Thursday, September 25, 2008

Among coaches, it's not "win, but being afraid to lose"


(originally written 12/1/01)


why is this the case ?

In (American) football, we have coaches that are too afraid to "go for the throat" and completely finish their opponents off. That is to say, demoralize the other team's ability to come back, put themselves right back in the game, and give them hope that they might beat you.

My best friend's favorite college football team - the Colorado Buffaloes - led by coach Gary Barnett fits this profile. At times, his play calling would be exceptional, and executed well in the beginning. However after awhile, when the Buffs would get good size leads (see their last pre-bowl regular season games vs. Nebraska & Texas), his play calling would become so conservative and predictable that the other team would come back.

While watching the Colorado-Texas matchup in the Big 12 Championship game, in the comfort of my home on TV, a few of our group were pretty accurate in predicting which basic plays (and their direction) would be run by the Buffaloes offensive unit. It was deplorable and this overall "wimpiness" by Barnett almost cost his team the game.

Unfortunetly, this general lack of "the killer instinct" is prevelant throughout football all over, even down to the high school level. I went to the Nevada high school state championship and saw the predictable debacle by the defending champion coaching staff. The less talented visiting team outcoached them by far. Susequently, they lost their crown and failed to repeat as champions.

There is a widespread practice of forcing players into specific, sometimes unflexable systems; Instead of adapting individual athletes' talents and abilities to mold an overall effective strategy and field tactics. This happens in many sports areas, even in the realm of youth sports.

These attitudes promote rigidity and lack creativity, especially at a time when young people are attempting to find out "what they are good at". A period in a young person's life, where they are trying to figure out "what are my talents and abilities" and how they can help myself, those around me, and society in general.

I believe that this general malaise, lack of ultimate competitiveness, and a non-winning, wimpy spirit reveals a major flaw in the culture itself. The by-product of this malaise results in a "no-drive" attitude which can only harm a nation.

On the other hand, many "psychological experts" are of the opinion that a lack of competitiveness is a good thing. Wrong! To win you have to take some risks. Ask powerful, successful people in many areas. They will tell you, it is always a battle.

A helpful exercise would be to "take a look" at history and see how many great, powerful nations and empires fell when they "got soft". This happened as a result of losing their competitive edge, their "inner drive". Are we too! now in danger of this?

For instance, notice the "new up-to-date" example of gradual change regarding school class grades. Now almost nobody fails! The "new standard" is it's just good enough to try and you will pass. Satisfactory is acceptable and praised. Excellence is not "the norm". However, mediocre is not enough in most areas of life.

Would this be an acceptable standard with your current boss at work, when you only put in a half-hearted effort on an important project? Of course not. Then, why is it acceptable in the sporting venue?

The uptight, heart-attack candidate, unpopular Steve Spurrier - former coach of the Florida Gators' Football Program is a contrary example of the norm and this is a good thing in my opinion. When his teams get the chance, they want to completely crush you and give your team no chance of coming back on his squad. (No, I don't particularly like the Gators)