Dealing with success

[PimScutney]

Here's a different perspective. The one position this staff doesn't seem to be able to coach from is success. Not much for expectations last year, but the staff had the team up for the games and they felt they were never out of it.

This year, when they are pre-season top 10, they lose in the 4th quarter and give up. Same type of deal back in 2005.

I think the coaching staff hasn't figured out how to coach from success. They've geared the program so long to build it up, they now seem lost when the success is realized. Iowa is not OSU or Michigan, but we are in the upper third of the conference. The OSUs and Michigans of the world are used to everyone's best shot. Iowa is now starting to become a game that other teams use to define their seasons. Northwestern, Arizona, Michigan St, Wiscy and Minny are all teams that circle Iowa on the schedule along with OSU. They set their benchmark games against respected teams like Iowa and feel they have more of a shot to win against Iowa than OSU...and in the past, Michigan.

It means they keep giving Iowa their best effort. We haven't figured out yet how to coach that situation. Its almost surprising to our team to see the other teams so jacked up and almost robs us of our own intensity. OSU is used to other teams getting jacked up and know they need to match that intensity. Its a completely different frame of reference than the underdog role which we excel at.

 

[PimScutney]

I know its considered in bad taste to follow-up your own post, but I wanted to expand the point a little.

Using Wisconsin as a comparison, Bielema seems to be having some success with that program. He was brought along and installed after Alvarez had built that team up. BB never knew that team during its building years. His only frame of reference for coaching that team was from success and so he coaches that way. He expects success. His staff isn't geared toward the underdog or program building role.

You've probably heard of what happens to the third generation with money. The people that made big money remember the hard work it took. Their children still probably have memories of a tough life before the money came. By the third generation, they have never known times without money so they don't have the frame of reference of what hard work is for. The trust fund child mentality.

Maybe that's kind of what's happening with this program. Ferentz can't get out of underdog mentality. All he knows is building a program up. Hayden Fry's staff changed so much, he had guys coming in after the program was successful and they coached for that success. Ferentz's staff has had little change. Its almost like Ferentz holds the players expectations low and uses a lot of energy making sure they don't get full of themselves and after a while, they start to believe it. Maybe some new blood would be good just for the sake of a new coaching philosophy.

 

[PimScutney]

One more analogy and then I'll let this thread move on the second page so no one has to look at it again.

The program is like a maturing child. At first, during the development phase, it makes sense to be conservative. Don't give the players much rope to hang themselves because the talent level isn't very high. All focus is on fundamentals and just try to be competitive.

The program starts to get successful and you can tell its maturing because the quality of player improves. The capabilities are higher and the players know that and want to get the reigns loosened a bit. In our case, though, the focus is still on fundamentals and conservative play because the coaches are still coaching from the team building mentality.

If you have a child that is getting older and wants to do some things on their own and you never loosen your grip on them, they'll resent you and eventually you'll lose them. You'll say, why should I let you go out with the car when you can't even handle the fundamentals like cleaning your room? Eventually, the kid starts to believe it.

This program and the talent is maturing and the ultra-conservative style of the program doesn't let the kids go have fun and take some chances so they can build confidence and succeed and the program can't mature. It says something like: why should we try to execute a trick play when you can't even handle the execution on a simple stretch play? They start to repeat that same stuff about execution to the media and themselves and pretty soon they believe it and you lose them. They blame each other for poor execution and the team falls apart. The talent was there, but they were never trusted to make some mistakes. If you watched the OU/OSU game last night and saw what Stoops allowed his offense to do on that last touchdown, you'll know what it means to let the players take some responsibility so they can grow and mature.

I don't want the coaches to be fired. But I do think they need to loosen the reigns a little.

 

[BALDIES7980]

One more analogy and then I'll let this thread move on the second page so no one has to look at it again.

The program is like a maturing child. At first, during the development phase, it makes sense to be conservative. Don't give the players much rope to hang themselves because the talent level isn't very high. All focus is on fundamentals and just try to be competitive.

The program starts to get successful and you can tell its maturing because the quality of player improves. The capabilities are higher and the players know that and want to get the reigns loosened a bit. In our case, though, the focus is still on fundamentals and conservative play because the coaches are still coaching from the team building mentality.

If you have a child that is getting older and wants to do some things on their own and you never loosen your grip on them, they'll resent you and eventually you'll lose them. You'll say, why should I let you go out with the car when you can't even handle the fundamentals like cleaning your room? Eventually, the kid starts to believe it.

This program and the talent is maturing and the ultra-conservative style of the program doesn't let the kids go have fun and take some chances so they can build confidence and succeed and the program can't mature. It says something like: why should we try to execute a trick play when you can't even handle the execution on a simple stretch play? They start to repeat that same stuff about execution to the media and themselves and pretty soon they believe it and you lose them. They blame each other for poor execution and the team falls apart. The talent was there, but they were never trusted to make some mistakes. If you watched the OU/OSU game last night and saw what Stoops allowed his offense to do on that last touchdown, you'll know what it means to let the players take some responsibility so they can grow and mature.

I don't want the coaches to be fired. But I do think they need to loosen the reigns a little.

TOUCHDOWN!!
Change and adapt its really pretty simple but getting someone to change is difficult. People need to want to change if they are going to so how are we going to get KF to buy in and move himself and the program to the next level?
I'm not sure if it is all his directions or if others are behind the stale conservatism but he's th boss and he needs to want to change and evaluate what he has to do to change things.