Summer team coach hiring process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get why this topic comes up every year—it can look messy from the outside. But I do think it’s worth being careful about assuming intent or favoritism without seeing the full picture.

In many cases (mine included), parents don’t get involved to get their kids hired—they get involved because their kids are already deeply invested in the team. Those kids often grow up volunteering, helping at practices, assisting younger swimmers, and building relationships with coaches over several years. By the time they apply for a coaching role, they may genuinely be some of the strongest candidates—not because of who their parents are, but because of their experience, commitment, and familiarity with the program.

It’s also important to recognize that a lot of the hiring process happens behind the scenes. Unless you’ve stepped into those roles, you may not realize how many safeguards are already in place to keep things fair. Many teams use structured scoring systems or rubrics—evaluating things like leadership, reliability, communication, and interaction with younger swimmers—and once candidates are scored, decisions are often made in a way that’s effectively blind to who their parents are. Add in conflict-of-interest practices (like people stepping out of decisions involving their own kids), and there’s usually more intentionality than it might appear from the outside.

On the swimming piece—yes, by the time someone is a teen applying to coach, they should be legal in all four strokes. They don’t need to be fast, but being able to swim all four is a pretty basic expectation and usually reflects a level of engagement with the sport. That said, coaching ability is about much more than speed—some of the best teen coaches are the ones who connect with kids, bring energy, and show up consistently.

I’ll also add—having been on the other side of this—it can be tough when your child does earn a role and people assume it was handed to them. Sometimes the “favored” kid is actually just the one who’s been putting in the work for years.

Totally fair to want a fair and transparent process. But I’d focus less on who someone’s parent is and more on whether the team has a thoughtful, consistent approach to evaluating and selecting coaches.

Its also possible that your bias in favor of your own child colors your viewpoint on this.

That’s a fair point—and I don’t think anyone would claim these systems are completely free of bias. In a fully volunteer-run activity, that’s just the reality. The people stepping into these roles are usually parents whose kids have been in the program for years and are now at or near coaching age.

That said, I'll push back on the assumption of motive. These roles are a ton of work—far more than most people realize—and in my experience, the people stepping up to do them are doing it for the good of the team as a whole, not just to benefit their own child. Could bias creep in? Sure. But the default assumption shouldn’t be that’s why they’re doing it.

There’s no perfect system here—but there is a lot of effort behind the scenes to make it as fair and balanced as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get why this topic comes up every year—it can look messy from the outside. But I do think it’s worth being careful about assuming intent or favoritism without seeing the full picture.

In many cases (mine included), parents don’t get involved to get their kids hired—they get involved because their kids are already deeply invested in the team. Those kids often grow up volunteering, helping at practices, assisting younger swimmers, and building relationships with coaches over several years. By the time they apply for a coaching role, they may genuinely be some of the strongest candidates—not because of who their parents are, but because of their experience, commitment, and familiarity with the program.

It’s also important to recognize that a lot of the hiring process happens behind the scenes. Unless you’ve stepped into those roles, you may not realize how many safeguards are already in place to keep things fair. Many teams use structured scoring systems or rubrics—evaluating things like leadership, reliability, communication, and interaction with younger swimmers—and once candidates are scored, decisions are often made in a way that’s effectively blind to who their parents are. Add in conflict-of-interest practices (like people stepping out of decisions involving their own kids), and there’s usually more intentionality than it might appear from the outside.

On the swimming piece—yes, by the time someone is a teen applying to coach, they should be legal in all four strokes. They don’t need to be fast, but being able to swim all four is a pretty basic expectation and usually reflects a level of engagement with the sport. That said, coaching ability is about much more than speed—some of the best teen coaches are the ones who connect with kids, bring energy, and show up consistently.

I’ll also add—having been on the other side of this—it can be tough when your child does earn a role and people assume it was handed to them. Sometimes the “favored” kid is actually just the one who’s been putting in the work for years.

Totally fair to want a fair and transparent process. But I’d focus less on who someone’s parent is and more on whether the team has a thoughtful, consistent approach to evaluating and selecting coaches.

Its also possible that your bias in favor of your own child colors your viewpoint on this.

That’s a fair point—and I don’t think anyone would claim these systems are completely free of bias. In a fully volunteer-run activity, that’s just the reality. The people stepping into these roles are usually parents whose kids have been in the program for years and are now at or near coaching age.

That said, I'll push back on the assumption of motive. These roles are a ton of work—far more than most people realize—and in my experience, the people stepping up to do them are doing it for the good of the team as a whole, not just to benefit their own child. Could bias creep in? Sure. But the default assumption shouldn’t be that’s why they’re doing it.

There’s no perfect system here—but there is a lot of effort behind the scenes to make it as fair and balanced as possible.

I think jeff should ban replies written with CHAT GPT. Reply as yourself, or don't post.

[Anonymous]

Does it matter who does the writing if the thoughts are mine? I have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to string thoughts cohesively together. Chat GPT is a godsend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter who does the writing if the thoughts are mine? I have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to string thoughts cohesively together. Chat GPT is a godsend.

And yet, you managed for 40+ years just fine without AI re-writes.

[Anonymous]

If you knew me - you'd know that wasn't the case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter who does the writing if the thoughts are mine? I have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to string thoughts cohesively together. Chat GPT is a godsend.

And yet, you managed for 40+ years just fine without AI re-writes.

DP. You're right. Leveraging technology advancements to assist those with disabilities is silly. People got along fine without motorized wheelchairs, glucose monitors, prosthetics, etc.

Regardless of who or what wrote that statement, I completely agree with it. As a former team rep, my experience is that most people massively underestimate the time commitment of certain volunteer roles and that in general, there is a lack of benefit of the doubt across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's competitive at our team. But we have had the same summer coach for a decade so they know almost all the kids coming up who apply. The coach makes the decisions. It's his employees and his team.

Not NVSL, NVSL is a swim team rep league, it is in the rule book. Where the team rep hires the head coach, now your rep might delegate hiring authority to the head coach or on some teams the coach is given one pot of money to cover all salaries (including their own) so they can have hiring authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

This. Your kids only get them if there are openings even if your kid is the better swimmer. We had no club kids whose parents ran the pool as coaches. One could barely do a 25 and not legal in all strokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

This. Your kids only get them if there are openings even if your kid is the better swimmer. We had no club kids whose parents ran the pool as coaches. One could barely do a 25 and not legal in all strokes.

Being faster doesn’t make you a better coach. I say this as someone that has a very fast swimmer and I can acknowledge that there are slower swimmers that are better coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

This. Your kids only get them if there are openings even if your kid is the better swimmer. We had no club kids whose parents ran the pool as coaches. One could barely do a 25 and not legal in all strokes.

Being faster doesn’t make you a better coach. I say this as someone that has a very fast swimmer and I can acknowledge that there are slower swimmers that are better coaches.

I agree, the best coaches are the ones who are fun, social, love being there and will actually show up on time. Can we acknowledge that this is summer rec swim and none of these kids are good coaches? They have no experience. They have no training. This is like when parents tell me that their 16 year old is a “good driver”. Sixteen year olds have not had enough experience to be good drivers.

My 14 year old will teach swim lessons and help coach the 8u summer swim team at our local rec center. He is very dedicated to his sport and has had a lot of success in the pool, but the only reason he might be a good coach is because he is playful, enjoys kids, and will show up on time.

[Anonymous]

The best hiring process I have heard of is at a pool where they make a hiring committee out of the following roles:
Team reps
Head referee
Pool board treasurer
Data Coordinator

The reason that I like this structure is that it doesn’t put all the power into just the team reps (which is especially problematic if they are married, which at some pools they are and many others they aren’t). It also doesn’t allow the team reps to hand select a “committee” who will vote however they want. It allows 5 individuals who all commit a lot of volunteer hours to work together to make decisions.

In my opinion these hiring decisions should apply for hiring and re-hiring the head and assistant coaches as well as the junior coaches.

The process should also be transparent.

That said, children of the people who volunteer the most should absolutely be allowed to be hired if they are qualified!

Also as an aside, while being able to swim fast shouldn’t be a criteria for hiring, I do think understanding how to technically improve people’s swimming should be. We aren’t actually hiring babysitters but swim coaches.

I’ve seen many junior coaches who have no clue how to coach swimming actually make swimming harder for the kids they are “coaching”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best hiring process I have heard of is at a pool where they make a hiring committee out of the following roles:
Team reps
Head referee
Pool board treasurer
Data Coordinator

The reason that I like this structure is that it doesn’t put all the power into just the team reps (which is especially problematic if they are married, which at some pools they are and many others they aren’t). It also doesn’t allow the team reps to hand select a “committee” who will vote however they want. It allows 5 individuals who all commit a lot of volunteer hours to work together to make decisions.

In my opinion these hiring decisions should apply for hiring and re-hiring the head and assistant coaches as well as the junior coaches.

The process should also be transparent.

That said, children of the people who volunteer the most should absolutely be allowed to be hired if they are qualified!

Also as an aside, while being able to swim fast shouldn’t be a criteria for hiring, I do think understanding how to technically improve people’s swimming should be. We aren’t actually hiring babysitters but swim coaches.

I’ve seen many junior coaches who have no clue how to coach swimming actually make swimming harder for the kids they are “coaching”.

Excellent points and ideas! I love the hiring committee, and preventing a “hand selected committee” who will vote however the team rep/president want.

[Anonymous]

At our pool, any teen who is old enough to coach and applies will get some hours. Where we have trouble is when parents who are never at the pool outside of meets complain that their teen is not getting the same number of hours as another teen. Often parents assume that because their child is fast or has been a member of the pool for longer than another teen that they are "owed" more hours. Some of our best coaches are actually "slower" swimmers who still know good technique, are reliable, deeply involved, and good with younger team members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

Do you swim on our team? 😂 This is exactly how it works on our team. 12 years on the team and the teen coaches are almost always the reps’ kids & their friends. Sometimes it works out amazingly well - we’ve truly had some standout teen coaches over the years. But sometimes we get coaches who don’t really show up for the team and they laugh when adults ask them to help because they know there will be no consequences. Our assistant coach was hired because their mom is the team rep, not because they are a good/experienced coach. My teen has no plans to even apply this summer because she knows she won’t have a chance even though she’s a year round club swimmer - too many nepo hires ahead of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best hiring process I have heard of is at a pool where they make a hiring committee out of the following roles:
Team reps
Head referee
Pool board treasurer
Data Coordinator

The reason that I like this structure is that it doesn’t put all the power into just the team reps (which is especially problematic if they are married, which at some pools they are and many others they aren’t). It also doesn’t allow the team reps to hand select a “committee” who will vote however they want. It allows 5 individuals who all commit a lot of volunteer hours to work together to make decisions.

In my opinion these hiring decisions should apply for hiring and re-hiring the head and assistant coaches as well as the junior coaches.

The process should also be transparent.

That said, children of the people who volunteer the most should absolutely be allowed to be hired if they are qualified!

Also as an aside, while being able to swim fast shouldn’t be a criteria for hiring, I do think understanding how to technically improve people’s swimming should be. We aren’t actually hiring babysitters but swim coaches.

I’ve seen many junior coaches who have no clue how to coach swimming actually make swimming harder for the kids they are “coaching”.

We have this too, but the confirmation hearings for the committee nominees have gotten ugly at times.