Turnaround Coaches: Study their Steps

April 27, 2016

By Scott Westfall
MSU Institute for the Study of Youth Sports

Turnaround leadership is often a popular topic within sports conversations, as many coaches are revered for their ability to transform a struggling team into a “winner.”

Turnarounds often are discussed in platitudes such as, “That coach has what it takes to turn this program around.”

While often talked about during the offseason, especially in the face of coaching vacancies, turnarounds are difficult to achieve. After all, if transforming a failing team into a successful one were an easy task, there would not be such an abundance of teams that struggle year-in and year-out.  

As much as turnaround coaches are celebrated for their abilities to turn a losing program into a winner, very little scientific research has been devoted to analyzing coaches who have proven themselves as turnaround specialists. The steps and intangibles necessary for achieving a coaching turnaround have remained undetermined as this topic had never been examined from a scientific perspective – until now.

For the past year and a half, I have devoted the majority of my time to researching turnaround leadership in high school coaching, undertaking this study as the topic of my doctoral dissertation project. Research participants in this study included 11 high school football coaches from the state of Michigan who led dramatic turnarounds at their high schools within the last decade. The criteria for participant selection were:

• Prior to the coach’s arrival or appointment as head coach, the team finished (at least) three of the previous four seasons with a losing record (below .500 winning percentage), including a losing season immediately before the coach’s arrival or appointment.

• Within five seasons of the coach’s arrival, the team enjoyed (at least) three winning seasons (above .500 winning percentage).

Before their turnarounds occurred, these high schools had not experienced a winning season (on average) in 7.2 years, while five of the 11 schools had never qualified for the MHSAA Playoffs. However, upon being hired, the average time it took the coaches to achieve a winning record was 1.73 seasons. Moreover, the average time it took the coaches to qualify for the MHSAA Playoffs was 1.82 years. On top of this, each of the 11 teams qualified for the playoffs within three years of hiring their new coach.  

The circumstances these coaches faced when they arrived were challenging to say the least, as all of the coaches entered a negative situation with poor team culture. These situations were characterized by losing streaks, cancelled seasons, dilapidated facilities, poor role models on the previous coaching staffs and a significant amount of parental pushback. Players and community members often were embarrassed by their football program. One coach described the situation by recounting, “During that time they were a doormat; everybody’s homecoming, a laughing stock. They were like the Bad News Bears.” Additional problems included low numbers, very little player development, and a low amount of commitment to the overall program.

One coach that I interviewed compared entering a turnaround situation to building a well. He stated, “You may not have success on the surface initially, but if you dig nice and deep and build the well right, there is water down there. It’s going to be some work and it might not come up right away – it takes some pumping. But if you build it right, it will happen.” In this article I will attempt to encapsulate 16 months of research, 191 pages of interview transcriptions, 2,278 miles driven across the state of Michigan, and countless hours spent with 11 turnaround coaches, in order to present to you the nucleus of what it takes to turn around a failing high school program.

The coaching philosophies of the majority of the coaches were characterized as “educational athletics.” This involved coaches striving to do things the right way, viewing their job as an extension of the classroom, implementing a character development program, and using football as a vehicle to teach life skills to players. Furthermore, their greatest strengths were revealed to be coaching/leadership skills, along with the ability to develop strong relationships with their players.

Coaches unanimously agreed that upon their arrival immediate changes needed to be made to the team’s culture. These changes included prioritizing team workouts, altering visible elements like the organization of practices, offensive and defensive schematics, team logos, along with placing positive role models in front of the players. Other changes to team culture happened through improved coach-athlete relationships, giving players a better football experience, and purging the program of negative people. One coach used the term, “Weeding the roses,” which means getting rid of the negative people in the program in order to let the better parts grow and prosper.

All of the coaches developed some type of vision for their program. The most common visions involved transforming their team into a top-level program, and for their players to conduct themselves as quality human beings. Winning games, competing with the best teams in their division, and playing for MHSAA championships marked becoming a top program. While winning was a major component of the coaches’ visions, developing quality human beings was revealed to be just as essential. This was evident as several coaches remarked that their most well-behaved kids were also their most productive players, and that doing things right in school and in the community often equates to wins on the football field.

To build upon their visions, each of the coaches formulated some type of plan or “blueprint” to execute their turnarounds. The majority of the coaches’ plans were constructed around developing positive coach-athlete relationships and employing off-season strength and conditioning programs. While all of the coaches’ plans eventually yielded a great amount of success, not all parties bought into them initially. Some of the players needed to see proof that the team could win games before they were completely sold. In order to create buy-in, the coaches used various approaches to connect with players and sell their plan. These methods included team activities, cultivating relationships with players, continuously selling their vision, hiring/retaining quality assistant coaches, and entering the situation with some sort of previous expertise. Although it may take time, the coaches stressed the importance of the players buying into their vision. As one of them decreed to his team, “The quicker you buy in, the quicker we win.”

Early indicators that a turnaround was commencing included winning games or making significant strides off of the field through positive coach-athlete relationships. Sources of sustained changes included a win streak or an increased level of commitment from the players. Clear indicators that the program had undergone a turnaround included the players adopting a new mentality filled with trust and confidence, along with the program reaching unprecedented levels of success, such as competing with the best teams, completing an undefeated season, and/or making the playoffs consistently.

Character development emerged as a strong component of this study, as 100 percent of the coaches reported that it played a significant role in fostering turnarounds. The coaches also indicated that they deliberately teach character in practice and use coaching as a platform for character development.

In hindsight, an outside observer may assume that these coaches were destined to succeed and their plans were met with little resistance. However, after examining their roads to turnaround success, most of them met several barriers along the way. Early obstacles included widespread mental challenges among players such as a lack of confidence and/or trust. Other early barriers included parental pushback and some cases of overt interference. After the turnarounds were complete, the coaches’ problems did not disappear; they simply changed form, as complacency became the new problem on the team. A potential root of this complacency was the addition of younger players who thought that success would happen automatically simply because of the program’s prior achievements.

The coaches were quick to acknowledge that the turnarounds would not have been possible without the excellent support they received. Their greatest source of help came from their assistant coaches who contributed both tangible and psychosocial support. Tangible support was seen through the assistants performing administrative duties and overseeing strength and conditioning sessions. Meanwhile, psychosocial support came in simple ways, such as listening, giving advice, and showing belief in the head coach. As one coach stated, “You’re only as good as the people you have around you.”

Team turnarounds are not officially complete until a team maintains the success it has built. In order to avoid complacency and sustain momentum, the coaches recommended that coaches and players find ways to keep reaching higher. In order to do this, coaches recommended talking to players about their team goals and what they want their legacies to be. To help sustain momentum, coaches stressed that it is often the little things that matter the most, such as effort, team discipline, player accountability, and positive attitudes.

The strongest theme that emerged from this study was the importance of coach-athlete relationships. All of the coaches believed that relationships are imperative to fostering turnarounds. It was also emphasized that relationships are crucial for sustaining long-term success. In essence, coaches may experience some momentary success by taking shortcuts with superior talent, however, strong relationships are the “X-factor” that will sustain the program over the long run. While the approaches of building relationships were diverse, what mattered most was coaches spending time with players in both structured and unstructured team activities, and simply showing players that they cared about them as people as much as they did as football players.

Steps of a Turnaround

(When turnarounds happen, they usually happen in this order)

1. Establish new leadership

2. Assemble a staff of positive role models

3. Gather information about the program

4. Create the vision

5. Make a plan and communicate it

6. Create buy-in from players and other key people

7. Change behavior – This is the impetus of the turnaround

8. Create and celebrate early wins

9. Don’t let up – Keep setting new goals and reaching higher

10. Complacency is the enemy: Make sure change sticks!


Intangibles Checklist

(These are the little things that people cannot see or do not talk about, yet they often matter the most)

1. Positive relationships between coaches and players. Build these by spending time with players and showing them you care about them as a person.

2. Establishment of a strength and conditioning program. All successful turnarounds were led by coaches who implemented a respectable offseason training program.

3. Display an undeniable belief that your vision and the plan will produce successful results. Continuously sell your plan and give players the reasons behind why you do what you do. Be prepared to stand tall and adhere to your vision when adversity strikes.

4. Generate player buy-in through team activities. Remember that sports are supposed to be FUN. Plan structured and non-structured activities to generate fun, excitement and team cohesion!

5. Demand excellence of your players off the field. Promote educational athletics and use your platform as a coach to teach character and life lessons to your players.

6. Outwork your opponents in everything you do. Arrive earlier. Stay later. Go above and beyond what your competitors are doing. Set the tempo that hard work is the new norm and it starts with you.

7. Remember that the little things matter. Take the time to ensure that your team always has the right effort, attitude and discipline, as well as accountability to the program and each other. 

Scott Westfall spent 10 years as a teacher, coach, and athletic director in Fort Collins, Colo. He is currently finishing his Doctorate at Michigan State University, with an emphasis in Sport Psychology and Athletic Administration, and assisting the MHSAA with its student leadership programs. Westfall is a former athlete who participated in football, wrestling, tennis and cross country at the high school level, and rugby at the collegiate level. Please feel free to contact Scott if you would like a copy of his full dissertation. Scott also performs speaking engagements at conferences on various topics within educational athletics. He can be reached at [email protected]

Regulation with Roots

December 3, 2015

By Jack Roberts
MHSAA Executive Director

The following is an excerpt from “History, Rationale and Application of the Essential Regulations of High School Athletics in Michigan.”

Throughout the years, schools of this and every other state have identified problems relating to school transfers.

There is recruitment of athletes and undue influence. There is school shopping by families for athletic reasons. There is jumping by students from one school to another for athletic reasons because they couldn't get along with a coach or saw a greater opportunity to play at another school or to win a championship there. There is the bumping of students off a team or out of a starting lineup by incoming transfers, which often outrages local residents. There is the concentration of talent on one team by athletic-motivated transfers. There is friction between schools as one becomes the traditional choice for students who specialize in a particular sport. There is imbalance in competition as a result. And there is always the concern that the athletic-motivated transfer simply puts athletics above academics, which is inappropriate in educational athletics.

All states have developed rules to address the problems related to school transfers. In some states it is called a transfer rule and in other states a residency rule, because linking school attendance to residence is one of the most effective tools for controlling eligibility of transfers. None of the state high school association rules is identical, but all have the intention of preventing recruiting, school shopping and jumping, student bumping, friction, imbalance and overemphasis, as well as the intention of promoting fairness in athletic competition and the perspective that students must go to school first for an education and only secondarily to participate in interscholastic athletics.

The transfer/residency rule is a legally and historically tested but still imperfect tool to control athletic-motivated transfers and other abuses. It is a net which catches some students it should not, and misses some students that should not be eligible. This is why all state high school associations have procedures to review individual cases and grant exceptions; and why all state high school associations have procedures to investigate allegations and to penalize violations where they are confirmed.

Over the years, state high school associations have considered four options to handle transfers. The first two options are the easiest courses:  either (1) let schools decide themselves about transfers, as Michigan once did, but this leads to inconsistent applications and few states now subscribe to such an approach; or (2) make no exceptions at all, rendering all transfer students ineligible for a period of time, but this becomes patently unfair for some students and no state high school association subscribes to that extreme, although it would be easy to administer.

The third option – the ideal approach perhaps – would be to investigate the motivation of every transfer and allow quicker eligibility or subvarsity eligibility to those which are not motivated by athletics, but this is very time consuming if not impossible to administer.  No state high school association has sufficient staff and money to consider every detail of every transfer.

This is why a fourth option has been most popular with most state high school associations. This is a middle ground which stipulates a basic rule, some exceptions (15 exceptions in Michigan), and procedures to consider and grant waivers (a primary role of the MHSAA Executive Committee).

It is certain that the MHSAA transfer rule is imperfect. However, whatever few imperfections exist are remedied through a process by which member school administrators may make application to the MHSAA Executive Committee to waive the rule if, in the committee's opinion, the rule fails to serve any purpose for which it is intended or in its application creates an undue hardship on the student. In a typical year, the Executive Committee will receive approximately 250 requests to waive the transfer regulation, approving approximately 60 percent of those requests.

The committee brings to its considerations the following rationale, most recently reviewed and reaffirmed on Aug. 5, 2015:

  1. The rule tends to insure equality of competition in that each school plays students who have been in that school and established their eligibility in that school.
  2. The rule tends to prevent students from “jumping” from one school to another.
  3. The rule prevents the “bumping” of students who have previously gained eligibility in a school system by persons coming from outside the school system.
  4. The rule tends to prevent interscholastic athletic recruiting.
  5. The rule tends to prevent or discourage dominance of one sport at one school with a successful program, i.e., the concentration of excellent baseball players at one school to the detriment of surrounding schools through transfers and to the detriment of the natural school population and ability mix.
  6. The rule tends to create and maintain stability in that age group, i.e., it promotes team stability and team work expectation fulfillment.
  7. The rule is designed to discourage parents from “school-shopping” for athletic purposes.
  8. The rule is consistent with educational philosophy of going to school for academics first and athletics second.
  9. It eliminates family financial status from becoming a factor on eligibility, thus making a uniform rule for all students across the state of Michigan (i.e., tuition and millage considerations).
  10. It tends to encourage competition between nonpublic and public schools, rather than discourage that competition.
  11. It tends to reduce friction or threat of students changing schools because of problems they may have created or because of their misconduct, etc.

Following the adoption of a more standardized statewide transfer rule in 1982, there were multiple legal challenges. However, in 1986, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that a rational basis exists for the transfer regulation and that the rule, with its exceptions, is not overbroad and is neither arbitrary nor capricious, noting that neither a fundamental right nor suspect classification is involved. Berschback v. Grosse Pointe Schools 154 Mich App 102 (1986). That decision is also noteworthy for this statement which has halted or decided subsequent legal challenges:  “This Court is not the proper forum for making or reviewing decisions concerning the eligibility of transferring students in interscholastic athletics.”

There were two major changes in the MHSAA transfer regulation during the 1980s. The first, the athletic-motivated transfer rule, led to the busiest period of litigation in the MHSAA’s history. The other major change, arguably of equal impact, was implemented without any controversy.

This second subtle but substantial change occurred in 1987 when language was adopted to limit eligibility after a transfer to the non-public school closest to the student’s residence, as opposed to any non-public school in whose service area the student lived. “Service area” did not have a consistent definition and created unnecessary concern that non-public schools had the advantage of huge, undefined attendance areas, compared to public school districts at that time.

Some high school associations prescribe geographic boundaries or mileage limitations for students transferring to non-public schools. Michigan simply says it’s only the non-public school closest to the student’s residence, where eligibility may be immediate.

PHOTO: The MHSAA Transfer Regulation dates back to the early 1980s when the Association building stood on Trowbridge Road in East Lansing.