Toast. - Jamie Squire
Bumped from fanposts. - BN Eds.
In the post, he argues that keeping Howland is good for the young players.
I strongly, disagree.
I originally posted this in that thread but realize it does not fit. I'm hoping that one of the moderators will pull it from there. I don't think it fits there because that thread is really funny.
I think the core issue of keeping a "teacher" who is not serving his students well is not funny. And, I think the notion that more of a bad thing is better than change is wrong.
For the sake of your young players, we should make an immediate coaching change:
This coach is a failed teacher. I wrote a long post about it last year and won't repeat the thesis. But, here are some highlights:
1. Unlike most classroom teachers, this coach CHOSE his students; if you cannot reach, excite and educate a self selected group of students, you do not belong in the classroom. If you are given the luxury of selecting your students, you have the responsibility to choose students who can learn what you have to teach OR you have to adjust the curriculum to meet their needs.
2. These are great kids - not a personality or discipline problem amongst them. So, let's not blame them. Blame the curriculum and failure to teach it.
3. This team's failures are on the D end and on the boards. They have not been taught simple fundamentals like boxing out and rebounding. If they do not have the talent to play man D, create a scheme they can play.
4. Teachers are not to have pets. It is simply wrong. All students should be treated consistently in terms of discipline and playing time. If making a mistake gets one player pulled, immediately, it ought to get all players pulled, immediately. Tony Parker has not been treated fairly. And, his treatment reflects that given many players over the past years. Pets play - that's wrong.
5. When you have a mass exodus of good kids - something is wrong in the classroom. Were an English professor to have this happen - with students he or she selected - the dean of the department would be all over it. It would not be allowed to continue, year after year.
6. This coach has no people or game management skills. Tony Parker came in a huge fan of the program. He was exuberant and excited. It has been painful to watch the destruction of his joy and enthusiasm. Teachers are supposed to motivate, not destroy their students excitement.
7. You cannot learn from a control freak who micromanages every moment and destroys both confidence and momentum. Make a freakish good dunk and then have a time out called and get pulled from the game? To what end? How is that good teaching?
I once had a Pony League coach who was like BH. He took the joy out of baseball. One day, he didn't show up. We played without him. With joy and success. I learned then that sometimes no coach was better than a bad one.
So, don't tell me that for the sake of these kids it is better to keep this coach until the season is over unless you can counter the arguments with facts from our recent history.
And, we won't leave them without a coach. We will have an interim coach - one who I hope can create an atmosphere of excitement, commitment and learning and bring the fun back to the game.
My bet: If we fire this coach now, we will keep Parker and maybe one of the players who will be on the margins of the draft but who might pull a Honeycutt/Lee and choose to leave to get away from our mess.
If we do not fire him, soon, my bet is that he will run off some more players AND that we will suffer badly during recruiting.
Ok, I've made my case. Where is yours for keeping him?