Is this your Coach??

Saw this on General discussion:  By BigTex75081

A spotless reputation trumps all these things.  (Ironically though, nobody talks about the good coaches, we only talk about the controversial coaches.)

Coaches licensing is scaled for different ages.  It used to be the "G" license for the youngest possible age but that is now the "F".  The “G” only took about 2 hours to get.  "E" is for the 9-11 year old range.  You needed a minimum of a "D" to coach select.  If you have an "A" you're probably considered a topmost coach.

Do they matter?  The courses themselves don't make life-changing differences to the coaches but I do think it's a good indication of how seriously they take their jobs.  If a coach has a "D" and stopped there 10 years ago in his education, I'd be suspicious.  That tells me he doesn't want new ideas, he did only the minimum that was required of him, and he might be in it just to make money.  (That doesn't apply to a young coach obviously)  I do expect a coach that I'll be trusting with my kids' development to have a better license than I have.  Attaining these licenses is time consuming but I do expect a coach to invest in his own education.

Does this imply to any of your coaches?? I bet some of y'all will go to your teams website and check.  

This is a great post.  There are many coaches in the area that have been coaching in NTX for years now, some even decades.  Have they renewed their licenses?  Updated their credentials?  

Many teaching methods have changed for any number of reasons.  The landscape has changed, the market has changed, the resources have changed.  Even some of the rules have changed!

Some of the courses, especially the National Youth License, is extremely relevant and up to date.  Its theories and practices would make 4 out of 5 "well known" coaches ancient in their techniques and methods.  I'm not sure though, maybe screaming and throwing cones during a U6 practice, or having U7s in two lines of 10 practicing headers is in the handbook somewhere.  Perhaps a whistle and running 35 laps is a good idea, too.  Yes, these are real examples of what parents pay for in "Academy."  Should an "A" license/level coach be coaching six year olds?  Sure is a great recruiting tool for those that don't know any better.

Best question to ask when looking at or for a team:
How many players have been there for more than a year? two years? etc.
The more player movement, the more likely the parents have eventually realized a few things about that coach. He/she is probably a great recruiter because of the wins and the resume. All they care about is who represents his/her team on the pitch and not about the services they're being paid to provide.

Interesting post I do believe.  I did go back and check other sites I may say.. LOL.

Out of the top 3 '04 teams, here is what I found out:

GA (DT South) - 14 yrs coaching experience; NTSSA State License;
LW (Liverpool) - 18 yrs coaching experience; USSF National ‘B’
JK (Left Foot Studio) - 14yrs coaching experience; National D License; 

The post above makes you think are the Coaches bettering their-self or is it for pocket gain.  Im sure the enjoyment of coaching is a factor but money can be a bigger motive for some coaches.

"If a coach has a "D" and stopped there 10 years ago in his education, I'd be suspicious.  That tells me he doesn't want new ideas, he did only the minimum that was required of him, and he might be in it just to make money."

Make you go, hmmm!!

So ...I was the one who got this topic started....

Here's my tangent...As a business, its about the Money. That's what clubs are here for. How many clubs would be around if nobody got paid? Of course some adult would do it, but not to the degree or #/amount of clubs there are today.

As a parent, I am just like all the other parents that want the best for their DD. So that means constantly (and since I'm on this website..I mean CONSTANTLY) evaluating my DD's Desire, their Coaches ability, my DD's enjoyment, etc etc.

As I single out just "the coach's ability" portion, it makes me wonder, what skill level do they have? Obtaining a license...lets me do 1 thing to them without feeling any sort or degree of guilt...and that is.... "holding them to a higher standard than the rest". I expect more from them. It means that they are representing to the public...I have the "know how" and "education" to teach and mold my child.

Yes i guess it can be said ..."some are just doing it for the money" or "they are easily achievable". But I did some research and found out the higher ones (a, b) are a lot harder to achieve. So that would lend me to believe that they are in it because they want to be. But with higher certifications, comes the ability to charge more. But then the "proof is in the Pudding" (Statistics). If they have this impeccable resume and licensing...but sucks it up on the field....they wont be around for long.

True...I do think its a little over kill for U6's (young ones)...but guess who's always on top when they reach U9-U10...the ones with the certs (see above..4daLove post)

I would agree that advancing oneself through licensing can be beneficial to the players. But it's only a very small part of being a "good" coach. I've personally known way too many A and B licensed coaches who cannot relate to their players well at all. I know guys with A-D licenses who cannot readily demonstrate good technical play and instead have to rely on "skills trainers". That's pathetic. During my D licensing, the "coach" running the program admitted he had never played! That's not a typo. The guy had never played the sport. He would rely on his two teenage sons to do the demo's for advanced footwork. Did I mention this guy was teaching the course?

And then there's all of the waivers that are given for college and professional playing experience directly into the C and B programs. Never mind that many of these players really aren't that great at actually coaching.

As for renewing one's license, I believe that only applies for the A level. B and below do not expire if memory serves correctly.

USSF "A" liscense needs to be renewed every four years. Although I found their to be no changes in the course when renewing the liscense.

UEFA wrote:USSF "A" liscense needs to be renewed every five years. Although I found their to be no changes in the course when renewing the liscense.

It's every 4 years actually

Not trying to stir the pot but does a piece of paper say you can coach? I know a few coaches that have a piece of paper that says they have a D license that never played the game. Does this make them equal to a coach who has played for 20 yrs with a D license. Sometimes I think we get to caught up in that piece of paper. I sat through biology 101 in college cause I had to but I am no biologist i got a B in that class and couldn't tell you half the stuff i learned in that class. I will say on the flip side though I know a few really good players that have a C or D license who can't coach to save their lives. Just my opinion!

Just4kicks wrote:Not trying to stir the pot but does a piece of paper say you can coach? I know a few coaches that have a piece of paper that says they have a D license that never played the game. Does this make them equal to a coach who has played for 20 yrs with a D license. Sometimes I think we get to caught up in that piece of paper. I sat through biology 101 in college cause I had to but I am no biologist i got a B in that class and couldn't tell you half the stuff i learned in that class. I will say on the flip side though I know a few really good players that have a C or D license who can't coach to save their lives. Just my opinion!

It's not the paper. It is the willingness to further your education as a coach. Although after one renewal of your "A" liscense I would recommend using it to get into the NSCAA Premier class. Just my opinion.

Triumph FC wrote:

UEFA wrote:USSF "A" liscense needs to be renewed every five years. Although I found their to be no changes in the course when renewing the liscense.

It's every 4 years actually

You are correct, I should of remembered watching and evaluating World Cup games during the course.

I would recommend going in a World Cup year because you get to watch the matches with a lot of phenatic fans, they always give you time off from training, and as your analysis and evaluation of film you get to break down World Cup games.

All coaches currently holding an "A" License must accumulate eight ( CE credits within every four-year cycle in order to maintain the status of their "A" License. - See more at: http://www.ussoccer.com/coaches/faq.aspx#sthash.pAxuDP9l.dpuf

Just4kicks wrote:Not trying to stir the pot but does a piece of paper say you can coach? I know a few coaches that have a piece of paper that says they have a D license that never played the game. Does this make them equal to a coach who has played for 20 yrs with a D license. Sometimes I think we get to caught up in that piece of paper. I sat through biology 101 in college cause I had to but I am no biologist i got a B in that class and couldn't tell you half the stuff i learned in that class. I will say on the flip side though I know a few really good players that have a C or D license who can't coach to save their lives. Just my opinion!

I don't think anyone's saying it's about the paper.  What the paper shows, in addition to willingness to further one's education, is it tells the paying consumer that the coach has the most up to date knowledge and most effective ways of communicating and teaching with their personal touch and previous experience in mind.  What the courses taught, even the most basic ones, five, ten, and especially fifteen + years ago is prehistoric to what is out there today. Too many coaches conduct themselves in a way that promotes player exit before age 15 as a result of quenching personal gain or acceptance.

Even Sir Alex had to change his methods and tactics several times throughout his career.  It should be a red flag when any coach portrays they've got it figured out.

Does the coach yell and put down the players without correcting them?
Does the coach humiliate the player by pointing out the obvious?
Does the coach greet the players?
Does he/she teach respect to the parents, referees, opponents and teammates?
Does the coach constantly recruit and replace players to make the team better, instead of making the players better?

Through a role I was involved in for several years I had the opportunity to meet and interview 100+ youth coaches.  When it came to coaches' education there were only 2 mindsets...
(1) Those that actively wanted to use the classes to learn more.
(2) Those that hated the idea of attending license classes like it was a dreaded chore.

The folks in the first mindset didn't limit themselves to just the classes.  They would also ask about good reference materials.  They'd talk with other coaches for new ideas.  I'd see them watching other teams' practices and other teams' games.

The folks with the second mindset would generally fill the role they were interviewed for but that was the extent of.  I wouldn't get to see or speak to them anymore than was required.  These were, in general, the coaches that would call me half of the way through a season to tell me they needed more players because several kids on their roster now had conflicts on game days.

So what does that mean?  In general, the folks with the first mindset tended to stay in their roles they were staffed for.  They'd, in general, retain a higher percentage of players from one season to the next.  For people with the second mindset, those were the folks I'd be searching for a replacement for within 6 months.

bigtex75081 wrote:Through a role I was involved in for several years I had the opportunity to meet and interview 100+ youth coaches.  When it came to coaches' education there were only 2 mindsets...
(1) Those that actively wanted to use the classes to learn more.
(2) Those that hated the idea of attending license classes like it was a dreaded chore.

The folks in the first mindset didn't limit themselves to just the classes.  They would also ask about good reference materials.  They'd talk with other coaches for new ideas.  I'd see them watching other teams' practices and other teams' games.

The folks with the second mindset would generally fill the role they were interviewed for but that was the extent of.  I wouldn't get to see or speak to them anymore than was required.  These were, in general, the coaches that would call me half of the way through a season to tell me they needed more players because several kids on their roster now had conflicts on game days.

So what does that mean?  In general, the folks with the first mindset tended to stay in their roles they were staffed for.  They'd, in general, retain a higher percentage of players from one season to the next.  For people with the second mindset, those were the folks I'd be searching for a replacement for within 6 months.

I saw the same thing when I went through...Some were there to get better...some were there to have the paper so that they could fulfill their "select" obligations. Even though I knew soccer before I went, I learned a bunch going through. It definitely helped me organize my practices and reminded me to look for things that I needed to focus more closely on. Also, I started using a lot of the techniques in trainings.

Oh, and so many of you are right...there were all levels of former players, coaching experience, clubs, etc. Very worthwhile training in my mind although it was NOT fun to stand out there for two weekends in January...and the pressure was real to perform with unknown players of varying skills and backgrounds. It wasn't easy to get the paper-lots of coaches didn't...

dadof3 wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:Through a role I was involved in for several years I had the opportunity to meet and interview 100+ youth coaches.  When it came to coaches' education there were only 2 mindsets...
(1) Those that actively wanted to use the classes to learn more.
(2) Those that hated the idea of attending license classes like it was a dreaded chore.

The folks in the first mindset didn't limit themselves to just the classes.  They would also ask about good reference materials.  They'd talk with other coaches for new ideas.  I'd see them watching other teams' practices and other teams' games.

The folks with the second mindset would generally fill the role they were interviewed for but that was the extent of.  I wouldn't get to see or speak to them anymore than was required.  These were, in general, the coaches that would call me half of the way through a season to tell me they needed more players because several kids on their roster now had conflicts on game days.

So what does that mean?  In general, the folks with the first mindset tended to stay in their roles they were staffed for.  They'd, in general, retain a higher percentage of players from one season to the next.  For people with the second mindset, those were the folks I'd be searching for a replacement for within 6 months.

I saw the same thing when I went through...Some were there to get better...some were there to have the paper so that they could fulfill their "select" obligations.  Even though I knew soccer before I went, I learned a bunch going through.  It definitely helped me organize my practices and reminded me to look for things that I needed to focus more closely on.  Also, I started using a lot of the techniques in trainings.

Oh, and so many of you are right...there were all levels of former players, coaching experience, clubs, etc.  Very worthwhile training in my mind although it was NOT fun to stand out there for two weekends in January...and the pressure was real to perform with unknown players of varying skills and backgrounds.  It wasn't easy to get the paper-lots of coaches didn't...

Ugh! The last one I did was in held in July. Absolutely brutal.

JustaSport wrote:

dadof3 wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:Through a role I was involved in for several years I had the opportunity to meet and interview 100+ youth coaches.  When it came to coaches' education there were only 2 mindsets...
(1) Those that actively wanted to use the classes to learn more.
(2) Those that hated the idea of attending license classes like it was a dreaded chore.

The folks in the first mindset didn't limit themselves to just the classes.  They would also ask about good reference materials.  They'd talk with other coaches for new ideas.  I'd see them watching other teams' practices and other teams' games.

The folks with the second mindset would generally fill the role they were interviewed for but that was the extent of.  I wouldn't get to see or speak to them anymore than was required.  These were, in general, the coaches that would call me half of the way through a season to tell me they needed more players because several kids on their roster now had conflicts on game days.

So what does that mean?  In general, the folks with the first mindset tended to stay in their roles they were staffed for.  They'd, in general, retain a higher percentage of players from one season to the next.  For people with the second mindset, those were the folks I'd be searching for a replacement for within 6 months.

I saw the same thing when I went through...Some were there to get better...some were there to have the paper so that they could fulfill their "select" obligations.  Even though I knew soccer before I went, I learned a bunch going through.  It definitely helped me organize my practices and reminded me to look for things that I needed to focus more closely on.  Also, I started using a lot of the techniques in trainings.

Oh, and so many of you are right...there were all levels of former players, coaching experience, clubs, etc.  Very worthwhile training in my mind although it was NOT fun to stand out there for two weekends in January...and the pressure was real to perform with unknown players of varying skills and backgrounds.  It wasn't easy to get the paper-lots of coaches didn't...

Ugh!  The last one I did was in held in July.  Absolutely brutal.

Yeah, some of the guys who were returning to redo were saying that...guess it is difficult to hold the thing two consecutive weekends in nice weather since that is when we are out there with the kiddos. Good to see other coaches when they are NOT coaching and know them a little though. Did bring some collegiality to the group...or maybe that was us huddling together to keep warm while it was 38 and raining buckets...

If we believe the American model and style of soccer is lagging behind the rest of the world, why would we want coaches that have been inundated with that style and philosophy thought all these coaches courses?

They have simply spent a lot of time learning how to coach a system and style that is behind the rest of the world?

I heard a coach say once that any coach that tells you his licensure in the first conversation is a coach you want to stay away from.

Having said the above, I think it plays a very minor part in what I look for in a coach at the Ulittle ages. I don't care if the coach is a paint salesman for his day job and never heard of certified coaches courses, but if he can relate to the little kids and his philosophy of soccer is one I agree with, he is good with me.

RunsLikeWind wrote:If we believe the American model and style of soccer is lagging behind the rest of the world, why would we want coaches that have been inundated with that style and philosophy thought all these coaches courses?  

They have simply spent a lot of time learning how to coach a system and style that is behind the rest of the world?  

I heard a coach say once that any coach that tells you his licensure in the first conversation is a coach you want to stay away from.  

Having said the above, I think it plays a very minor part in what I look for in a coach at the Ulittle ages.  I don't care if the coach is a paint salesman for his day job and never heard of certified coaches courses,  but if he can relate to the little kids and his philosophy of soccer is one I agree with, he is good with me.  

US soccer has been copying Spain and Germany for a while now, it isn't the philosophy, the problem is that many coaches don't bring to their sessions what US Soccer is teaching

JustaSport wrote:

dadof3 wrote:

bigtex75081 wrote:Through a role I was involved in for several years I had the opportunity to meet and interview 100+ youth coaches.  When it came to coaches' education there were only 2 mindsets...
(1) Those that actively wanted to use the classes to learn more.
(2) Those that hated the idea of attending license classes like it was a dreaded chore.

The folks in the first mindset didn't limit themselves to just the classes.  They would also ask about good reference materials.  They'd talk with other coaches for new ideas.  I'd see them watching other teams' practices and other teams' games.

The folks with the second mindset would generally fill the role they were interviewed for but that was the extent of.  I wouldn't get to see or speak to them anymore than was required.  These were, in general, the coaches that would call me half of the way through a season to tell me they needed more players because several kids on their roster now had conflicts on game days.

So what does that mean?  In general, the folks with the first mindset tended to stay in their roles they were staffed for.  They'd, in general, retain a higher percentage of players from one season to the next.  For people with the second mindset, those were the folks I'd be searching for a replacement for within 6 months.

I saw the same thing when I went through...Some were there to get better...some were there to have the paper so that they could fulfill their "select" obligations.  Even though I knew soccer before I went, I learned a bunch going through.  It definitely helped me organize my practices and reminded me to look for things that I needed to focus more closely on.  Also, I started using a lot of the techniques in trainings.

Oh, and so many of you are right...there were all levels of former players, coaching experience, clubs, etc.  Very worthwhile training in my mind although it was NOT fun to stand out there for two weekends in January...and the pressure was real to perform with unknown players of varying skills and backgrounds.  It wasn't easy to get the paper-lots of coaches didn't...

Ugh!  The last one I did was in held in July.  Absolutely brutal.

Experienced a heat wave in Boston during my liscenseing, dorms had no air conditioning. Taking cold showers to cool off in the middle of the night and getting up at 4:30 to meet the cafeteria workers to open the door to the one place on campus with air conditioning sleeping on the couch in the lobby and studying. Fun, fun ,fun! He'll their were guys buying window units to stay cool and others getting a hotel room down the street because it was to much to bare. Believe it or not I would do it again in a heart beat. Great memories!

okay having played does not make you a good coach. Infact if all you know is from way back we you played then you know very little useful information at all. NTX is littered with ex sidekick players and if that is all you can teach then that doesn't amount to much in terms of todays game. The game and the players has advanced. A coach needs to be a student of the game. Constantly seeking out new information, techniques, knowledge. Yes the license does hint to a desire to improve as a coach and I would be nervous of a lifetime D coach as it does suggest the mentality of did enough and I know everything so no need to learn more. Oh and not impressed with the hey look at me I can dribble and do tricks coaches either. I watch their teams play and I can see hey look at me do a skill move players and no ability to recognize or play any version of organized soccer. If your kid does a skill move like a stepover with nobody on them just in open space then thats your coach and you have been duped

go99 wrote:okay having played does not make you a good coach.  Infact if all you know is from way back we you played then you know very little useful information at all.  NTX is littered with ex sidekick players and if that is all you can teach then that doesn't amount to much in terms of todays game.  The game and the players has advanced.  A coach needs to be a student of the game.  Constantly seeking out new information, techniques, knowledge.  Yes the license does hint to a desire to improve as a coach and I would be nervous of a lifetime D coach as it does suggest the mentality of did enough and I know everything so no need to learn more.  Oh and not impressed with the hey look at me I can dribble and do tricks coaches either.  I watch their teams play and I can see hey look at me do a skill move players and no ability to recognize or play any version of organized soccer.  If your kid does a skill move like a stepover with nobody on them just in open space then thats your coach and you have been duped

Having played definitely does not make a coach inherently "good" or "bad". But never having played is more likely to yield a coach that cannot demonstrate the most basic of skills effectively. I'm not talking about stepovers or scissors. Those are fairly juvenile 1v1 plays that can be taught in the course of a 10 minute drill. Being able to show players the precise timing when waiting for a ball to drop for a volley finish on goal, how to position one's plant foot on the approach, and then follow through with the toe pointed down and nose over the ball... that takes some know-how. A student-of-the-game coach with a C license who has watched a lot of EPL games and "can relate well to the players" but can't play the game himself? He will be limited in what he can effectively teach the kids. I know this probably steps on the toes of a lot of coaches who believe it's all about instruction, but so be it.

but also a coach who has played and believes that he knows the "proper" way to do everything can be just as harmful. If you do exactly as he does you will end up just as good as he was. Which in todays soccer isn't very good. On that exact example he can't show you the exact technique or timing because you must have the touches and you must do it in the way that works for you. I constantly see Messi take an improper touch or make a touch with his left only to flick the ball into the net with the outside of the left again. When clearly the "proper" technique was make the left touch and then finish with the right foot. The ability to demostrate basic touches is usefull to young kids but thats about it. The ex pro card is wonderful for parents but the ability to teach, relate, motivate and get them to enjoy the game is way more important for the kids.