As I wrote about my experience interviewing at Xaver, the problem any young coach has is that they don't fund the program. Other than the $23,000 salary and no benefits there was one scholarship (at a school that is $40,000/year) for the men and maybe two for the women. They didn't want the team taking a bus, but wanted the team to take vans saving money. There is no indoor and outdoor track available on campus. No matter what experience level the coach is (a new coach trying to get experience) or an older coach using it as a part-time job it will be very difficult to improve the team based on the organization they present. Lets say a young coach goes there, works their butt off, and gets the program one place higher in the conference. Will that impress anyone in a higher level program when they have an opening? That is the real problem. Frankly, I think the way they did it with Dan Flaute was the way to go as long as they believe doing it the way they are. Hire a local person who already has a job and allow that person to do the best they can. Certainly this is difficult for the athletes in the program, but realistically its is the only way to do it.
dfj wrote:
about the only way you can make that work is to improve the talent that is already there.
recruiting new talent would be difficult if they know you will/want to move.
Schools don't get it... when you under fund the staff (salaries), the other issues like full scholarships, great travel budget, prestige, etc are not as effective. A program still generally struggles because the head and assistants, even if they are great coaches are not getting respect and will look to other jobs.
dfj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And *one of* the tough parts about improving the "talent" that is already there will likely be the mess you're probably walking into. Just imagine what the team culture is probably like at a place that doesn't run track. Having drawn kids that were probably coming anyway without much scholarship to not "have" to run track. The Xavier situation could be slightly better but it also sounds like there was a lot of backlash to the canning of the last guy and these kids have to know - very well - what the administration thinks of them. I highly doubt they're oblivious to the fact that their administration expects them not to succeed...if they've coped with it by not caring anymore, it wouldn't be that uncommon.
It could be "possible"...but as someone else suggested, it would probably take a "retired" coach who just loved being in the game part-time to stick around 8 - 10 years to change the culture, attitude, and continually bring developmental kids in to make small, incremental steps every year. You'd probably spend a lot of the first few years just trying to develop the culture so the rare "DI Caliber" kid you could get to show up (money talks now more than ever) on the small scholarship you could afford would actually want to stay.
Don't get me wrong, I get why athletic departments aren't pouring money into their xc/track programs. However, you'd think they'd save themselves a lot of grief (staff turn-over, likely SA turn-over/discontent, institutional embarrassment - though that clearly doesn't matter) in the long run if some of these places didn't so begrudgingly keep them on just enough life support to count as a "sponsored" sport.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4367974&page=100#ixzz247SklRBr