Dave Potter wrote in another thread:
many orgs have a rule that you must be a dad to coach. I dunno if that's a security-thing or (like dumbing down the rules), they figure if all the coaches are equally as bad, then it's a more level playing field. I remember when I lived in South Carolina for a short time. I was looking for a coaching job and while the local youth org wouldn't allow me to coach a team, they did ask me to train their coaches.
I'd like to hear from others who've encountered such a rule directly. I've never seen it as a formal rule, but I have suspected such a rule exists informally in places, or at least that non-parents are suspect in some clubs.
Quite the opposite around here. In my hockey org, we had a policy to avoid dad coaches. It's not like dads were prevented from being HCs, but that dad really had to prove himself before getting a team.
In football, I don't think anyone is trying to avoid having dad coaches, but having coaches with no kids on the team is generally looked at as a good thing. When my son stopped playing and I continued coaching, I used to worry about what people thought about and adult who wanted to coach, but didn't have a kid on the team. I got over that after a season or two.
When in doot . . . glass and oot.
It was kinda funny, when my son aged out, and I told the league I wanted a new team, they were like, "do you have another son?" I said no...why would you want to do that?
Periodically, I will run into someone who thinks it's weird that I don't have a kid on the team...
None of them suck, they just haven't found what the kid is good at yet.