The Power of Expectations, Part 2

Fans of American college football recognize the Brigham Young University (BYU) Cougars, consistently one of top programs in the country. It was not always so. One player described the team prior to 1972 as the college football equivalent of flying standby. In 47 years the cougars had 31 losing seasons, only one conference championship and had never been to a bowl game. What happened? What turned that team around?

What happened was a coach named Lavell Edwards. By 1994 his BYU teams had 16 conference championships, had played in 19 bowl games and had won a national championship. He had only one losing season in 23 years. How did Edwards create such a remarkable turn-around? More importantly, what can we learn from how he did it?

Of course there was no single magic bullet, Edwards did a lot of things that made a difference (many described in the book, Lavell, Airing it Out). However one of the biggest actions was that he changed expectations. Without that, none of his other improvements would have been very effective.

Prior to the Edwards era, BYU did not expect a winning football team. The school just faced too many disadvantages. It was a religious school, committed to ideas like turning the other cheek. The team lacked money for recruiting and could not hire as many coaches as other schools had. School rules against drinking, smoking, non-marital sex etc. kept many good athletes away. Perhaps most importantly, many players would take two years off to serve a church mission. The coaches thought that those missionaries would lose their competitive fire. Opposing coaches felt sorry for BYU because those players were off preaching instead of playing football.

Coaching meetings often turned into gripe sessions, dwelling on all the reasons they couldn't win. The results were predictable.

Then Edwards became head coach and decided that he had to make some changes. He encouraged players on missions to return and play – and they did not lose their scholarships for going on missions. He believed that religion and football were compatible, and he diffused that belief through his staff.

Lavell Edwards shifted the focus of BYU football from what they could not do to what they could do. He wanted to win and he found a way to do it. He convinced coaches and players that they were expected to win – and they did.

He was also wise in just what expectations he encouraged. At the time, all the top teams had great running backs and emphasized a ground game. It was unrealistic to think that BYU would be recruiting those “blue-chip” players; they wanted to play on teams with winning records. However it was realistic to try a different emphasis. Edwards went to a passing offense. He recruited passing quarterbacks, along with good receivers, and linemen who could block for the pass. He hired assistants who could coach a passing game. He soon drove opponents crazy with his offense.

The result was a big turn-around in both attitude and games won. Recruiting became easier. BYU players regularly made all-conference and even all-American teams. One even won the Heisman Trophy, symbolic of the best college football player in the country. Significantly that trophy winner was a quarterback, the Cougars still weren't attracting top running backs.

Opposing coaches began to complain that returned missionaries gave BYU an unfair advantage.

Coach Edwards' method of changing expectations is instructive.

He looked at what was possible, not what he would have liked. Knowing he could not get the top athletes other teams had, he found a way to work around that.

He never said nor implied that it would be easy. In fact he let everybody know that there would be a lot of work and uncertainty involved.

His message was that improvement was possible and he expected everybody involved to do his part.

This approach applies elsewhere as well. In school, students should be expected to meet difficult but realistic goals. It would be unrealistic to expect a middle school student to do a problem in calculus of variations. However that middle school student should be challenged to do middle school math – and expected to meet the challenge.

In business, employees should be expected to contribute to the profitability of the company. Not every important assignment will be challenging, but when a difficult task needs doing, those assigned to it should be expected to get the job done. There should be no excuses. Nor should there be excuses for sloppy performance in routine but necessary tasks.

In public affairs, we should expect everybody to earn his own way except for those who have serious handicaps. Expecting people to remain on the dole becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It discourages independence and interferes with the development of their full human potential. Every normal human has the capacity for growth and for earning his own way. We must not provide excuses that encourage dependence. Race, poverty, unhappy childhoods, all can be overcome, but only if expectations motivate the effort to overcome them.

We must set challenging but realistic expectations whenever the opportunity arises, then hold people accountable to meet those expectations. Truck drivers should be expected to drive safely and on schedule. Company presidents should be expected to make profitable and honorable decisions. School teachers should be expected to teach their subjects and students to learn those subjects. Politicians should be expected to live up to their promises and fired by the voters if the don’t.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

This and That

Hot air rises. That might explain some of the people who hold high political office, and even some business leaders.

It's discouraging to think of how many people laugh at what they regard as blind faith in religion. Yet many of those same people blindly accept politically correct ideas such as the nonsense that men and women have identical thought patterns. Such people even forced the resignation of a Harvard president who had the temerity to suggest looking at science instead of blindly accepting the politically correct belief.

As the football season starts we'll again hear commentators referring to “skill positions.” What they mean by that is the publicity positions, positions such as quarterback or running back that get lots of attention. Every position, from offensive center to defensive linebacker is a skill position.

If you improve something enough you will eventually break it. That common engineering saying applies elsewhere as well, including in government.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of progress?

I drove by a golf course the other day. Grass all neatly manicured and sprayed for every conceivable pest. Water and sand traps carefully planned. Other vegetation likewise carefully planned and manicured. Then on the radio I heard an advertisement about how wonderful golf is because golfers get to experience Nature.

The Obama family spent months deciding which breed of dog to get for a White House pet. That is more time than the president wants to allow congress to decide on things like health care and energy policy, bills that run to thousands of pages and will have serious effects on the whole country.

Some claim that a clever saying proves nothing, but even that clever saying is wrong. A clever saying proves that someone came up with a clever saying.

It's amazing how many people laugh at the idea of an omniscient creator, then act like government officials are not only omniscient but automatically moral enough not to misuse their powers.

What can you find in most camping stores? The most modern sleeping bags and packable mattresses. Tents made of the latest materials. High tech water purifiers. Global Positioning System devices. The newest camp stoves. It's interesting how much technology it takes nowadays to get back to nature.

It's rather interesting how many “consumer advocates” want to prevent consumers from acquiring what they prefer to acquire at the prices they are willing to pay.

What a difference it would make if “community organizers” would organize people to clean up their neighborhoods, get educated, and get jobs instead of organizing them to demand tax-funded benefits.

Much has been said about the greed of banks and credit card companies. Yes they are greedy but let him who is without sin cast the first stone. What about the greed of people who bought things they didn't need with money they didn't have using loans they could not repay?

If common sense is so common, please explain why men have to wear dark wool suits in the summer and why women have to wear shoes apparently designed by the Marquis de Sade.

A businessman who sells something people want at a price they are willing to pay is regarded as selfish. Meanwhile a politician who takes people's money in taxes and spends it on something most don't want may be called a statesman. What's wrong here?

Extrapolating can lead to common human errors. Racism exists in our society, even racist cops. However that does not mean that every white cop who stops a black driver for speeding is racist.

Our society rewards heroes, people who rescue others. That is all well and good, but what do we do for the people who prevent problems so that rescue is not needed?