oldschool2

"And? Colleges miss all the time on so called "5 star or top 100 recruits" . So does the NFL on 1st round picks." Get it wrong all the time.... miss all the time.... not much different to me. But you definitely said that ^. Either way.. it's statistically high enough that I'm taking their side. So, in the case of "7 top 100 recruits" vs. "zero top 100 recruits"... I'm betting that the one with 7 is more talented. Especially since I actually watched the game.

Let's make a comparison.. how many top recruits do they get right? How many first round picks do they get right? Personally.. I'm gonna go with the billions of dollars industries that devote millions of dollars+ on getting the best players possible in order to win games. As opposed to some guy on some high school sports forum that says, "they get it wrong all the time...".

I agree with you that coaching is the deciding factor when talent is relatively similar. Coaching will even overcome a slightly higher degree of talent.. but there's a limit to that. Surely even you don't think the greatest 2A coach in all of existence with the best 2A team to have ever played can beat Northshore as they are right now.

player + coaching + level of competition Which part of the formula do you not understand? By the way... the last part is the reason the WOS predecessor didn't win a state title every year. Graduation contributed to that as well (player). Where does "level of competition" come in to play? Well... if you'll remember. WOS couldn't even get out of the region when Carthage was in their classification (level of competition). Thank goodness UIL came in and split the divisions. That's when a great coach (C. Thompson) became next level great in your eyes. Not to be a buzzkill... but it happened for Newton, Too. Before the D1/D2 classification split they couldn't get past Cameron Yoe.

That's right.. name some exceptions. By the way.. the kids at SOC so highly recruited are on the defensive side.

Jeez. Read slowly... SOC..........HAS..........7..........TOP..........100..........RECRUITS. Do you understand what it's saying when it says TOP 100 recruits? You aren't heavily recruited by "out dawging" somebody. It's speed, strength, skill, size, or all of them.

SOC has 7 top 100 recruits. How many does PNG have? So.. you may not see the talent, but colleges do.

Headscratcher here...

The scenario I gave represents a percentage. What is it with people not understanding odds and liklihoods?.. That doesn't make it certain. Did you even read the article? Well here's another article... and the reason SOC won more so than anything else: [Hidden Content]

There are always and will always be exceptions to the rule. Especially when a school gets a run of D1 commits through the program. Either way.. it's documented that household income, school tax base, and poverty correlate to success in athletics. To ignore that is just naïve. You should take a field trip to other areas of the state and look at what poor schools are competing with. State of art facilities, immaculate neighborhoods, brand new businesses, etc. Player A (6'4 220) has two working parents, attends summer camps/workouts around the country, has a dietician, has a personal trainer, has a private tutor, has 24hr access to the nicest facilities money can buy, has 3+ of the most nutritious meals imaginable that are specifically designed for health/performance, and has a team full of friends/teammates with the same exact life. Player B (6'4 220) has to work summers/weekends to help around the house, can't afford sports camp, eats whatever happens to be in the house, lifts/trains alone in a 30 year old weight room when he can find a ride, has zero teammates willing to put in extra work with him. Who has the head start, Player A or Player B? If you don't think that and similar scenarios play out across the state... you're either ignorant or stubborn. [Hidden Content]

I’ve asked you this before.. but will ask again for the folks in this conversation. And before I do.. not I or anyone else am taking anything away from the obvious knowledge and capabilities of the coaches you mentioned. If it’s all about coaching, why don’t the same coaches win state championships every year? Literally.. every single year.

I guess I should be specific. When I say wins.. I mean deep win. Successful playoff runs. Etc. Of course it's possible to win a lot of games with bad players and good coaching... if the schedule is weak. Just like good players and good coaches can have mediocre/poor seasons if the schedule isn't conducive for success. And bad coaches can have a heck of a run with good enough players and a weak schedule. Each of those scenarios play out literally every year. Make no mistake, there are more bad coaches winning with good players than there is good coaches winning with bad players. Will someone please freaking address my Bill Belichick example?.. Jeez. His record WITHOUT Tom Brady is less than .500. WITH Tom Brady he has like 9 super bowl appearances in two decades.

You're purposely ignoring the point. Not surprised. 16 numbered roster juniors.. no idea how many started. Ed Orgeron went to LSU and won a national title his first year. Coaching? Or quarterback that went #1 (and many others)? That's my point. Coach O went from national coach of the year to fired in a short period. Because he lost what was initially inherited. You claim success will continue?... It's championship or bust, right?

Still didn't answer either question. Does the new coach get credit for someone else's seniors? Will he replicate this year's success without the 35 senior's he's losing?

I have a very serious question. A question that may require some thought... and it's about PNG. You're obviously very high on their new coach's success (rightfully so). So.. here's my question(s): On Maxpreps it shows that PNG has 35 seniors. Is the new coach solely responsible for those seniors' success? Didn't a different staff "build" them into what they were before he got them? Also. Will they have the same success next year? Do you think they should? He's losing 35 seniors... Tell me where you stand on that.

I'm not exactly familiar to the circumstance to which you're referring. But.. my post that you replied to happens so often that I'm comfortable saying it's definitely the norm. Yes, I know there may be exceptions. There are always are.

players > coaching. Way more often than not. players + coaching + level of competition = wins. Missing any of the 3 is likely detrimental. Let's stay on Lumberton. A couple years ago they won the district championship in basketball. Their coach was unanimous COY for the district. Not so much as a sniff the next year... or since. What happened? Same exact coach. Still Lumberton kids. Oooohh.. that's right. They had a 6'6 D1 signee on the team. Funny how kids make coaches successful. Disclaimer: I know Coach Mitchell personally and think he does a fantastic job. But... it takes players to have success. I'm positive you'll ignore the example I just gave and the endless others.. but it doesn't change anything.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

It's not JUST about wins and losses. I know it's the nature of the business but sometimes it shouldn't be. Sometimes it truly is an unfavorable district/classification, in which the season would be completely different if not the case. Sometimes strong senior classes graduate. Sometimes good athletes decide not to play for whatever reason. Sometimes rival teams get a transfer or more. Or... sometimes you just don't have the horses. The best trainer in the world won't win a horse race with a donkey. None of that is the fault of the coach, yet that's who gets the blame every time. I agree it's on their shoulders but all factors should be considered.

I'm sure it's closer to never. I'd bet that they don't even meet with any of these coaches that they so openly ridicule behind a computer screen.

I've said this very thing before.

Do you know what Bill Belichick's record is without Tom Brady? You should look it up. And remember.. for the better part of a decade, Belichick was considered one of the greatest football minds alive.

Not the right decision in my opinion. Sometimes change is necessary for various reasons.. but wins/losses are influenced by much more than the ability to coach. Many times, coaches only have what they have and nobody could've done any better. But making boys into good citizens, that's quite a feat.