"...the managers talk about not being able to do the work themselves, that they have to let employees do it all."

Harline clearly points out that the coaches, Bronco in particular, work very hard to get these players ready to play. The coaches are the first to arrive and last to leave. The coaches are clearly not "managers" talking about not being able to do the work themselves. Now you can debate the quality of their work, but you can't say that they don't work and leave it to the "employees" to do it all.

Your analogy fails.

I think you miss my point, at least some of it. Maybe that's intentional, maybe not. By way of clarification....

My original point was that many managers use the same excuse that Harline makes for the coaching staff - that the coaches can only train and prepare these 18-24 year-olds, and its the players that have to perform on the field. Therefore, when players fail, or come up short, they are to blame, not the coaches. I have heard many managers assert the exact same logic when their teams fail. Most managers who aspire to be good also get to work early and leave late. They work very hard. I am not trying to equate Bronco and his staff with lazy managers. I am only saying that this excuse sounds a lot like the excuse many of them give when their teams fail.

I certainly read Harline's description of how hard Bronco and his staff work. That's a great emotional argument but it misses the point. It really doesn't matter how hard someone works. It's what the results are that matter. Now usually, almost always, hard work is required for success in any endeavor, especially coaching. I appreciate that Bronco works hard and tries to teach his players the same. However, there are many, many coaches (and managers) who work really, really hard on things that do not lead to success. When this occurs, they are accountable, or at least should be.

Again, I really don't care how hard a coach ( or manager for that matter) works if they get results. I am sure they work hard, I am sure they try to work as smart as they can. Bronco himself has asserted many times that he and his staff can work less and be more efficient with their time and still get the job done. You know, football is fifth and all that jazz.

Also, as a fan you are not comparable to an owner of a company. You could buy your allotment of season tickets and make hefty contributions, but your expectations as a fan would not even come close to relating to expectations of an owner of a company. As a fan you have no power to get rid of the "managers" of the company.

This was not my point. Imagining oneself as an owner would be like imagining yourself as Tom Holmoe, the one who makes decisions about Bronco's performance as a HC.

Now, if you are a shareholder and own stock in the company then you have every right to sell and walk away. You still can't get rid of the "managers" of the company. You can cut your losses and move on though. Maybe you ought to do that.

Or I could pull a Carl Icahn move and affect a hostile takeover by teaming up with other like-minded shareholders and buying up a controlling interest in the company shares. That happens when crappy managers nearly destroy a company that the shareholders still value and desire to save from leaders who are running a corporation off of a figurative cliff.

Don't be surprised when you see changes.