Posted by nachopuzzle on 1/18/2016 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 1/18/2016 9:06:00 AM (view original):
i started co-coaching a couple years back, as a way to sort of get back into the game, when i wasn't sure i could handle a team of my own. it was great, it let me get involved when i wanted to, but if i was busy or burnt out, the other coach was there. between the two of us, it was always easy to cover everything. i actually really enjoy it, its pretty fun, to go through it all with someone else. one of the 3, we sort of split the duties, the other 2, we do things together. the latter is definitely better, IMO.
here are the teams i co-coach:
florida state with storm69 in knight
michigan state with dacj501 in rupp
maryland with jjwarden in, i don't know, some 1/day world. its the only world he plays in though.
i always have announced the situation when joining with a coach or when we move to a new conference, so at least the conference folks would realize it. i will sometimes post on those accounts with (CBG) before my post so people know when its me. seems to work out pretty well. i do agree with taniajane, i don't think there are a lot of co-coaches, i only know of a few outside of the ones i am involved in. i wouldn't worry about it too much. i suspect most folks are open about the co-coaching agreements, there's really no reason not to be.
I feel like this is a HUGE fight that we've had plenty of times before...just repackaged under a slightly different premise than previously. Just to get out the old personal **** off the top, it's really telling that billy frames this scenario "as if it's no big deal" almost exactly the same way he did the last time. Now, as for why many people could see this as a big deal is because they are not elite coaches and the prospect of having to compete against not only one elite coach but two in the same team in the same world is very daunting (if not downright unfair to them), and which could go equally as well for accomplished coaches in the same world.
The argument that it happens so infrequently (which is not a positive or factual statement to say the least) is not a argument that it is still fair or within the guidelines of WIS.
...don't plan on fighting this good fight myself, just didn't want this to float through unchecked.
i guess i don't see the two being related at all. two teams per world, there is a clear collusion risk. two coaches per team has no such collusion risk, its still one team, one set of resources.
as always, our disagreement centers around the fact that this is a for-fun game, not a for-profit game like poker (with meaningful stakes). its fun to co-coach a team with someone. thats the driver. why put a stop to that? you have to have a good reason, or else you are just being a grouch. i decided to try co-coaching because others told me stories about it, and it sounded like a lot of fun. it didn't sound unfair or a way to get ahead, it sounded fun.
without getting into specifics, its probably worth a cursory mention that i am involved with 4 BCS programs. three of those i co-coach, and are the three least successful. yet, i definitely would not say the enjoyment of those programs has tracked the success, as it usually does. the least successful program of that bunch may have been the most fun, i think its close really, but its a contender. long story short, you are suggesting there's a problem because co-coaching may correlate to higher success; its demonstrably not the case in my limited experience, and doesn't seem to be in the stories i am familiar with, but what i HAVE seen, is a correlation with enjoyment. no reason to start a battle against fun...
1/18/2016 5:30 PM (edited)