Tarr's Blog

In my previous post, I focused on the different buttons a coach has to push in order to motivate and connect with players. But beyond those questions of style, there’s a ton of different roles that a coach (and other leadership) needs to fill. The following is an incomplete list:

- recruiting/retention of new players
- designing team strategy
- organizing/planning practices
- organizing training
- explaining things at practices
- working on fundamentals with individual players
- in-game strategy and in-game adjustments
- sub-calling
- sundry administrative details

Very few people can wear all these hats and really pull it off. At the same time, if the roles are ill-defined, you can have the “too many voices” problem, which is often worse than one person muddling along themselves. It’s important for a coach, or any other leader, to recognize their strengths and their limitations. Figure out where others should take the role, and where you should take charge.

As those who have worked with me in team administration in the past will tell you, I’m pretty terrible at team administration. Fortunately that was not my job last year.

Last spring, I had essentially no role in recruitment/retention. The fall is the big recruiting season for college. In the four fall seasons where I have been somewhat in charge of an open college program (Georgia Tech 2000, Purdue 2002, 2003, 2004) I have really only had one good recruiting class (Purdue 2002). The logical conclusion is that this was a combination of luck and the work of others around me. So, this is not my thing. Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to help, but it does mean that I’m probably not the sort who would be extremely successful building a team from scratch on my own.

Sub-calling is, in my opinion, very hard to do well without several people involved. I am a pretty good tactical sub-caller, but I have a hard time keeping track of who’s been in a lot and who hasn’t, and balancing egos and PT. Eventually we worked things out last year to the point where there were few complaints, but this was after a lot of drama, a long meeting with the team leaders, a designated clip-board holder, and the emergence of a clear starting seven that simplified things. I have a lot of respect for people who can do effective sub-calling while playing, or teams that can work out subbing without anyone making the calls. It’s certainly beyond me.

So, I guess those are my weak points. Training is something I’m getting better at, although I’m no George Cooke. I gave some advice in this area, but I was not in charge. This was to a degree just a matter of delegation because I lacked the time to tackle it. I rarely made a strong effort to plan practices ahead of time, but I’d have an idea of what I wanted to get out of a practice and I’d have enough drills in my back pocket to get it done. And the other stuff – strategy, adjustments, explanations, fundamentals – are my strong suits.

Once again, I’m not sure I really have a point. Maybe one good question that can come of this is, what is the ideal leadership structure for a team? It varies from team to team, of course, but are there any general rules? Can a team ever be effective if there are three or four voices in the huddle? Can a team deal with having one person in charge in training, one in charge during practice, and a third on game-day, and maintain a consistent message?