A coach's responsibilty to an athlete

#1
Tenn_Vol_Authority

Tenn_Vol_Authority

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,207
Likes
0
#1
Is a coach obligated to get a player ready for a career after college (professional sports) or is he only concerned about getting players in the best position to win (even if they are seniors), even if it means that player doesn't fully develope into a player that will be as desirable in the draft?

Mainly speaking about Lofton (expected to play some at point) and Jason Allen (moving from safety to corner his senior season). Do coaches have an obligation to raise their stock for the next level?
 
#2
#2
Those examples were merely a coach's way of persuading a guy to stay for his senior year.
 
#3
#3
put the athelete in the best possible position to succeed...
 
#5
#5
ut 4 me said:
at the next level or college level
Click to expand...
at any level.....if we're talking amateur sports, which i think we are.......

the coach is supposed to put the person in the best possible position to succeed at what they do on the feild, in the class room, socially and eventually, professionally, whether or not it's in sports or not.

that's a rather utopian view, i'll concede that, but, i would think that if the only function of any coach at this level was to get the player ready for the NFL, then you'd have a bunch of failures at their job since such a small % of those kids actually go on to the NFL.......

and by succeed on the feild, that does include winning........
 
#6
#6
well on the outside (when a coach talks to the media), he will say that he is trying to put the athelete in the best postition possible to succeed. However, on the inside, he knows that its his duty to win as a team and will use the player in a helpful (team player) way...even if it does mean his stock would drop
 
#7
#7
As far as developing players to play at the next level. Good luck recruiting players if they don't think your program will be a springboard for the next level.

I don't think the coach is responsible to make sure they are in bed on time, do their homwork, etc. Its getting a little overboard. Your talking about 18 yr old adults.

I think there needs to be more accountability on the players side. All I coach can do is establish team rules, and enforce them when they are broken. But coaches have little control over what an 18 yr old adult is going to do.

When the players get in trouble its more a reflection on the player then the coach. But it seems like the coach gets all the heat, I guess it is the mistake the coach made in recruiting the player.
 
#8
#8
oklavol said:
As far as developing players to play at the next level. Good luck recruiting players if they don't think your program will be a springboard for the next level.

I don't think the coach is responsible to make sure they are in bed on time, do their homwork, etc. Its getting a little overboard. Your talking about 18 yr old adults.

I think there needs to be more accountability on the players side. All I coach can do is establish team rules, and enforce them when they are broken. But coaches have little control over what an 18 yr old adult is going to do.

When the players get in trouble its more a reflection on the player then the coach. But it seems like the coach gets all the heat, I guess it is the mistake the coach made in recruiting the player.
Click to expand...
First, i agree with the above 100%.

but on the latter, i don't think it really has anything to do with that as much as i do it does with the ever growing media attention every little thing now gets. 15, hell, 10 years ago the media attention, internet, message boards and seemingly 24 hour media cycle has made it impossible for things to stay unknown....i think if you really asked the people that know, and if coaches were being really honest, they'd probably tell you that the overall behavior seen today by the atheletes in college really hasn't changed, rather its the technology, speed of information flow, and demand for the information that has changed.
 
#9
#9
Sudeepvol said:
well on the outside (when a coach talks to the media), he will say that he is trying to put the athelete in the best postition possible to succeed. However, on the inside, he knows that its his duty to win as a team and will use the player in a helpful (team player) way...even if it does mean his stock would drop
Click to expand...

OK...

Look at it this way. 99% of the students that go to college go there to prepare for a life after college. They go there to pick up the skills that will be needed for them to either optimaize the given talents they have or to work on their weaknesses so that they will be more marketable in the workplace.

Well, if you are an elite student athlete (i.e. Lofton, Allen), then why should your abilities to work on weaknesses or to work on skills that would make you more valuable be sacrificed? I mean afterall, we keep throwing around this idealistic notion that they are student athletes that are there to learn anyway. What argument would anyone have of allowing these students to play a different position if it means it could better them after college?
 
#10
#10
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
OK...

Look at it this way. 99% of the students that go to college go there to prepare for a life after college. They go there to pick up the skills that will be needed for them to either optimaize the given talents they have or to work on their weaknesses so that they will be more marketable in the workplace.

Well, if you are an elite student athlete (i.e. Lofton, Allen), then why should your abilities to work on weaknesses or to work on skills that would make you more valuable be sacrificed? I mean afterall, we keep throwing around this idealistic notion that they are student athletes that are there to learn anyway. What argument would anyone have of allowing these students to play a different position if it means it could better them after college?
Click to expand...

:zeitung_lesen:
 
#11
#11
It's not just responsibility to "an athlete" (singular) though. A coach has a whole team full of guys playing for him. He has to try to do what is best for all of them at the same time -- even though that's impossible. There are constantly going to be times when what's better for one guy is going to hurt another guy; a coach has got to walk through that minefield and figure out what's best for all of them in aggregate -- in other words, what's best for the team.

It might be better for the career of Chris Lofton if he played a lot of point guard next year. It might not be better for Ramar Smith if Lofton played a lot of point, and it might not be better for the team in the sense of them actually winning games. But it might be better for "the team" in the broader, longer-term sense if Bruce Pearl gets a reputation for helping guys work on aspects of their game that help them get jobs in the NBA. The job of a coach is to juggle all these variables and figure out what does the most overall good.

(Coaches have to be utilitarians, in other words.)
 
#12
#12
A coach's job is to win. If he wants to keep his job, he should play the guys where he feels they will have the best chance at winning.

TVA, you love you some student-athlete discussion.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top