So let's start digging. What is the difference between Cal and LC? How is one place pretty darn successful (success here defined as win loss and titles) and one place astoundingly average? Is it coaches? Or competition level?
After discussing with several people I know, including family and friends at both places (yes, my Mom also who is one of the wisest people I know), and thinking about it on my own, I think the biggest single reason is the drive of the community. Everything else comes from this.
LC is good because the community demands it. And they put their money where their mouths are. They support, they coach, they give to the kids and give them opportunities. Kids start playing sports at a young age and they are expected to work hard and practice. This doesn't come from a coach or program, this comes from the parents in the community. I am not talking about abusively bad like the Williams' sisters in tennis. I am just saying that every boy or girl is given a ball and is expected to at least try some kind of sport. If they show proficiency, they are encouraged to delve into it at a young age. The kids see the older kids succeed and that's what they want also--the standard is set.
This is why it's bullshit when these other schools start popping about LC recruiting kids. They don't recruit kids, they just work harder and practice harder and longer than you do. The kids starting at an early age and working hard is one of the parts here.
Another thing that I see is a little tricky to explain without sounding like a bit like an ass is that LC kids know how to win. What do I mean 'know how to win'? Well, first they have the mentality that they will win and that this is the expectation. This is because they see the success of older kids around them and the coaches build and reinforce it along with the community. But they also begin to realize what it takes to win, including all the off-season work and grit required during a game. There are always games where things don't go your way. The kids seem to know how to handle these situations and can "rise up" when the challenge calls for it.
At Cal, I run into the attitude that is "we don't care about the score or if we win, we just want every kid to play equally". Please don't get me wrong. Especially at younger ages, I agree with this concept and that you have to give all the kids a chance to go and learn. The problem I have is that the "pendulum" seems to swing really far to this side of things. I think you also have to strike a balance of trying to go out and win these games also. If the kids get their asses whipped all the time, yes you may be giving out equal opportunities, but you are also teaching your kids that losing is ok and what we do to an extent. They never learn how to win.
Another aspect of this is coaching, but it still derives from the overall attitude of the community. I strongly believe that most of the coaches at LC are quite good at what they do. Some of this is because if they are not, they won't be coaching there very long. This again is from the community directive. There isn't an overt threat involved with it. And if a coach has a bad season and maybe even two, that doesn't mean they are immediately fired. But over two seasons without a winning record will start to get some attention, especially if play or the players aren't improving. some logical exceptions will apply but in general, coaches whose teams get their asses kicked don't stay around long.
And some of their success comes from a connection to the community and the kids when they are younger. Does it make a difference that LC's current varsity football coach gets to know all the boys coming through when they are in junior high and makes a positive impression as someone the kids want to play for? Without any doubt.
Maybe you can begin to understand why I get so sick and tired of hearing excuses all the time here in Caledonia about how "we play in the OK red conference, how can we possibly be expected to win" and shit like this. It is a losing attitude. I want to ask these people if we have done everything we reasonably can do to have the best programs we can have to compete against these other larger schools. The honest answer is no. yes, there is a certain advantage to having more kids at your school--that's why they have different divisions.
If you are doing all that you can do to create a winning environment and pump out a solid program and attitude and you are still losing, then I can accept this as a reason, but until then, save it. I can tell you that if the LC varsity football or basketball coaches came to Caledonia for one year, the team would look substantially different than it does now. Some of these fixes do take time, I understand, and I am not even saying we would go undefeated or anything like that. but I can tell you it would be different. That said, there is no way that some of the coaches at Cal would continue to be allowed to coach if they were at LC--they would have been shown the door a long time ago.
I think it is also true that the more you are on top, in many ways it is easier to stay there. Yes you get every team's best effort, but winning begets winning. When you begin to get used to success, you just don't settle for anything less. This isn't to say that there aren't some down years here and there. For most programs there are. But there is a mountain of difference between having a program and putting a team out on the floor or the field.
I am not trying to say that I have all the answers, but my overall impression is that the community here is happy when the sports teams win, but isn't too concerned about when they lose. It just doesn't have the same fire as Lynden does. For example, you can see it when you try to get volunteers for things that are sports related. It isn't easy to get people to help out and take part. When you have a football scoreboard that cuts off and back on during games or a PA system that is a complete embarrassment, these things show a priority that isn't for sports. There are other examples I can give and too much evidence to point to my observation being correct.
I am also not saying that this choice is the wrong choice for the community, it is just the choice I see that is collectively made. If the community doesn't want to focus on sports success like I want to, that is a legit and reasonable option. This whole thing is about trying to understand where sports success comes from. But there are repercussions for choices, just like in everything else. Is it any wonder that a school like Rockford kicks Cal's ass in almost every varsity sport we play? Is it surprising when star athletes who start at Cal then decide to go to other schools because a lack of program quality and sometimes lead them to success and receive college sports commitments?
When you analyze it, it is somewhat disheartening. But I have many friends, associates, fellow coaches and the like that feel the way I do, so that is a positive. If nothing else, it is a fascinating topic and one that I will likely expound on later too.
Comments