[WideRight05]

A few friends and I had this discussion the other day. Do you think that the best coaches should be measured by # of wins, or # of championships? Someone was trying to make an argument to put Bob Schneider ahead of Mueller, Beatty, and even Mike Glaser of St. X. It sounds to me that the best way to measure a coach on the field is by the number of championships produced. Obviously, Mueller, Beatty, and Glaser are well superior to Schneider, Haywood, and Hilton.

[HDE]

I think it should be more about consistency and continued success through many years. It's not all about wins or championships. It's a lot harder to win at some places than others. Very few coaches couldn't win at Trinity or Highlands.

[ozzy72666]

Think one way coaches should be measured by how many kids they help continue there education by playing at the next level.

[tomcatfan722000]

Championships matter however it easier to win championships at private schools or schools with open enrollment. Than it is at school like Belfry,Ashland,Raceland etc...

[LWC]

Wins, championships, playoff depth, regional titles, and consistency.

Someone could have an unreal 4 years of players and win a few titles, but never win again. I would take a coach that had 30 years of consistent playoff depth over a coach that was barely above 500 with a couple of titles.

[toussaints]

championships and wins are statistical ways to measure a coach's success, but does it make a coach great?

mike yeagle won a lot at Beechwood, but there are a lot of people around NKY that wouldn't allow Yeagle near their kids because of his "rough" history. then there are a lot of coaches out there that haven't experienced the success of yeagle, but many would consider a greater coach than him

[West 80]

Could these so called good coaches win at places like Jackson Co, Berea, Knott Co?

Good players make good coaches and good coaches have good players.

[Spud6]

They are measued on a scale I like to call 0 - Phillip Haywood. A man who has found a home, won consistently, taught kids about life and so much more!

[sstack]

I think it should be more about consistency and continued success through many years. It's not all about wins or championships. It's a lot harder to win at some places than others. Very few coaches couldn't win at Trinity or Highlands.

I disagree, I think there are a ton of coaches in KY that could not win at Highlands or Trinity. Highlands coaches turn a bunch of 180 pound nothings, into crazy,football nuts,with great football IQ. The question was also asked if Highlands/Trinity coaching staff could go to perenial losers and win. I think without a doubt they go into those schools and completely turn the program around, not saying they win championships,but it would be a completely different team. The one thing that has been made real clear watching Highlands the last 15 years is how big a gap there is in coaching around the state. I could go on all night with examples of poor coaching where kids were not prepared in simple aspects of the game.There have been so many games over the years that Highlands should never have won based on level/amount of talent the other teams have had. Game prep and Half time adjustments by Highlands coaching staff is a thing of beauty to watch.

[Fly Like a Duck]

I like determine this by looking at the program, and seeing what they did before the coach got there and what they have done after he left/resigned as well.

[sstack]

Could these so called good coaches win at places like Jackson Co, Berea, Knott Co?

Good players make good coaches and good coaches have good players.

What about schools that every year win 8-9 games, do well and win 1-2 games in the playoffs but never any further? I know these coaches could bring a title home to some of these schools. There is no doubt in my mind that Highlands coaching staff could have brought home a state title (maybe a couple) with JC and Bryan Station (just two teams off the top of my head). Bryan Station is one of those teams I said Highlands had no business beating a couple of years ago in the playoffs. They had way more talent, size,and speed; but very,very poorly coached. It was one of the few times I have felt bad for the losing team (I really felt those kids deserved to have a better coaching staff).

[toussaints]

The question was also asked if Highlands/Trinity coaching staff could go to perenial losers and win. I think without a doubt they go into those schools and completely turn the program around, not saying they win championships,but it would be a completely different team.

I think most winning coaches could go into a perennial losing program and turn it around, which is why i don't like that question. however, could these coaches go into a winning program and take it to the next level? could mueller go into covcath and get past highlands in the playoffs? could beatty and glaser go to louisville central and beat trinity and X?

now don't get me wrong, mueller, beatty and glaser are great coaches. im just saying it's easier to change the mentality at a losing school than it is to keep winning at a different school that expects winning

[HDE]

I disagree, I think there are a ton of coaches in KY that could not win at Highlands or Trinity. Highlands coaches turn a bunch of 180 pound nothings, into crazy,football nuts,with great football IQ. The question was also asked if Highlands/Trinity coaching staff could go to perenial losers and win. I think without a doubt they go into those schools and completely turn the program around, not saying they win championships,but it would be a completely different team. The one thing that has been made real clear watching Highlands the last 15 years is how big a gap there is in coaching around the state. I could go on all night with examples of poor coaching where kids were not prepared in simple aspects of the game.There have been so many games over the years that Highlands should never have won based on level/amount of talent the other teams have had. Game prep and Half time adjustments by Highlands coaching staff is a thing of beauty to watch.

How many bad coaches have you had there the last 35 years?

[Belfry0304]

While I agree Glaser, Beatty, and Mueller are the best of the best, you have to have love for guys like Haywood who have taken a little town called Belfry, Kentucky and brought them to the forefront. The fact that there can even be made an argument with guys from Belfry/Bell County to Louisville and Covington, stands for something for those guys.

[footballfever]

Show me their record in games decided by 8 points or less and you can see who the good coaches are. :welcome:

[charlie22]

I think it should be more about consistency and continued success through many years. It's not all about wins or championships. It's a lot harder to win at some places than others. Very few coaches couldn't win at Trinity or Highlands.

I think because of the commitment of the players, the youth football league and community support, it may be easier to win at Highlands and Trinity. But could any coach win at Highlands and Trinity at the level and frequency that Beatty and Mueller have? A resounding no. Heck, prior coaches at Trinity and Highlands haven't won at the level and frequency that those two have, and both schools have had some outstanding prior coaches.

Both coaches rate very highly in the number of wins and the number of state championship wins "categories". Don't know Beatty, so I'm not in a position to comment on how he prepares his players for life, but knowing Mueller very well, he'd rate very highly in the "preparing his players for life" category. Very solid Christian and family man. Doesn't swear or curse at his players. Frankly, rarely raises his voice. A very "positive" type coach.

[Poseidon]

A few friends and I had this discussion the other day. Do you think that the best coaches should be measured by # of wins, or # of championships? Someone was trying to make an argument to put Bob Schneider ahead of Mueller, Beatty, and even Mike Glaser of St. X. It sounds to me that the best way to measure a coach on the field is by the number of championships produced. Obviously, Mueller, Beatty, and Glaser are well superior to Schneider, Haywood, and Hilton.

For the general fan, which is the majority, wins are the only thing that matters. For people who look past wins\losses and know the difference that the coach is making in players lives, which is the minority, wins\losses are less important. But everyone wants a team that is competitive whether they win or not.

[BIGman88]

Both coaches rate very highly in the number of wins and the number of state championship wins "categories". Don't know Beatty, so I'm not in a position to comment on how he prepares his players for life, but knowing Mueller very well, he'd rate very highly in the "preparing his players for life" category. Very solid Christian and family man. Doesn't swear or curse at his players. Frankly, rarely raises his voice. A very "positive" type coach.

I know Dale Mueller as well. He will be the first to tell you, he can't believe the success he has had. Very humble. Now with that being said the "program" gets the school a bunch of kids to play for him. He is a great coach and eats and sleeps football. But if he did not have the kind of kids he has they would not be as good.

I know of 4 kids that lived way out in the county that have talent. 3 moved to Ft. Thomas and 1 pays the tuition. This is why they win. They go get the best players. Not recruit them, but the kids want to play for Highlands. So they do whats necessary

[Stardust]

The more money you have, the better coach you are

[Ike Cooter]

This topic is to open ended. My personal opinion wins doesn't make a coach. You can schedule weak teams every year and be the winningest coach in the state but be 1 and done in the playoffs. However I also feel you can't put all the emphasis on championships either. As other posters have said, its easier to win at the larger schools. You have to consider the quality of players available. Paintsville is a small school and most of the kids play 3 sports or more, so they won't win as many titles as say Highlands. I like to consider a coaches character and morals when determining whether they are "Great Coaches". Theres more to life than wins and losses and a huge part of the title coach should be about how you mold young kids into being outstanding, productive adults. Point being I would not consider a coach to be great if he had a winning percentage of 95% with 8 state titles in 10 years if he was selling drugs to his players. Everyone has their opinions and this topic could be discussed for years...

[ballboy]

Wins Wins Wins and Championships. Chuck Smith at Boyle,Co turned them around and took some pride off Sam Harp and Danville. Highlands Muhller. Trinity, St.X, thats championship football oh I left out Madison,Cent coach Bert Browne former Perry Coach hes makes good decisions in crunch time.

[Observing]

I think most winning coaches could go into a perennial losing program and turn it around, which is why i don't like that question. however, could these coaches go into a winning program and take it to the next level? could mueller go into covcath and get past highlands in the playoffs? could beatty and glaser go to louisville central and beat trinity and X?

now don't get me wrong, mueller, beatty and glaser are great coaches. im just saying it's easier to change the mentality at a losing school than it is to keep winning at a different school that expects winning

I'd say that second paragraph is exactly BACKWARD. It's much easier to
continue a strong winning tradition, than to build one that hasn't been
there before.

[cctiger]

Chuck Smith is the greatest coach ever to coach high school football in the state of Kentucky. Took Boyle who was nothing and made them a power that could and would beat any one in the state including Trinity St.X and Male back then.

[toussaints]

I'd say that second paragraph is exactly BACKWARD. It's much easier to
continue a strong winning tradition, than to build one that hasn't been
there before.

that's not what I was trying to say

I'm talking about just changing the mentality at a losing program. not necessarily winning alot of games, but getting kids to believe in the program and stay competitive in games much longer when your team usually loses by 40-50 points.

[outsidein]

Ok think of it this way... would Ky basketball fans be happy with winning games and not championships or loosing games and winning championships? I don't care what a coach does for kids but if they continue to loose games than they won't last long in coaching. It's sad because I've know some great player coaches and has done alot for kids but they just didn't win and they no longer coach. (High school and college)