• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Poll: What percentage of a teams total product on the court...

Poll: What percentage of a teams total product on the court...

  • <10%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 25%

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • 50%

    Votes: 9 45.0%

  • 75%

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • >90%

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Total voters
    20
M

Monmouth_Bradley_Fan

New member
.... is the direct result (good or bad) of the current coach (who ever it may be on any team)? I know this is not an easy question to ask, and of course there are 8 million variables. However, me and some people always argue the importance of the coaching staff, especially in college basketball. Some of us think it is extremely important, while others really don't. Of course, as fans, we blame some games on players, some games on coaches, some on referees, and some on the opposing teams gorgeous cheerleaders. Regardless, I am curious in asking as to what percentage of the total product on the court you all believe is a direct output based off of that teams current coach, on average.

This question is especially interesting to me while we are on the brink of a new season, with essentially an entire new coaching staff.

I personally think the coach is much more important than most people I have this debate with... I'd say its almost 50/50 especially with younger kids.... fire away thoughts...:!::!:
 
Monmouth_Bradley_Fan said:
Not so fast - , I am talking about the current coach with whoever the players may be... for example, ford did not recruit all of his players right now...
Click to expand...

He is still responsible since he could choose to jettison those players and start from scratch. However, that product on the court does not have to be entirely about wins and losses. Especially when that coach is executing a 3-5 year rebuilding plan. The product on the floor should represent the values of the university and community.
 
Braves4Life said:
He is still responsible since he could choose to jettison those players and start from scratch. However, that product on the court does not have to be entirely about wins and losses. Especially when that coach is executing a 3-5 year rebuilding plan. The product on the floor should represent the values of the university and community.
Click to expand...


What coach? I am just speaking about any coach at any time...an average, not an exception...

A coach is a coach of a certain team. How much of the quality of the product on the court is because of the coaching? The question is asking no more, and no less.
 
Monmouth_Bradley_Fan said:
What coach? I am just speaking about any coach at any time...an average, not an exception...

A coach is a coach of a certain team. How much of the quality of the product on the court is because of the coaching? The question is asking no more, and no less.
Click to expand...

Please, don't take my simple statement out of context!!! :!: :mad:
 
25% is a lot more then I would give to other coaches of other sports. College basketball teams reflect their coach more than any other sport save NFL football. Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Bill Belichick's players all seem as if they were brainwashed by their coaches and fit into the coach's scheme almost perfectly. Coach K, Roy Williams and Jim Calhoun seem to win the lion's share of championships and I don't think that's all recruiting. The Duke team two years ago that won it all was a great example of how a coach can shape a team to fit a certain system even when the talent isn't the best in the nation.

But like Belichick says, you won't win unless you (the athlete) do your job.

Coaches can teach you and show you, but you actually have to do it.
 
If the current coach isn't necessarily a good 'game coach' and can't beat or struggles to beat teams with equal to slightly better ability, then the product on the court is the direct result of the current coach and his assistants.

If the product on the court is deep and loaded with good players, with the same coaching (not good 'game coaches') mentioned above, and wins games against teams with equal to better ability, then the product on the court is not a result of the coaches but that of the players.

I say the proposition is 50/50. Or 50%.
 
Looking at the process:
*Coaches recruit players who can succeed at the level of the basketball competition
*Coaches devise offense and defense schemes to take advantage of players' skills
*Coaches teach individual and team skills, develop player conditioning, and teach offensive/defensive schemes
*Coaches scout the opposition and determine best way to compete
*Coaches adjust offensive/defensve schemes to opposition
*Coaches select starters, reserves and rotations
*Players play, up to the level of their skills, and with intelligence to implement schemes and make adjustments
*Coaches lead/motivate, manage games, and make offensive/defensive adjustments

One could say coaches are a huge influence of the product on the court vs players....with recruiting players #1

Players playing up to the level of their physical skills is very important, but after recruiting, getting players to play up to the level of their physical skills is influenced greatly by the coach: scheme, teaching, conditioning, motivation, and adjustments/game management...

JMHO
 
I voted >90%...... Here's why:

JTSPVVJGDVHXOGC.20070901154252.jpg


http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/01/11/279253/1996-remember-pete-gaudet.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top