• Welcome to Fearless Friday Bulletin Boards. Please login or sign up.

 FF is powered by:        Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Question On Hiring A Coach

Started by OB11, December 18, 2015, 01:58:56 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

OB11

I posted this on the Monday Morning Quarterback thread as well but thought I'd post here as well since I spend most my time on the 3A board. 

Say your an administrator or member of a search committee at a school that is looking to hire its next coach.  Doesn't matter what sport. 

You post the opening, get applications, and begin the interview process.

You get a number of qualified applicants and there are a few that stand out.  Here's my question...

The list gets narrowed down to 2 great applicants that you think would do a great job, BUT...there is another applicant that isn't quite to the level of your top 2, but close, that has a kid (maybe more than one) in 9th or 10th grade that is turning out to be a stud athlete.  Again, doesn't matter what sport.  Could be a the next great quarterback, running back, point guard, pitcher, etc. 

Do you go ahead and hire one of your top 2 candidates that you know would do a great job, or do you hire the guy that would do a decent job that could potentially bring a great athlete and potential championships with him?  (Boils down to long term vs. short term success)

I'm not referencing any specific incident or anything.  I just had this thought a while back and was wondering what other people would do in this situation.     

ReddieKnightTrojan

To be honest, I think smaller school would hire a coach based on how many elementary aged kids he had. For example, if the school would pay the coach $40,000 and he had 4 children who didn't previously attend that school. 4x$10,000 is $40,000. Based on that math, they are getting the coach for free because his kid's tax money allowance offset his salary. Just food for thought.

Lineman

I say you hire the best person for the job.

OB11

Quote from: ReddieKnightTrojan on December 18, 2015, 02:05:35 pm
To be honest, I think smaller school would hire a coach based on how many elementary aged kids he had. For example, if the school would pay the coach $40,000 and he had 4 children who didn't previously attend that school. 4x$10,000 is $40,000. Based on that math, they are getting the coach for free because his kid's tax money allowance offset his salary. Just food for thought.

That honestly didn't cross my mind.  I was thinking about it solely from a sports standpoint I guess.   

sevenof400

Quote from: ReddieKnightTrojan on December 18, 2015, 02:05:35 pm
To be honest, I think smaller school would hire a coach based on how many elementary aged kids he had. For example, if the school would pay the coach $40,000 and he had 4 children who didn't previously attend that school. 4x$10,000 is $40,000. Based on that math, they are getting the coach for free because his kid's tax money allowance offset his salary. Just food for thought.

While I see the point you are making here, I'd question your assertion that public schools get $10K per student from the state.   

Lineman


OLDSCHOOL82

Hire the best person.  A school is essentially a business and the students are the product.  Now, if two candidates are very close and one has 4 elementary age kids and the other has none....... go with the 4.  Or, if they are essentially equal and both have 4, but 1 has a son that is 6'1" and runs a 4.5..... go with the 1!!!

ReddieKnightTrojan

Quote from: OLDSCHOOL82 on December 18, 2015, 02:58:36 pm
Hire the best person.  A school is essentially a business and the students are the product.  Now, if two candidates are very close and one has 4 elementary age kids and the other has none....... go with the 4.  Or, if they are essentially equal and both have 4, but 1 has a son that is 6'1" and runs a 4.5..... go with the 1!!!

Good logic!!!

ReddieKnightTrojan


ReddieKnightTrojan


sevenof400


ReddieKnightTrojan

I guess so...grammar Nazi...

My bad...I meant uninformed...

sevenof400

Admittedly this is older data, but according to ADE, they claimed a district was funded $6,267 per student in 2012-2013. 

Is the extra money coming from federal sources? 

ReddieKnightTrojan

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 18, 2015, 03:30:14 pm
Admittedly this is older data, but according to ADE, they claimed a district was funded $6,267 per student in 2012-2013. 

Is the extra money coming from federal sources?

You are correct. My young squire.

Lineman


wake up

December 18, 2015, 04:04:01 pm #15 Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 04:07:48 pm by wake up
I know a school that was replacing a very successful coach and had plenty of good applicant's and they narrowed it down to two. One had only Jr. High experience and the other had been successful on the Sr. High level and had 4 elementary children. They hired the one with little experience and he was let go after 3 yrs.The Coach with the HS experience with the 4 children went on to win a State Championship at a much bigger school and is still a very successful coach. What a big mistake this school made!

RTF


Lineman


Coach of Football

December 18, 2015, 07:24:59 pm #18 Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 07:38:39 pm by Coach of Football
Actually, ReddieKnightTrojan, you're misinformed. Students aren't "worth" $10,000. Arkansas funds students at the rate of about $6,600 per student per year.

You're also misinformed about the remainder of the revenue coming from the federal government. There is no per student funding that comes from the federal level.

Therefore Lineman wins this argument.

sevenof400

To this point:

Quote from: Coach of Football on December 18, 2015, 07:24:59 pm
..You're also misinformed about the remainder of the revenue coming from the federal government. There is no per student funding that comes from the federal level. 

Aren't the Title I programs funded on a per student basis with the SES of the district factoring into this too?

Coach of Football

Title I funding, like almost all of the other federal funds, depends in some way on the socioeconomic status of a district's students. Not every school receives funds from every Title program.

The state of Arkansas currently funds schools $6,521 per student. That goes up a little each year. This is what's called "foundation funding." It's what every school receives and is a combination of local revenue (millage rates) and state funds with the state making up the difference between local revenue and $6,521. 

There are even a small handful of districts that generate so much locally that they pay the state. Mineral Springs is one, and I think possibly Fountain Lake and Eureka Springs are on that list as well.

adaptedtigerfan

Coach of Football...   You can't come on here making comments like this...   That is wayyyy too educated and actually makes sense.       Thanks for the info tho. 😂

Black and Gold

Especially when you're a n00b poster

Lineman

Quote from: Coach of Football on December 18, 2015, 07:24:59 pm
Actually, ReddieKnightTrojan, you're misinformed. Students aren't "worth" $10,000. Arkansas funds students at the rate of about $6,600 per student per year.

You're also misinformed about the remainder of the revenue coming from the federal government. There is no per student funding that comes from the federal level.

Therefore Lineman wins this argument.
Whaaaaaaaaaat??

Fox32

I would hire the guy that would bring the kids for anything besides football. I hire the best I can get if it's my football position.

gameoflife

You see lots of people and schools who take the, hire a young guy.  I see the attraction, just don't agree.  Why young.  If you were having heart surgery, do you want the guy who hasn't done this type of surgery or maybe only a time or two or do you want the old guy who has done it 100 times.  My heart, I want the most experience I can get.  Money or not, it's not a bargain if you die, or lose.

Head Lion

Im the 1 MAN search committee at Manila and go and get the best!

UncleRico

Quote from: gameoflife on December 19, 2015, 11:55:46 pm
You see lots of people and schools who take the, hire a young guy.  I see the attraction, just don't agree.  Why young.  If you were having heart surgery, do you want the guy who hasn't done this type of surgery or maybe only a time or two or do you want the old guy who has done it 100 times.  My heart, I want the most experience I can get.  Money or not, it's not a bargain if you die, or lose.
I think schools that go with "hiring the young guy" are/ could be struggling with getting numbers out. One thing younger coaches are good at are getting kids to come out and play, because they can relate to them better. This may or may not translate to success (which no hire can predict)... Just my thinking anyway

Oldbadger

December 23, 2015, 09:53:50 pm #28 Last Edit: December 24, 2015, 04:03:47 pm by Oldbadger
A school that has a good football program with a strong tradition or has had a strong tradition will hire the coach who has the best chance of keeping the program there or getting it back to where it was.  I can think of a few schools that would fit this category. They will not consider the age or whether the coach has kids or not.  On the other hand, a school that has always been so-so in football and has no winning tradition will usually hire the young inexperienced coach, if no other reason, to save money.  He will be very low on the salary scale, plus they have low expectations.  If the coach they do hire has several kids who will go to school there and, even better, a couple of stud athletes, that is great news.  I know of that happening too!  These kids do help offset the cost of hiring the new coach as a result of the Minimum Foundation Funding. This is just icing on the cake.

UncleRico


Oldbadger

Quote from: UncleRico on December 23, 2015, 11:10:43 pm
What would be considered young?
Well, one of the most successful coaches of all time in Arkansas and Texas was John Outlaw.  He was hired at Arkadelphia at about the age of 24?.  He had been a graduate assistant at UCA for a couple of years.  My definition of young would be 22 to 26 years old.

gameoflife

I think the schools I see talking young are not talking that young.  I'd say more in the 30 ish range.  Less than say 10-12 years experience for sure. 

Okieback

Quote from: OliverBoy11 on December 18, 2015, 02:37:11 pm
Quote from: ReddieKnightTrojan on December 18, 2015, 02:05:35 pm
To be honest, I think smaller school would hire a coach based on how many elementary aged kids he had. For example, if the school would pay the coach $40,000 and he had 4 children who didn't previously attend that school. 4x$10,000 is $40,000. Based on that math, they are getting the coach for free because his kid's tax money allowance offset his salary. Just food for thought.

That honestly didn't cross my mind.  I was thinking about it solely from a sports standpoint I guess.

Dude if that is how a small school decided then they don't want to win
And u don't want the job anyway

If the guy with the kid is decent, must have something g besides a stud kid to get an interview ,hire him
But some other things
Does he get total control of all football and or all sports as ad and is basically second in command after Supe?
Or just because he decent he doesn't but one of the other 2 will

Okieback

Quote from: wake up on December 18, 2015, 04:04:01 pm
I know a school that was replacing a very successful coach and had plenty of good applicant's and they narrowed it down to two. One had only Jr. High experience and the other had been successful on the Sr. High level and had 4 elementary children. They hired the one with little experience and he was let go after 3 yrs.The Coach with the HS experience with the 4 children went on to win a State Championship at a much bigger school and is still a very successful coach. What a big mistake this school made!

Probably didn't have to pay himas much

gameoflife

apparently didn't win much either

Jimbo Morphis

In life you get what you pay for.

gameoflife

Schools want to win but they sometimes want to do it on a shoestring budget, then blame the coach when it doesn't happen.  Facilities, money, equipment are necessary to consistent winning.

AmSycho

Quote from: gameoflife on December 30, 2015, 09:19:22 pm
Schools want to win but they sometimes want to do it on a shoestring budget, then blame the coach when it doesn't happen.  Facilities, money, equipment are necessary to consistent winning.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

gameoflife

Quote from: AmSycho on January 17, 2016, 10:47:55 am
Quote from: gameoflife on December 30, 2015, 09:19:22 pm
Schools want to win but they sometimes want to do it on a shoestring budget, then blame the coach when it doesn't happen.  Facilities, money, equipment are necessary to consistent winning.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
For schools in NWA  to win they need to stay on par with the other schools in the area in terms of pay, staffing numbers, facilities, what extra duties the head coach has as far as teaching.  Budget, and community are important also.   The question is "Is Rogers really going to get all this going at both of their high schools"?

Fox 16 Arkansas Fox 24 Arkansas