Search the Community

It seems to me that many people believe that it's extremely easy to lead a highly ranked HS wrestler to an ncaa title. So easy, that they don't feel a coach really deserves credit for the kids success. For example, I've talked to a few that believed that Cael's coaching abilities should not be judged on what he does with guys like Ruth and Taylor, rather he should be judged on what he does with guys like Conaway, Vollrath, and English. I disagree with this. Imo, the job that Cael did with Ruth and Taylor is superior to the job he did with English. Ruth's 3 ncaa titles, and Taylor's 2 ncaa titles trump English's one low AA finish. I read a post from another thread earlier that made me think of starting this thread, here's the relevant portion: "If I can send kids like Steve Bosak to your school, who never won a state title, and you as a coach have a program to foster the kid's ability to 3 time AA and National Champ then you are a great coach". I believe that coaching Kyle Dake to 4 ncaa titles is Koll's best work. That's superior to taking Bosak to 3 AA's and an ncaa title to me. I guess my major point is that I think coaches should get more credit for taking their "studs" to the promised land than they currently get. I don't believe that it's a given that guys like Dake, Ruth, and Taylor would have been as successful anywhere they went. The belief that these kids would have won just as much anywhere else is not uncommon. Last season, I argued that Cael's job with Ruth and Taylor was superior to what Flynn did with Port and Schopp. (the context was ncaa coach of the year) I was called crazy for it, but I never got a clear answer as to why. I don't know why I should automatically believe that taking a good HS wrestler to 5th place is better than taking a great HS wrestler to the ncaa title. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. Should we give coaches more credit for taking the elite HS wrestlers to ncaa success?