American football coaches are an uptight sort. They're paranoid, single-minded workaholics. Legendary Redskins' coach George Allen slept in his office. Rams' Super Bowl winning coach Dick Vermeil interviewed potential assistants at 1 am so they'd know what they were in for. And when Dom Capers was hired as the Carolina Panthers' first head coach, one of his selling points was that he worked 100 hour weeks (14-hour days, seven days a week if you're scoring at home).

These guys are so focused on their jobs that there is little, if anything, outside of the team compound that they have any interest in. Movies? Nah. Fishing? Maybe in the off season. It's all about their team and the team they're playing that week. Anything else is just a distraction. Anything else would be considered taking their eyes off the ball.

So perhaps you can see why I'm bemused at the news that Collingwood head coach Mick Malthouse will call 13 AFL games for radio station SEN this season. Personally, I've got no problem with it. Whatever works for Malthouse and SEN in a free market economy isn't for me to criticise.

What I do find intriguing is that any professional coach would have the time to work for a radio station during the season. As I type this, I'm trying to picture New England Patriots' control freak Bill Belichick sitting in a booth analysing the play-calling of the rival Miami Dolphins.

When I raised the issue with my friends and (Collingwood supporting) family members, few if any found the idea as bizarre as I did. In fact, most offered defences of the arrangement. They included:

1. "Why not? He's better than (fill in the name of commentator)." That very well may be. I like Malthouse and although he can be obtuse and long-winded, I do find him an interesting guy to listen to. And there are plenty of special comments guys on the radio, who frankly, are close to stealing a paycheck. But how honest and incisive can Malthouse truly be? An ex-player or an ex-coach can critique a player, a coach or a club in a way that a current player or coach cannot.

2. "He needs to look to life after footy, especially since Nathan Buckley's arrival." Malthouse will be just fine after footy. He doesn't need to audition to prove to the networks that he's good talent. He'll have plenty of offers. As for the Buckley scenario, the last time I checked, Malthouse is still being paid to coach Collingwood and he's well aware of Buckley's presence.

3. "He has to scout other teams anyway." This is probably the one I've heard the most, and while I understand the sentiment, I somehow don't think that sitting in a box with Matt Granland, Anthony Hudson and Dermott Brereton is the same as going to the ground with the Collingwood coaching staff and dissecting the game as it happens.

So can you draw the conclusion that Australian Rules Football is not the life or death matter that NFL football is? Or is this just an extension of Australia's "no worries, good on him" culture, where if nobody's getting hurt, why stress out about it?

It's probably a little of both. I've lived in Melbourne long enough to know that footy matters. A lot. But when you start talking dollars - and the word billion is used a hell of a lot more when you talk about the NFL - you can understand why these coaches take winning and losing so seriously.

Who's got it right? Hard to say. It strikes me as another one of those cultural differences. I like my pumpkin sweet, in a pie. My Aussie in-laws like it savoury as part of a roast.