Parent Coaches Are Not The Worst
Why people need to pump the breaks on clubs using parent coaches.
If you’ve been around a youth hockey rink long enough you’ve heard this term before, and it’s typically not ever used in a positive manner.
“They use/have ‘Daddy Coaches’ on their teams”.
or…
“I want real coaches, not “daddy coaches”.
It’s as if overnight (or a few) that suddenly having a parent coach on the bench or ice is the absolute worst thing in the world. Local leagues and teams almost always have used volunteer parents to help coach teams in numerous sports and it’s become more of a trend in recent years for this to be frowned upon (by some).
What are the typical stereotypes or connotations that arise when someone brings up using “Daddy coaches”?
Lack of knowledge
Lack of ability
Nepotism (for their child)
Favoritism (for someone else’s child)
Though I am absolutely positive that you can label many parent coaches with those attributes, on the flip side you can easily label many non-parent coaches with those attributes too.
Here’s the thing, I’ve worked with or have had some great parent coaches throughout my playing and coaching career. Hell, my Uncle was even my coach for around 5 years and he didn’t fit the stereotypes above (I received probably the biggest kick in the ass more so than anyone else, and I didn’t get preferential treatment in playing time).
I’ve had parent coaches that have assisted on teams that I’ve coached, and those have been some of the best seasons I’ve ever had. All of them were knowledgeable, helpful, and could coach their own team with no problems. I never had to deal with any favoritism or nepotism as they all knew where their child was on the team and left their playing time up to me as the head coach.
As a hockey director, I’ve used parent head coaches in the past and they’ve actually been some of the hardest working and most conscientious coaches we staffed. Many of them put in extra time for ALL the kids just to see the team succeed.
On the flip side, I’ve seen non-parent head coaches who have done more damage or less work for clubs, teams, and individual players. You don’t think regular coaches don’t have favorites or lack knowledge of how to teach the game or the ability to do so?
If I had a quarter for every time a club hires some guy straight out of college hockey or hell even some level of pro hockey and flaunts them for this (I get it, gotta sell the program) and it ends up being a disaster of a season, I’d have a shit ton of quarters.
But these biases hurt, and yes, I even succumbed to no longer having parent head coaches when I was running a program. It wasn’t because I didn’t think there were quality ones out there, it was the fact that I didn’t want to deal with the stigma I listed above, and plus, it just worked out that those coaches moved up with their kids to teams that already had established coaches.
I think before anyone truly knocks a coach or organization, it’s important to educate yourself on what those people and institutions know, do and offer. Just because the team is run by a dad (or even a mom) doesn’t mean they're not qualified, and just because a team is run by some ex-pro or college kid doesn’t mean they're any more qualified.
There are good and bad parent coaches. Just like there are good and bad non-parent coaches. I have seen it all both when I was a kid growing up and as a parent & parent-coach.