series. My question is, "Why do A.D.'s wait so long to remove an unproductive coach and why in the spring?" Waiting until spring all but assures a successor will have limited or no recruiting for their first season. Why not hire a coach during the active season for 19U hockey and allow the lame duck to finish out their season at the same time? Is the purpose of the program to improve and become a contender or simply fill some dorm rooms and help the bottom line?

[claw]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

I have observed Women's D-lll coaching over the years and I still can't grasp the thinking behind the hiring and firing process. The standard fare is to release a underachieving coach after a string of poor seasons usually executed in the spring. I understand that many A.D.'s feel it is unfair to release a coach without giving them an opportunity to "recruit" their team thus a three or four season run. Really? In most other levels of hockey a coach is expected to show improvement over his or her predecessor during their first season. Perhaps not monumental improvement, but improvement just the same. Let me provide an example of two coaches who started as a head coach the same time and on two bottom rung programs. Coach Kivi at Marian has a record of 11-49-4 over her three seasons there. Coach Syrowik at Finlandia has a 1-56-0 record over the same period. Both coaches were players and assistant coaches before taking over their respective programs. Both are within a couple of players of having their "own" team. They are currently the last and second from last place teams in their conference. Kivi took over a program with a 4-65-4 record. Syrowik's predecessors had a 28-158-11 record. In my opinion, one coach has improved her team, the other has not. Granted Coach Syrowik has developed goaltenders who are capable of facing 141 shots in a two game series. My question is, "Why do A.D.'s wait so long to remove an unproductive coach and why in the spring?" Waiting until spring all but assures a successor will have limited or no recruiting for their first season. Why not hire a coach during the active season for 19U hockey and allow the lame duck to finish out their season at the same time? Is the purpose of the program to improve and become a contender or simply fill some dorm rooms and help the bottom line?

Because when you're dealing with programs with those kinds of history, the problem goes a lot deeper than coaching. The school most likely doesn't care if their program wins or loses as long they keep kids on the roster and graduate them and I'd be willing to bet if you could look at the resources this would be reflected. Your last sentence asked about the purpose of the program, but at many schools, especially at D3 where things tend to be more enrollment driven and there are no athletic scholarships, hockey is a sport that can put 20+ kids in the dorm rooms and even with the operating costs can contribute a significant amount of money to the bottom line.

[shelfit]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

What about the opposite situation when you have a long time coach at a school that never does well. One example is at St. Michael's College. The simple answer is the school does not care about winning or losing. It cares about providing the opportunity for the students to play a varsity sport. That's the way D3 philosophy used to be almost across the board.

[gojackets]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

What about the opposite situation when you have a long time coach at a school that never does well. One example is at St. Michael's College. The simple answer is the school does not care about winning or losing. It cares about providing the opportunity for the students to play a varsity sport. That's the way D3 philosophy used to be almost across the board.

I can't imagine how hard it is to find a top notch D3 player that is willing to go to a school like Marian or Finlandia without that being the academic school of their choice. If you are being recruited by Finlandia, Marian, and say St Norbert to stay with the private theme and cost/academics aren't your top priority--why would you choose a school that is 1-56-0 and not going anywhere, over a school that is 44-22-5 and, in general, moving up in the world.

I would assume the kids that go to schools like Finlandia, Marian, Chatham, and especially St Mikes, St. Anselm, etc where they have nothing really to play for...go to the college for their education and play hockey as an added bonus. I know Marian had a goal of being competitive when they first started the program, but when you look at Wisconsin, there isn't a whole lot of high school girls hockey and with 7 Wisconsin schools recruiting and 11 Minnesota schools, and the East teams taking a handful...there aren't a lot of girls out there to get.

Marian hasn't been terrible this year--even when you look at the "blowouts" Adrian 6-2, it was 3-2 until midway through the 3rd, 7-1 game they had about 4 minutes where Adrian scored 5 goals. The crazy 8-7 game vs Superior where they were leading after 2. They played evenly with Trinity...so they are there, just can't get over the hump. Finlandia on the other hand...

[claw]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

I would assume the kids that go to schools like Finlandia, Marian, Chatham, and especially St Mikes, St. Anselm, etc where they have nothing really to play for...

I'm not sure it's fair to include a program like St A's in this mix. One could easily argue that kids who go to any of the seemingly successful non D-3 programs have more to play for in terms of at least winning a regular season conference crown or ECAC Open tournament championship than probably all but 15 or so D3 schools...since that is all that realistically has a shot at making the NCAA's in a given year (and it's usually the same schools year in and year out to boot).

[gojackets]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

I'm not sure it's fair to include a program like St A's in this mix. One could easily argue that kids who go to any of the seemingly successful non D-3 programs have more to play for in terms of at least winning a regular season conference crown or ECAC Open tournament championship than probably all but 15 or so D3 schools...since that is all that realistically has a shot at making the NCAA's in a given year (and it's usually the same schools year in and year out to boot).

That is true I probably meant Franklin Pierce

[Finfan]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

What about the opposite situation when you have a long time coach at a school that never does well. One example is at St. Michael's College. The simple answer is the school does not care about winning or losing. It cares about providing the opportunity for the students to play a varsity sport. That's the way D3 philosophy used to be almost across the board.

So it's fork out the big dollars, put on the crest, take a long bus ride, get your lunch handed to you, swallow your pride, you made the team! Sounds like the "every kid gets a trophy" philosophy to me. Are you saying the success of the Wisconsin public universities goes against the D3 philosophy? If what you say about the D-3 philosophy is true why keep score?

[Tjames]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

Does anyone know the average salary of a D3 coach?

[123kidd]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

Numerous DIII coaches are part time. Not sure what the average salary is for full time coaches.

[Genbeau]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

That is true I probably meant Franklin Pierce

I think Franky P is a pretty decent team, but over all I know what you mean.

[Eeyore]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

So it's fork out the big dollars, put on the crest, take a long bus ride, get your lunch handed to you, swallow your pride, you made the team! Sounds like the "every kid gets a trophy" philosophy to me. Are you saying the success of the Wisconsin public universities goes against the D3 philosophy? If what you say about the D-3 philosophy is true why keep score?

There's a phrase used in the roleplaying games community that applies here: "hurting wrong fun." It's used when someone who has a strong opinion of how games should be played complains that other people are enjoying their games (not ones that this person is playing, just that he's heard about) in ways that the individual doesn't approve of. That's pretty much what you are doing here.

"Success" is a word without any bright line, objective definitions. It's pretty dumb to tell other people how they ought to define it. Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it, whether it matches your definition of what would constitute success.

It's also very different from the "everyone gets a medal" approach (which I also think comes in for more scorn than it deserves in a lot of situations). In that, someone on the outside is declaring that participants have met the criteria for success. Just going out and having some fun playing hockey in the environment described is meeting a person's individual idea of what constitutes success.

Exactly why that should bother someone else eludes me.

[pokechecker]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

Exactly why that should bother someone else eludes me.

So why did you post here then? Aren’t you imposing your judgment in somebody else’s game? Aren’t you spoiling their fun?

You impose your definition of success, and then tell others it’s pretty dumb to tell others how to define it. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.

“Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it”
true, but I think that’s why colleges/universities have Rec Sports/Club teams (or adults have beer leagues)

It always cracked me up the reaction of kids to “not keeping score” and “every kid is a winner” (give them all a medal) leagues, the kids keep score and they don’t value the medal (because everyone values something by the effort required to achieve it)

it's all for the parent, they can't stand to see their kid lose to someone else's kid and mostly it is parents who never themselves were athletes and really don't understand athletics

[Finfan]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

There's a phrase used in the roleplaying games community that applies here: "hurting wrong fun." It's used when someone who has a strong opinion of how games should be played complains that other people are enjoying their games (not ones that this person is playing, just that he's heard about) in ways that the individual doesn't approve of. That's pretty much what you are doing here.

"Success" is a word without any bright line, objective definitions. It's pretty dumb to tell other people how they ought to define it. Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it, whether it matches your definition of what would constitute success.

It's also very different from the "everyone gets a medal" approach (which I also think comes in for more scorn than it deserves in a lot of situations). In that, someone on the outside is declaring that participants have met the criteria for success. Just going out and having some fun playing hockey in the environment described is meeting a person's individual idea of what constitutes success.

Exactly why that should bother someone else eludes me.

I find your response interesting though I do not agree with your concept of "fun." To determine where your point of view comes from I too, would have to make an assumption. Having played and coached in multiple sports over a lifetime, I have learned that player's have "fun" when they play and even more "fun" when they succeed. I have also learned through experience to expect to receive value for my dollar. Giving a player equipment, a fancy stick and saying "have fun" is fine for mite hockey. Doing the same for "elite" hockey is not value wise. My original question was "why" and "when" to release a coach? I chose the two coach examples because of their experience and like tenure. It is the respective A.D.'s responsibility to determine if a coach is showing improvement for the program or not? It is the school's responsibility to provide the student athlete with the opportunity to "succeed" as well as have fun. If you were competing for a promotion at your work and co-workers continually passed you, would you say, "That's OK, I am having fun?

[Eeyore]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

I find your response interesting though I do not agree with your concept of "fun." To determine where your point of view comes from I too, would have to make an assumption. Having played and coached in multiple sports over a lifetime, I have learned that player's have "fun" when they play and even more "fun" when they succeed. I have also learned through experience to expect to receive value for my dollar. Giving a player equipment, a fancy stick and saying "have fun" is fine for mite hockey. Doing the same for "elite" hockey is not value wise. My original question was "why" and "when" to release a coach? I chose the two coach examples because of their experience and like tenure. It is the respective A.D.'s responsibility to determine if a coach is showing improvement for the program or not? It is the school's responsibility to provide the student athlete with the opportunity to "succeed" as well as have fun. If you were competing for a promotion at your work and co-workers continually passed you, would you say, "That's OK, I am having fun?

This is a nonsensical answer because it keeps shifting viewpoints, such that it's impossible to figure out what your point is. Whose perspective would you like me to address? The athletic director's? The coach's? Athletes that are on the team? People that aren't on the team but would like to be? My previous response looked at it from the perspective of players currently on the team because that seemed to be what the bit of yours that I quoted was referring to, namely that it is hurting wrong fun for a player to enjoy hockey when they are losing all the time.

And my response to that is the same: it's not your place to tell people whether or not they are legitimately enjoying the experience and deriving fulfillment from it. That's their decision.

[Finfan]

Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?

This is a nonsensical answer because it keeps shifting viewpoints, such that it's impossible to figure out what your point is. Whose perspective would you like me to address? The athletic director's? The coach's? Athletes that are on the team? People that aren't on the team but would like to be? My previous response looked at it from the perspective of players currently on the team because that seemed to be what the bit of yours that I quoted was referring to, namely that it is hurting wrong fun for a player to enjoy hockey when they are losing all the time.

And my response to that is the same: it's not your place to tell people whether or not they are legitimately enjoying the experience and deriving fulfillment from it. That's their decision.

For someone who invokes the "it's not your place to tell people," you do a fine job of it. Your defense of losing programs makes me ask, are you a college administrator, A.D. or just a parent of a player on a losing program?

The thread began with questions about the protocol of releasing coaches and the timing of such releases. It questioned why many D-3 universities give unproductive coaches multiple years to prove they are unable to improve a losing or maintain a winning program. Understand?

As to your assumption it is "fun" for a competitive player to play on a consistently losing team, Kumbaya.