Is Winning and Being Likable Mutually Exclusive?

[Volizona]

Just curious as we are going through all of these college football coaching changes. It seems like the successful coaches

 

[Volizona]

Phone keeps cutting off my message. Basically wondering if it’s only the unlikable jerks, sleazy type coaches who always win (saban, Kirby, Meyer, Spurrier etc) and nice guys finish last - Napier, Pittman types.

 

[Volizona]

And some say Heupel is too nice after a loss. Do we as a society prefer the dirty rotten scoundrels, cut throat, killer instinct type coaches or is there a place for the kinder gentler coaches and can they have success

 

[Volizona]

And actually I don’t think Spurrier was sleazy but he was definitely cut throat. Lol looks like I’ll be the first OP with a thread where it’s only me responding to myself.

 

[stolitonic]

I suppose they are only sleezy when you are rooting against them, correct?

I mean let's be honest, Phil was exactly a choirboy.

 

[EasternVol]

A coach can be any combination of sleazy, upstanding, likeable and unlikeable and everything in between. If we look at those post WWII with multiple national championships, it looks pretty close between those who were sleazier than average or jackasses or both and those who were neither. From what little I know, Saban, Bryant, Hayes, Meyer, Osborne and Switzer were one or both and Royal, Leahy, McKay and Wilkinson were neither.
Of our best coaches, I'd say Neyland, Majors and Heupel were or are neither but of course that's subjective.