blues3, first of all I am not the infamous "Dude."
In clarifying to myself the role of a coach, it has occurred to me that teams with good players do not do well without a decent coach. Bad teams may still be bad even with a decent coach, great coaches may get overachievement from bad teams, great coaches may make the most of good teams. But a bad coach will get little to nothing good from a good team (unless the only opponents are bad teams with mediocre to bad coaches). If Rock Hill is doing well, ther coach may not be the best coach in the state, but he must be decent. At the high school level (really at all levels--even pro teams struggle when the players take charge), players do not have the maturity to play well "despite" their coach.
No one is arguing that Rock Hill is doing better this year because they changed coaches--clearly they are doing better because their coach has more to work with; however, the coach still has to do the work.
