2008 Bowman Chrome Football Forum

Three of the last four cards in this base set are of football coaches (Harbaugh, Sparano, and Smith). Both our site and COMC list these as Coach cards (obviously) and as rookie cards. Just wondering why this is so? I'm guessing it's their first issued cards, but to me I would think only players would receive a rookie card. Additionally, all three of them have flagship Bowman base card from the same year that are not listed as a rookie on here. So should it be listed as one? If yes, why should it be (more for my own curiousity)!

My two cents. They shouldn't be, they're coaches.

Same goes for Jim Leyland's 1987 Topps card too.

If it's their 1st mainstream card, then, yeah, rookie card is appropriate even if that is usually reserved for young players.  And both the Bowman and Bowman Chrome should be RC's.  My opinion anyway.

Interesting question, I would say no RC designation, this is reserved for players. What if the coach was a player does he get a RC for playing and an RC for coaching. Not likely but you see my point? I say keep it for the players on the feild, diamond, ice, pitch, etc.

I mean, I could see it both ways. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be, but a first card is a first card. Funny this comes up when someone asked the same question about the trainer on the RCotD! 

As a side note, the rookie cards in the set have the "RC" designation on them by Topps, while those coach cards do not have these.  For whatever that's worth.

I guess it depends if we are trying to reflect the hobby or redefine the hobby.

What's the TCDB's purpose?

(And yes, I'm leaving that purposely open-ended. Let's discuss.)

I don't feel very strongly about it, but I'm leaning against coaches getting a "rookie" designation. I echo the question of the earlier commenter: what if the coach was a player? Before I looked at the cards, when the initial poster said "Harbaugh," I thought Jim, rather than John. And I thought, "He surely has numerous cards from his years with the Bears, so how can this be a rookie card?" So, yes, the prospect of two "rookie" cards -- one for playing and one for coaching -- puts me in the no "rookie" designation for coaches and managers camp.

v3

IN General I say yes the RC designation for a COACH is sort of silly since many coaches (not all) were previously players and one would think that they had a card at one time. HOWEVER it does seem appropriate for these coaches who had NOT been players. If it is truely their first card ever then make it their "Rookie" card. Now if one of those guys had had a card in a non-sport set from whatever it was they did before landing the coaching gig then NO.

RC for these guys too: LINK ?

(Yes, I'm going to argue for both sides in this one to make us all think.)