Scott Robbs brought up this topic on the radio this afternoon and I thought I'd continue it here.

There's always the debate over coaching, not only here in football, basketball, etc, but also at other schools and in the pros as well. Who is more responsible for the wins/losses/records?

Where does "god given" talent come from? Are players really born with it? They have to be taught it somewhere. What makes a "good" coach? Reputation? Or is he lucky with "good", talented players that others have taught previous to him/her? And he/she uses this to his/her advantage to climb the coaching ladder?

When a team is not up to par, is it because the talent isn't "good" enough or is the coach not making "good" use of the talent he has?

What if a reputed "good" coach starts losing? Is it his fault? Does he not have the talent? If a "good" coach is given a "bad" team, can he make them "good"?

Just a few examples....Take Rich Rodriguez. He was all everything at West Virginia with his offense and all star players including Pat White, Noel Devine, etc. He said he'd never leave but he did. Left with a 60-26 stat. Alabama came calling, but he ended up at Michigan. And his record there in 2 years? 8-15. Now you can't tell me Michigan doesn't get the talented recruits. Are they not talented enough? Or is it his coaching? He's running his same system at both places. Has his coaching got worse? Were the West Virginia players more talented?

What about Notre Dame Irish god Lou Holtz. He retired from ND with a 100-30-1 record in 11 years. Got the coaching itch and took the S. Carolina Gamecock position and ended up 33-37 over 6 years. If he was as "good" as a coach as he was supposed to be, why didn't he have a winning record at SC? Or did he use the Notre Dame name to get the talent to get him that 100 wins?

And how about Lakers coach Phil Jackson? Was it his coaching that made the Bulls who they are? Same with the Lakers? There's tons of talent there. Sure the talent was there before he got there. Was it his coaching or his triangle offense that made it all work? What if he was made to coach this year's New Jersey Nets (0-11)? Not allowed to change the roster, add new players, etc. Would he be able to coach them into a "good" team?

And how much does the school/organization come into play? The "Big name school" aura? Great/stupid management? Crazy alumni/fan base that have too much influence???

And does time also factor in? We all want wins and instant gratification. But things take time to get set in place. The system, the infrastructure. Too much turnover results in starting this process over and over and nothing is stable. This isn't a video game where things start to go bad and you hit the reset button and start all over without any consequences.

What do you guys think?

I think in additon to players talent and coaching talent you need to have a system set up to motivate players to give that extra bit that is required to be that extra bit better.

It's all about recruiting. Just look at the recruiting budgets at the big time schools. The schools are hiring coaches on the basis of their recruiting ability. An old Chevy with a professional driver will lose to a GT Mustang with me driving at the drag races every time. Of course you have exceptions to any rule, but a rule is a rule because most all the time it is true.

Perhaps, instead of an either/or poll, we should focus on the "mixture of both." What ratio of coaching to talent makes for success?

I would say 70% Talent:30% Coaching as concerns winning games. I agree that recruiting is top priority.

As for building a program, you probably have to include a ratio for "administrative support."

I suppose you also have to take into consideration the type of defense and offense your team intends to employ.

The RnS requires a ton of coaching for the WRs and QBs in particular.

here my 2cents...

the Notre dame coach weis is an avg coach at best, hes drowning in talent but cant seem to put it all together... He wins games, sure, but he always seems to blow games that matter... thats where coaching comes into play, being able to put it all together and get your team to play game in and game out. making all the right calls so your team has the best chance to hold on to the lead, play catch up, or even steal it at the end... that call by the coaches, or no call i should say when the game ended with a time out sitting in their pockets, now thats an example of poor coaching, and not giving your team the absolute best chance to win...

sure a coach with zero talent wont win very many games, but will win a game vs a team with equal or even perhaps slightly better talent but subpar coaching... example, pete carrol if he were to coach nmsu, i very highly doubt he would be able to turn that program around, his success is directly a product of the superior players he had, because you cant tell me that stanford has BETTER recruits than USC... or boise st with when they first joined the wac, they had very very avg players that would not start for any other mid level bcs program... yet year in and year out when they faced a team of equal talent or even slightly better talent they still came out with a win... their coach called the right plays, designed the right schemes to give them the best chance to win...

besides you can only coach up an individual player so much. You cant teach a player to be the next Lebron James unless they have the natural ability to do so... even then these prodigys are so far advanced theyre probably with instincts alone beyond what a coach can teach them. so thats when coaching is just that, he calls the right plays, sets up his team or player to give them the best chance of winning...

Talent over coaching, no doubt.

And that grows as the player advances through the various stages of Pee Wee through the pros.

Bo Jackson played for the Raiders starting at the middle of the season - walked straight off a baseball field onto the football field. How much do you think coaching played into his success, and could any player have done that?

Brett Farve skips camp, steps on the field, and leads a team that he barely knows the coach and he barely knows the players to first place in their division as of this post.

And how many times have we seen Peyton Manning wave off the punt or FG teams on 4th down? Much to the chagrin of coach Dungy of course, because it's his neck on the line if the 4th down try isn't successful.

There's a lot of great coaches. Some however, have had the benefit of great talented player to pad their coaching careers.

It's only football. You learn the techniques and general idea playing in the streets or sandlot as a kid.

Quick, name 5 guys who played for boise state who made it in NFL over last 7 years. . . . .

Exactly. Great great coaching, with decent talent.
No adrian petersons, no Tomlinsons, no heismans, no mannings, just chris peterson.

Ryan Clady, Cris Carr, Darryn Colledge, Legedu Naanee, and Orlando Scnadrick!

Do I win?

I'm pretty sure that's all of them though. lol

nice job!!
but you get my point.

Perhaps we should leave Peterson at Boise and grab all of his assistants and see what happens.

you cant use pros as an example really... theyre so far into their careers unless rookies, that they cant really benefit much from a coach... the only thing a coach needs to do at the pro level is make ingame adjustments and relay to the players whats going on... call a play here and there and let the guys play... players learn how to play during highschool and college... but a 10+ year vet in the NFL, give me a break... if hes starting then he knows more about football than any coach can teach him...a coach in the nfl isnt there to coach as much as he is there to command his team, set plays, and teach the players hwo to execute HIS style of offense or defense, not on how to throw the ball, catch the ball, or run, if they dont know how to do that then theyre not going to have a very lucrative career and shouldnt even be in the pros... while highschool and college coaches still have the opportunity to TEACH the players on how they can be better, and to a certain degree rookies in the pros...

to prove my point, if anyone on this board who believes talent trumps all and you dont need a good coach to be successful had a chance to run Notre Dame, could you lead that team to a top10 ranking if you were the head coach?? lol if not then coaching really matters, because notre dame has the talent to be a top 10 team, but weis sucks as a coach and gets exposed everytime he faces a team that has equal talent but superior coaching...

how many of them are starters for their NFL team???

I don't think it's even the right question. There are a lot of elements you need to get a program playing at a high level and winning games consistently.

You need talent, both plus players and a consistent level and depth of talent across every position
You need a good system - there are many that work, and perhaps there are some that are poorly designed. What is important changes over time.
You need a stable and competent administration.
You need good playcalling and game management.
You need to mold your team's culture to one that promotes the positives you want to enforce and minimizes the negatives. There may be more than one culture that works - there are many that don't.
You need to be sure that your team's physical condition is superior.
You need to be sure that your team is able to execute your system.
You need to be sure that your team remains academically qualified.
You need to be sure that your team in fact executes the gameplan and adjustments during games.
You should figure out what the "plus" aspects of your team are and get them to "go beyond" in what they do best.

The more of these things you don't do well, the less well your team will do.

Wow! They sure are household names. Outside the WAC, those names are unknown.