Gus Malzahn's Postgame Presser - San Jose State

[alexava 6,973]

Coaching at AU has got to be one of the greatest/worst jobs in college football just behind Alabama.

Gus didn't prove a damn thing while he was here in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2013 and 2014. He was just lucky I guess? Lmao

I wouldn't use 2011 and 2014 as an example at all if you're trying to give positive points towards Malzahn's offensive ability....2014 definitely shouldn't be indicative of how Malzahn runs a team

I was wondering why '11 and '14 were thrown in there. Diversity? Show the good with the bad? Nice job torpedoing your own argument, emt.

And Gus is much more a CEO than teacher. His job is to ensure optimum performance from this team at all times. Right now our stock is in free fall.

In "14 we led the sec in rushing and ranked high in several offensive stats. Offense was very good in '14.

[chimesAU 89]

Coaching at AU has got to be one of the greatest/worst jobs in college football just behind Alabama.

Gus didn't prove a damn thing while he was here in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2013 and 2014. He was just lucky I guess? Lmao

I wouldn't use 2011 and 2014 as an example at all if you're trying to give positive points towards Malzahn's offensive ability....2014 definitely shouldn't be indicative of how Malzahn runs a team

I was wondering why '11 and '14 were thrown in there. Diversity? Show the good with the bad? Nice job torpedoing your own argument, emt.

And Gus is much more a CEO than teacher. His job is to ensure optimum performance from this team at all times. Right now our stock is in free fall.

In "14 we led the sec in rushing and ranked high in several offensive stats. Offense was very good in '14.

Gus is responsible for more than just putting up gaudy offensive numbers.

[alexava 6,973]

Coaching at AU has got to be one of the greatest/worst jobs in college football just behind Alabama.

Gus didn't prove a damn thing while he was here in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2013 and 2014. He was just lucky I guess? Lmao

I wouldn't use 2011 and 2014 as an example at all if you're trying to give positive points towards Malzahn's offensive ability....2014 definitely shouldn't be indicative of how Malzahn runs a team

I was wondering why '11 and '14 were thrown in there. Diversity? Show the good with the bad? Nice job torpedoing your own argument, emt.

And Gus is much more a CEO than teacher. His job is to ensure optimum performance from this team at all times. Right now our stock is in free fall.

In "14 we led the sec in rushing and ranked high in several offensive stats. Offense was very good in '14.

Gus is responsible for more than just putting up gaudy offensive numbers.

that is true, but a different argument than i was responding to.

[AUbritt 611]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

[chimesAU 89]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

I understand what you're saying but still disagree with you. Gus is more CEO than "classroom teacher". I do agree with many of your points though... The nervous fingernail chewing is beyond obnoxious and , quite frankly, concerning. The fact that players are allowed to give less than maximum effort and still receive playing time is very concerning.

[AUbritt 611]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

I understand what you're saying but still disagree with you. Gus is more CEO than "classroom teacher". I do agree with many of your points though... The nervous fingernail chewing is beyond obnoxious and , quite frankly, concerning. The fact that players are allowed to give less than maximum effort and still receive playing time is very concerning.

I'm totally fine if we disagree; but I don't think I communicated my thoughts very well. By teacher, I don't mean a 'classroom teacher'. I also mean to include the kind of thing I do raising my kids. I'm not just trying to control their behavior; I'm trying to teach them things. None of that involves classroom instruction.

Jesus compared himself to the good shepherd. I don't think he meant it literally, suggesting that the members of his 'flock' were actual sheep. I also don't mean that Gus should get into the classroom, or that he should meddle with whatever instruction is happening by the position coaches.

What some might call sending a message to the players, I'm calling teaching. As a coach yourself, I'd have thought you'd identify with what I'm suggesting. So, I'm a little surprised you don't see yourself as a teacher, in the sense in which I mean it.

But it's cool.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,680]

Coaching at AU has got to be one of the greatest/worst jobs in college football just behind Alabama.

Gus didn't prove a damn thing while he was here in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2013 and 2014. He was just lucky I guess? Lmao

I wouldn't use 2011 and 2014 as an example at all if you're trying to give positive points towards Malzahn's offensive ability....2014 definitely shouldn't be indicative of how Malzahn runs a team

I was wondering why '11 and '14 were thrown in there. Diversity? Show the good with the bad? Nice job torpedoing your own argument, emt.

And Gus is much more a CEO than teacher. His job is to ensure optimum performance from this team at all times. Right now our stock is in free fall.

In "14 we led the sec in rushing and ranked high in several offensive stats. Offense was very good in '14.

That is true, but as I suggested several times, many of those stats should come with asterisks. Red zone offense was not always good (the obvious is UA game), Malzahn would sometimes go ice cold with playcalling (OM, UA, MSU) and the offensive line sometimes wouldn't give the running game real holes to run through (this could be more to do with Malzahn's playcalling - the pseudo read option and the run up the middle every first down) or would give up alot of blocking penalties (mainly Coleman). Basically, the offense wasn't as consistent as 2013, but was not the deciding factor in most losses/bad performances.

But it is Malzahn's fault if this team collapses after one loss and loses 7 straight SEC games, or wherever the current counter is at. 2014 was of that variety, and over an entire offseason, the trends from last year have gotten worse.

[chimesAU 89]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

I understand what you're saying but still disagree with you. Gus is more CEO than "classroom teacher". I do agree with many of your points though... The nervous fingernail chewing is beyond obnoxious and , quite frankly, concerning. The fact that players are allowed to give less than maximum effort and still receive playing time is very concerning.

I'm totally fine if we disagree; but I don't think I communicated my thoughts very well. By teacher, I don't mean a 'classroom teacher'. I also mean to include the kind of thing I do raising my kids. I'm not just trying to control their behavior; I'm trying to teach them things. None of that involves classroom instruction.

Jesus compared himself to the good shepherd. I don't think he meant it literally, suggesting that the members of his 'flock' were actual sheep. I also don't mean that Gus should get into the classroom, or that he should meddle with whatever instruction is happening by the position coaches.

What some might call sending a message to the players, I'm calling teaching. As a coach yourself, I'd have thought you'd identify with what I'm suggesting. So, I'm a little surprised you don't see yourself as a teacher, in the sense in which I mean it.

But it's cool.

I absolutely do see myself as a teacher but I'm not running Auburn's football program. Lots more moving parts. I definitely agree that messages need to be sent(by Gus) that aren't. Its disappointing.

[AUbritt 611]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

I understand what you're saying but still disagree with you. Gus is more CEO than "classroom teacher". I do agree with many of your points though... The nervous fingernail chewing is beyond obnoxious and , quite frankly, concerning. The fact that players are allowed to give less than maximum effort and still receive playing time is very concerning.

I'm totally fine if we disagree; but I don't think I communicated my thoughts very well. By teacher, I don't mean a 'classroom teacher'. I also mean to include the kind of thing I do raising my kids. I'm not just trying to control their behavior; I'm trying to teach them things. None of that involves classroom instruction.

Jesus compared himself to the good shepherd. I don't think he meant it literally, suggesting that the members of his 'flock' were actual sheep. I also don't mean that Gus should get into the classroom, or that he should meddle with whatever instruction is happening by the position coaches.

What some might call sending a message to the players, I'm calling teaching. As a coach yourself, I'd have thought you'd identify with what I'm suggesting. So, I'm a little surprised you don't see yourself as a teacher, in the sense in which I mean it.

But it's cool.

I absolutely do see myself as a teacher but I'm not running Auburn's football program. Lots more moving parts. I definitely agree that messages need to be sent(by Gus) that aren't. Its disappointing.

I guess I'm not fully convinced that Gus should stop being a teacher because he's running the program.

One thing I've encountered recently is the phenomenon of engineers being promoted to managers. They once did their jobs according to sound engineering principles. Then, they become managers and are asked to adopt managerial values. Sometimes, the engineers they manage will tell them that they shouldn't proceed as they are, because there are problems with some aspect of the job (specifics aren't important). As an engineer, the new manager agrees. But then he's told by his boss to take off his engineer hat and put on his manager hat. The new manager then tells the engineers to proceed, despite their legitimate engineering concerns. That's when disasters happen. A better option would be for the new manager to figure out a way to manage up, teaching sound engineering principles (not the details, obviously) to his bosses. In any case, he shouldn't stop being an engineer just because he's been promoted to manager.

Maybe someone, or some group, or Gus himself has told Gus he needs to take off his 'OC' hat (which is a teacher's hat in my sense) and put on his 'CEO' hat. I'm sure that advice is well-intentioned. I just think Gus also needs to remain a teacher (in the broad sense). Because, whether anyone likes it or not, the things he does in fact do teach players and his assistant coaches things (like whether full effort is required to earn playing time).

[homersapien 11,393]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

I understand what you're saying but still disagree with you. Gus is more CEO than "classroom teacher". I do agree with many of your points though... The nervous fingernail chewing is beyond obnoxious and , quite frankly, concerning. The fact that players are allowed to give less than maximum effort and still receive playing time is very concerning.

I'm totally fine if we disagree; but I don't think I communicated my thoughts very well. By teacher, I don't mean a 'classroom teacher'. I also mean to include the kind of thing I do raising my kids. I'm not just trying to control their behavior; I'm trying to teach them things. None of that involves classroom instruction.

Jesus compared himself to the good shepherd. I don't think he meant it literally, suggesting that the members of his 'flock' were actual sheep. I also don't mean that Gus should get into the classroom, or that he should meddle with whatever instruction is happening by the position coaches.

What some might call sending a message to the players, I'm calling teaching. As a coach yourself, I'd have thought you'd identify with what I'm suggesting. So, I'm a little surprised you don't see yourself as a teacher, in the sense in which I mean it.

But it's cool.

I absolutely do see myself as a teacher but I'm not running Auburn's football program. Lots more moving parts. I definitely agree that messages need to be sent(by Gus) that aren't. Its disappointing.

I guess I'm not fully convinced that Gus should stop being a teacher because he's running the program.

One thing I've encountered recently is the phenomenon of engineers being promoted to managers. They once did their jobs according to sound engineering principles. Then, they become managers and are asked to adopt managerial values. Sometimes, the engineers they manage will tell them that they shouldn't proceed as they are, because there are problems with some aspect of the job (specifics aren't important). As an engineer, the new manager agrees. But then he's told by his boss to take off his engineer hat and put on his manager hat. The new manager then tells the engineers to proceed, despite their legitimate engineering concerns. That's when disasters happen. A better option would be for the new manager to figure out a way to manage up, teaching sound engineering principles (not the details, obviously) to his bosses. In any case, he shouldn't stop being an engineer just because he's been promoted to manager.

Maybe someone, or some group, or Gus himself has told Gus he needs to take off his 'OC' hat (which is a teacher's hat in my sense) and put on his 'CEO' hat. I'm sure that advice is well-intentioned. I just think Gus also needs to remain a teacher (in the broad sense). Because, whether anyone likes it or not, the things he does in fact do teach players and his assistant coaches things (like whether full effort is required to earn playing time).

If that's the problem, we need to hire either an OC or a head coach.

[cole256 17,084]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

Boy you're argumentative. You don't want to change your mind so clearly you already had your mind made up. This opinion isn't from a good place in your heart. No good will come from this...so forth and so on

[AUbritt 611]

I have a couple of responses to folks who think I'm way off with my teacher vs. CEO analogy.

I am not suggesting that Gus should do the job of all the assistant coaches. I see that a lot of folks think only the position coaches are involved in teaching, and that they need to be the only ones doing the teaching. Were Gus to get involved at that level ('teaching', as most people seem to see it), then he'd likely be accused of meddling. I agree. That's not what I'm talking about.

I have, evidently, a much broader definition of teaching than most of you.

Leading by example is teaching to me. So, we have threads, for instance, decrying the fact that Gus didn't go for it on 4th and 1 at the 8 yard line against SJSU. One reason folks are up in arms about that, in my opinion, is because it teaches the players (and perhaps also his assistant coaches) the wrong lesson. It teaches them to play it safe, or that if it's difficult to do something, the best choice is to give up rather than keep trying. That's not what we want the players or assistant coaches to learn. In a similar vein (in fact, maybe in the same thread), WDE mentioned that Gus is chewing his fingernails like a baby, or words to that effect. Why is that bad? Because it teaches the players, assistant coaches, maybe even the fans that he is nervous about the team, rather than confident.

Again, take the discussion of allowing players who give less than full effort to continue to play. Someone said that not hustling is contagious. I say that's because the players learn there are no consequences to loafing. What Gus needs to do is teach them that they won't play unless they put forth full effort. Boom is teaching that message to the D. I applaud it. Gus needs to teach that lesson to the whole team, as well as to his assistant coaches.

One other aspect to the idea that Gus is a teacher is that the best teachers are also students. By that I mean that the best teachers are always learning. What Gus is doing now isn't working. Can he learn from his mistakes? If he's a teacher in the way I mean it, then the answer is yes.

Incidentally, I think CEOs should also be teachers in the sense in which I mean it. The problem with the CEO analogy, to me, is that it tends to reduce everything that's going on between Gus and the rest of the team (and between Gus and the fans, for that matter) to managing transactions and to lend itself to the idea that our expectations of him -- or any coach -- are somehow proportional to how much he's getting paid. I don't know about anyone else. But I would have high expectations of any Auburn coach, regardless of what he or she is being paid. I have high expectations of the players, regardless of the fact that they (essentially) don't get paid at all. If Gus got another raise, would you have higher expectations of him? I wouldn't.

It's not important to me that everyone (or anyone) agree with my view. But I did want to attempt to clarify it.

Boy you're argumentative. You don't want to change your mind so clearly you already had your mind made up. This opinion isn't from a good place in your heart. No good will come from this...so forth and so on

Yeah, I'm just a pot-stirrer, trying to provoke the board with my thinly disguised agenda (teachers of the world, unite!).

[cole256 17,084]

The irony....