Jump to content

OC Write-up: Culture, Authority, and the Myth of Player-led Teams


Bodacious Bevo

Recommended Posts

He really likes to say that trust is built with consistency over time. The hard part is making the progress in the meantime while learning that the results of the trust are positive. During that process, you can get Iowa State games, or even Arkansas games, and you have to have a plan in place to weather those. 

At this point, I think the results speak for themselves, both from a team and individual point of view. Add in the ability to recruit for personality as well as skill set reasons and you strengthen things even more. 

I think it’s pretty clear that this is a top-down scenario but Sarkisian and the staff can’t be everywhere, all the time. It feels like he’s building a “if you want to beat Ohio State…” mindset not just in the superhuman QB and team leader, but in almost everyone.

Obviously, you have his success in planning and development, but a decent number of coaches have that. I think, as cheesy as it sounds, his redemption arc and his willingness to share it goes a long way toward getting buy-in and trust in a way doesn’t run the risk of self-immolation the way a totally hardass — and I get that he’s a hardass when it comes to expectations and coaching hard — approach might. 

He seems really driven, but maybe not psychotically so. I think he, especially in the era of NIL, has a chance to build a program that rivals or even exceeds Royal’s machine at a national scale. A lot of that, I think, is not just his accountability but in the accountability his approach builds in his players and the way they see themselves as part of a team — the QB room, the receiver room, etc. — but who can still shine individually when it’s their time. 

At least, you know, with my orange glasses on. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 When someone says a team is player-led, what they mean is that the players have accepted the coach's authority and player leadership is aligned in enforcing it. The true benefit of player-led teams is how well they follow their coach

 

I would posit this is distinction without a difference. There are multiple actors involved, all with their own agency. All that aside your take is very interesting, and I think I kinda agree with the concept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

He really likes to say that trust is built with consistency over time. The hard part is making the progress in the meantime while learning that the results of the trust are positive. During that process, you can get Iowa State games, or even Arkansas games, and you have to have a plan in place to weather those. 

At this point, I think the results speak for themselves, both from a team and individual point of view. Add in the ability to recruit for personality as well as skill set reasons and you strengthen things even more. 

I think it’s pretty clear that this is a top-down scenario but Sarkisian and the staff can’t be everywhere, all the time. It feels like he’s building a “if you want to beat Ohio State…” mindset not just in the superhuman QB and team leader, but in almost everyone.

Obviously, you have his success in planning and development, but a decent number of coaches have that. I think, as cheesy as it sounds, his redemption arc and his willingness to share it goes a long way toward getting buy-in and trust in a way doesn’t run the risk of self-immolation the way a totally hardass — and I get that he’s a hardass when it comes to expectations and coaching hard — approach might. 

He seems really driven, but maybe not psychotically so. I think he, especially in the era of NIL, has a chance to build a program that rivals or even exceeds Royal’s machine at a national scale. A lot of that, I think, is not just his accountability but in the accountability his approach builds in his players and the way they see themselves as part of a team — the QB room, the receiver room, etc. — but who can still shine individually when it’s their time. 

At least, you know, with my orange glasses on. 

I agree with all this. 

To your first point, college football has some pretty brutal feedback loops that can sometimes bury coaches before they really have a fair chance. That why, imo, first recruiting classes are so important. Sark also stayed consistent in his message 

To your point on Sark sharing his life, Brene Brown is an academic that has a bunch of bestselling books centered around her research on vulnerability. Part of her work is on the connection between vulnerability and leadership - that is, that leadership requires a certain amount of vulnerability and that the best leaders lean into it. There's also a concept called leader-member exchange that focuses on the quality of connection between leaders and followers as a primary driver for follower performance. There's quite a bit of research to support it. I personally consider Sark's 2023 offseason commitment to the team (he only took off July 4th weekend) the most admirable part of his tenure here. 

15 hours ago, Sleep off ugly said:

 When someone says a team is player-led, what they mean is that the players have accepted the coach's authority and player leadership is aligned in enforcing it. The true benefit of player-led teams is how well they follow their coach

 

I would posit this is distinction without a difference. There are multiple actors involved, all with their own agency. All that aside your take is very interesting, and I think I kinda agree with the concept. 

I'm aiming more for clarification than distinction. And this is only one way too look at the program. There are many approaches to culture/authority/performance/etc that will bring insight and value. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it’s athletes, employees, a charity event, or even your own family, most people’s bullshit detectors are calibrated finely enough to detect the difference between a pretender attempting to lead them through legislated authority and someone genuinely leading them with legitimate authority. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Sark leads with modeled behavior and legitimate authority, so it was only a matter of time before a critical mass of buy in was achieved with the players and staff to establish and maintain the genuine culture we’re seeing in the program.  The leadership was established from the top down, and the players taking leadership roles are doing so with legitimate authority and not performative nonsense. It bodes well for the the present and future. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bodacious Bevo said:

To your point on Sark sharing his life, Brene Brown is an academic that has a bunch of bestselling books centered around her research on vulnerability. Part of her work is on the connection between vulnerability and leadership - that is, that leadership requires a certain amount of vulnerability and that the best leaders lean into it. There's also a concept called leader-member exchange that focuses on the quality of connection between leaders and followers as a primary driver for follower performance. There's quite a bit of research to support it. I personally consider Sark's 2023 offseason commitment to the team (he only took off July 4th weekend) the most admirable part of his tenure here. 

This is related to why I think his redemption arc and leaning into his issues and the vulnerability inherent in that is a big factor in getting not just buy in but participation from the coaches and team. I think this creates a kind of virtuous circle in which the more they do it, the more they’re willing to do it, and the more positive and deeply seated it becomes. 

He talked about how he’s told his story each season and some players have obviously heard it multiple times. Last time, his son heard about it in that context and in a different way than he’d experienced from his dad before. I think, in no small way, Sarkisian’s ability to share openly some things he may have sugarcoated for his son only magnified what he’s trying to do.

It doesn’t hurt that he’s a badass when it comes to scheme. Or development. Or, along with the staff, evaluation. I know people laugh at the “good kids who graduate” thing, but if he can build a team culture and (imperfectly, obviously) identify guys who are focused enough and team oriented enough maybe to do less of the idiotic things 18-22 year old guys tend to do, it has the dual effect of a building a kickass team and a team you don’t have to squint to support. 

Listening to guys like Barron talk about remembering to be grateful for where he is and to put in the effort worthy of that is, imo, pretty cool. I don’t know anything about him beyond what shows up in interviews but he seems bought in and it not only makes him a better player but (from this admittedly superficial perspective) also a better person. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the world could use more guys like him, whether they can play football or not. And I think Sarkisian has helped with that. 

At this point, Sarkisian looks like a walkoff grand slam of a hire and not just for what he can get done on the field. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac featured and pinned this topic

Sark has a number of things working in his favor here that facilitate the "player-led team" concept.

1- Demonstrated record of improvement (year 1 - year 4) and now success (B12 Championship and playoff berth).

2- Personal story that he embraces, uses to relate to the players and that they can find a way to identify with and connect to.

3- Recruiting success. Replacing good players with good or better players, will build on point 1.

4- Consistency of teaching - low staff turnover, high-caliber replacements when necessary.

5- Consistency of message - He is absolutely right about how key consistency is to building trust.

All of these things create a stable and successful program and allow the culture that he has established to flourish. With that, the natural leaders on the team can emerge and create that "player-led team" concept because they have bought in to his culture and the success that is being enjoyed makes it comfortable for the other players to accept those leaders AS leaders. They are proxies for Sark with the added advantage that they speak in the language that 18-23 year-olds understand. They also bring the added element of peer pressure.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, immamac said:

Can everyone please send this to all their longhorn friends. Why the fuck does this only have 1k views 

 

fine, fine.

 

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh... refresh...

... ... ...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m no Longhorns fan but I am a college football fan with seven decades of memories.  I do love the irreverent world of Surly and its predecessors.  I am a Steve Sarkisian fan from his days at Washington through to the present.  The job he did at Alabama was remarkable.  I’m really glad he’s having great success now even though it led to last year’s debacle at Bryant-Denny, which in a way though has led to Bama sharing some of the glory with Texas for the time being.  The player competence and quality at Texas is getting back to where it was in Mack’s heyday, with more and better to come.  I appreciate what the OP wrote.  Here’s what another Bama man had to say to freshmen.  


The year was 1958.  His 1961 team were undefeated national champs.  Total points allowed for the season - 25.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff.  I think you articulated what a lot of people sense, but don't really have the vocabulary to express.

As is alluded to, I think a lot of Sark's success in these "people dynamics" areas is a direct result of his recovery from alcoholism.

Most alcoholics in their cups feel some sort of inadequacy as a person that they actively attempt to cover-up or overcompensate for, and also bury in barrels of booze.  Sometimes, this is kind of an obvious thing, like the person has failed dramatically at some aspect of life, other times, an outsider thinks wtf does this person have to feel inadequate about.  It can be sort of a paradox like the insecure bully or egomaniac.

Also, alcoholics are excellent at breaking trust.  They become little (and big) liars to cover up and protect their addictions, and engage in other bad behaviors (theft, infidelity, etc.) destroying the trust of spouses, parents, friends, and co-workers in the process.

So, a big part of recovery involves accepting yourself, flaws and character defects included, and being honest about them with yourself and others.  This leads to an authenticity that is key to a healthy self-regard and becomes quite evident to others, usually.  There's an aspect of vulnerability here, that Brene Brown seizes upon (she is a recovering addict, iirc).  The Stuart Smalley mirror monologue makes a funny joke, but there is some main truth there for the addict.

And, another big part of recovery is earning back the trust of those you betrayed in your addiction.  And addicts learn that there is no shortcut here:  it requires honesty and consistency in behavior.  And that works well on people whose trust you haven't betrayed, as well as those you have.

It is often said or observed in 12-step programs that those who earnestly recover become much more effective in their occupations and relationships.  And it's not just because they're not fucked up all the time, although that certainly has something to do with it.  An irony here is that sometimes the addiction leads people into occupations and relationships that are bad for the addict and that they need to get out of.  Other times, probably when the addict chose the occupation or relationship before the addiction became florid, they excel in those same endeavors.

I had hoped, thought, prayed that Sarkisian a) had earnestly recovered and b) would be one of those aforementioned effective recovering/ed alcoholics.  It looks like he is.  What a great story for us, and for him.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We hear a lot that “winning cures everything”. But does culture beget winning, or vice versa? Eventually you enter a virtuous cycle but seems to me that there has to be a big leap forward in one or the other at some point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tokamak said:

We hear a lot that “winning cures everything”. But does culture beget winning, or vice versa? Eventually you enter a virtuous cycle but seems to me that there has to be a big leap forward in one or the other at some point. 

In Texas’ case, the culture pretty clearly preceded the winning, imo. 

It wasn’t quick or smooth and involved some things like Bo Davis’s bus rant — pro and con — but it was more improved than the record was heading into 2023. It may be that 2023 kicked both into a mutually perpetuating state… or at least I can hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...