NewEngland_Gold
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 616
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Some smart GHer should come up with a reasonably objective grading system (poll based?) to allow GHers to grade out Brew & Staff on a game-by-game basis in obvious coaching controllable areas such as: (1) overall game plan effectiveness; (2) timeliness of in-game adjustments; (3) play-calling productivity; (4) clock/time-out management; (5) personnel utilization etc.
Perhaps it can't be done on a site lke this, but if someone clever could figure out how to do it, it would certainly help us evaluate the coaching leadership and how they are trending in their performance on a somewhat more rationale basis than "he sucks" or "they suck". That doesn't seem to get us very far on the issue of evaluting Brew's impact on the progress of the program.
In Brew's case, I assume someone at the top (AD?) is monitoring his job performance using metrics beyond the simple bottom line of win and loses. But then again, maybe they're not. Most high-paying jobs in the corporate world use multiple measures of performance effectiveness and I wonder why big-time D1 coaching should be any different.
Perhaps it can't be done on a site lke this, but if someone clever could figure out how to do it, it would certainly help us evaluate the coaching leadership and how they are trending in their performance on a somewhat more rationale basis than "he sucks" or "they suck". That doesn't seem to get us very far on the issue of evaluting Brew's impact on the progress of the program.
In Brew's case, I assume someone at the top (AD?) is monitoring his job performance using metrics beyond the simple bottom line of win and loses. But then again, maybe they're not. Most high-paying jobs in the corporate world use multiple measures of performance effectiveness and I wonder why big-time D1 coaching should be any different.
