Essential Skills of a Head Coach and Where to Find Them

[Norm Peterson]

I did a thread about this (or maybe it was just a single post) a few years back. Not gonna be able to find it probably without spending a lot of time looking. But my basic conclusion was that a head coach's job responsibilities basically involve three areas:

 

1. Tactical proficiency. They have to have a scheme. They have to have a philosophy. They have to have some guiding principles for what they think successful basketball should look like. This is the Xs and Os aspect of things. On offense, whether it's set plays or motion, they have to have a well-developed sense of how things should look and work. Same with defense. Whether zone or primarily man, they need to have a sound philosophy about basically what each player should be doing in any given moment or situation.

2. Leadership. They have to be able to convey their philosophy to the players they have and get them to apply the scheme or philosphy, which involves both teaching those Xs and Os and motivating the players to a) buy-in; b) establish cohesion; and c) work toward accomplishing team goals. This would be the "coaching" aspect of things so that the Xs and Os spring to life on the floor as they are envisioned in the coach's philosophy. This is also that part that involves holding players accountable to your standards of what you want done, and I guess I would fit that under the aspect of "motivating." And finally ...

3. Recruiting. This involves not only convincing a kid to come play for you but, perhaps more importantly: a) identifying talent -- including finding hidden gems, the under-the-radar recruits who have suitable talent that others haven't noticed; b) understanding your needs in order to field a complete roster capable of implementing your philosophy; and c) recognizing which of all the talented players you consider recruiting are the players who fit not only your system but your current needs within that system, AND also who have the intangibles that help you succeed, like good attitude, determination, heart, etc.

 

I remember reading up on Dana Altman when he took over at Creighton. I knew he'd been an assistant at K-State under Lon Kruger, and then subsequently got the head gig at KSU when Kruger went to I think Illinois? But, before any of that, he had taken a juco team that was very bad and turned them around to a national title contender in just one season. Like from 5 wins the year before to 25 wins his first season. And then he turned around Creighton. Now, he's having success at Oregon. Whatever "it" is, he seems to have it.

 

Several years ago, I was at NFM in Omaha in the TV section and stopped to watch a basketball game where Arkansas State was putting a hurting on Georgetown AT Georgetown. Needless to say, I got home and had to dig into who the Arkansas State coach was. It was Grant McCasland. It was his first and only season at Arkansas State and they went 20-12 that year. The year before McCasland arrived, Arkansas State went 11-20. So, like, MAJOR first season turnaround. And then he went to North Texas the following year and had similar success at North Texas.

 

And, since then, I've been watching the guy. And I'm no AD and I'm no basketball expert and I've never had to hire a basketball coach, but this McCasland dude was on a trajectory. And had we made a coaching change after that 10-win season 2 years ago, which would have been entirely justified at the time, we maybe could have had him. At least made a run at him. But now he's at Texas Tech and he's off the menu.

 

But my point is there are guys out there with that "IT" factor, whatever "IT" is. They have a scheme that works, they're able to impart that scheme to their players, and they're able to find guys who have talent and will buy in and convince them to come play for them.

 

Some people say the next time we go to hire a new coach, we either should or should not go after the next big mid-major flavor-of-the-day coach. Sometimes, though, that guy is just enjoying success off of someone else's shirt tails. Like Doc Sadler following Billy Gillespie at UTEP. Doc had success at UTEP but he didn't build it. He just took the reins from someone else who did. So instead, maybe look for the guy who took over a program that was shitty and turned it around in a year or two. And then went somewhere else and did it again. Like Dana Altman. Or Grant McCasland.

 

Those are the guys who have "IT." And it's the "IT" guys we should probably be looking for.

[basketballjones]

I have some disagreements with you and I hope you take them all 100% personally.

I think the order, or maybe emphasis (?), is a bit off. Personally I believe #2 and #3 are the most important and it's hard to rank one of them higher than the other. The most important part of being a successful athletics program is having talent. There's really no replacement or substitute for it. Obviously, the question becomes about having the "right talent" that fits #2 and fits the culture/context of your program and your conference. 

 

But as much as it pains me to say this, as it is my favorite aspect of basketball and coaching, but the tangible tactical/x's and o's/philosophy stuff is far and away the least important part. Obviously, you have to know this stuff and be competent in these tactical areas - and hire assistants who are nerds about it too - but it can't be your "thing." Or else you end up with Scott Frost, and what I worry we're seeing, Fred Hoiberg. Coach Hoiberg seems to have made a lot of changes to focus more on culture and intangibles, and bring in assistants who fill in the gaps. But, at the end of the day, I believe Coach is primarily a tactical guy who thinks that X's and O's and execution are the solution. 

 

So to re-order your list to fit my thoughts... I would have it more like this:

1. Recruiting/Talent Identification and Development/Leadership/Cohesiveness/Program Vision

I just don't think you can separate or remove any of those things, or put one ahead of the other. They're all on the same plane in my opinion.

2. Program Intangible Consistency

More important than the X's and O's are non-negotiable things like Toughness, Communication, Accountability, Passion, Energy, Competitiveness, etc... Those intangible things that have to remain the same whether you're running zone, match-up, motion, continuity, it doesn't matter. Rarely is there a great coach out there who gets mentioned, and then the next thing mentioned is their tactical stuff. It's all about leadership and intangibles. 

-

-

-

3. X's and O's, Schemes, etc...

The only thing I believe that has to happen here is that they have one, are willing to adapt and change, can coach what they believe in, and can find the guys who fit what they are trying to do (or change when they don't have that). But it can't be their main focus, and it can't be their major appeal. 

 

Honestly - Tim Miles should have been the guy. I think he actually fits, in theory, what all of us want in a head coach here. 

- Won at multiple levels and it was his programs (not like the Doc/Gillespie thing).

- Had a unique and engaging personality that seemed to fit NU/Midwest.

- When he was hired there wasn't any, or very little anyways, talk about him being an offensive mind or a defensive guru. You just knew he won and knew how to build a program, and identify talent to fit what he wanted to do. 

I have my theories on why I believe Miles didn't succeed here and I have shared them to much disagreement from people who (seemed to at least) have a semi-personal/personal relationship with Coach Miles, so I don't want to get into that again. But personally I believe we're probably looking for another Coach Miles type. Won at every level. Gets the area and is engaging. His teams have intangible blood lines that run throughout every program he's lead or been a part of. Has an X's and O's system he knows how to coach. 

[Norm Peterson]

Totally offended.

 

Actually, I wasn't ranking them by priority but more by, like, chronology. In other words, you can have a philosophy about basketball and be unemployed. Like Tim Miles before he got the job at San Jose. But you probably already have the philosophy before you get the job.

 

Then, once you get hired, you get handed a roster traditionally before you have a chance to recruit to your style of play. And, at that point, you have to impart what you think about basketball to the roster you've been handed. Which Matt Ruhle did better at than Scott Frost.

 

Or you could take the Hoiberg approach and bring in your D-list talent for your first season to replace the D-list talent that had remaining eligibility when the prior guy left. In which case, recruiting is maybe the 2nd thing that happens rather than the third.

 

But ranking those coaching attributes or responsibilities in importance, to me, is kind of like ranking the greatest classical composers of all time. You have Beethoven, Bach and Mozart. That's it. Each one is a musical titan. And you can make a case for any of the three of them to be 1st, 2nd or 3rd. But they're all in that discussion (and nobody else really is.)

 

And so it is with having a scheme, finding the dudes, and then coaching them up. Each one of those things is really important.

 

BUT you are probably right that when it comes down to your final W/L record, recruiting has the most impact. Because everyone else is also going to have a scheme and some ability to coach 'em up. The biggest variation in any category across the coaching ranks at this level is probably going to be the recruiting.

[Norm Peterson]

@basketballjones as to your Tim Miles comments, I would tend to agree. I remember someone telling me that when Osborne was interviewing potential candidates for the job, Miles was the clear and obvious choice. That, when asked what his plan would be to elevate the program to respectability, he was actually able to articulate in detail the plan that he would implement to bring success to this program.

 

People can argue if they wish, but I will always believe that Eichorst screwed Miles and our program by cutting his recruiting off at the knees when he refused to extend his contract the customary 4 years. At that point, I think you're jumping over dollars to save nickels. And it will never cease to amaze me how the tightwads in the fanbase acted like it was THEIR money we were saving by not extending Miles' deal.

[49r]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

@basketballjones as to your Tim Miles comments, I would tend to agree. I remember someone telling me that when Osborne was interviewing potential candidates for the job, Miles was the clear and obvious choice. That, when asked what his plan would be to elevate the program to respectability, he was actually able to articulate in detail the plan that he would implement to bring success to this program.

 

People can argue if they wish, but I will always believe that Eichorst screwed Miles and our program by cutting his recruiting off at the knees when he refused to extend his contract the customary 4 years. At that point, I think you're jumping over dollars to save nickels. And it will never cease to amaze me how the tightwads in the fanbase acted like it was THEIR money we were saving by not extending Miles' deal.

 

I do want to interject here.  But reports had it that Osborne had reached out to Gregg Marshall (turned us down, and we probably bullet dodged there) and Tad Boyle (also turned us down, and honestly probably wouldn't have fared any better in the Big Ten than Miles anyway) before reaching out to Miles, who to me always seemed like the one we were going to go after (and probably get) anyway.  Can't blame him for reaching out to those other guys though.

[Art Vandalay]

16 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

I do want to interject here.  But reports had it that Osborne had reached out to Gregg Marshall (turned us down, and we probably bullet dodged there) and Tad Boyle (also turned us down, and honestly probably wouldn't have fared any better in the Big Ten than Miles anyway) before reaching out to Miles, who to me always seemed like the one we were going to go after (and probably get) anyway.  Can't blame him for reaching out to those other guys though.

Don’t know about Boyle but I heard TO was not a fan of Marshall after talking to him. No offer there

[cozrulz]

fundraising for talent

[tcp]

something something jimmies and joes. 

 

or, to paraphrase another annoying colloquialism, you are what you recruit. 

[Cazzie22]

Danny Née brought in talent.  That’s why he was successful. When the talent declined the wins withered.  I don’t care how well you Coach em up, you have to have the horses to win.  Case in point, NU football.  How do you get the great players to NU?  How do you out recruit Creighton for the best in state players?  

Edited December 8, 2023 by Cazzie22
Correction

[basketballjones]

15 hours ago, Cazzie22 said:

Danny Née brought in talent.  That’s why he was successful. When the talent declined the wins withered.  I don’t care how well you Coach em up, you have to have the horses to win.  Case in point, NU football.  How do you get the great players to NU?  How do you out recruit Creighton for the best in state players?  

I think we way over think recruiting here for NU bball. I have an entire philosophy on this, but I'm afraid if I type it entirely out I'll be giving off less Kirby Smart vibes and more Ted Kaczynski vibes. 

[TourneyBound]

I think Miles would of succeeded had he been able to keep kenya Hunter.  Losing him was huge and he just wasn't able to get the recruits he needed after he left.

[cozrulz]

15 hours ago, Cazzie22 said:

Danny Née brought in talent.  That’s why he was successful. When the talent declined the wins withered.  I don’t care how well you Coach em up, you have to have the horses to win.  Case in point, NU football.  How do you get the great players to NU?  How do you out recruit Creighton for the best in state players?  

 

Creighton is more than willing to pay.

[Cazzie22]

4 hours ago, cozrulz said:

 

Creighton is more than willing to pay.

So NU needs to prove, from the “big” boosters, that we care about basketball.

[OmahaHusker]

5 hours ago, cozrulz said:

 

Creighton is more than willing to pay.

 

For football, I think big boosters are willing to try and buy back a good program with a ton of cash in order to make them relevant again, not only for the returns it would create when it happens, but for the nostalgia factor as well. For basketball, I think our big boosters are a lot more wait-and-see or rather just apathetic atm. Not as willing to try and "buy" a good basketball program on top of football too. Getting Nebraska football back will take a lot of cash, and we already missed on QB1 year 1. 

 

The Creighton situation is simply different. It's basketball only with resources focused solely on that and a program on firm ground. Boosters are willing to foot the bill for a program when they know it's practically certain the product coming in each year will yield results/returns.

 

[HuskerFever]

In today's world? NIL. And it's going not sour a lot of college coaches in due time.

[Norm Peterson]

So, I see my down-arrow friend has returned.

[Nighthawk]

11 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, I see my down-arrow friend has returned.

Lol I was wondering about that.  

[tcp]

On 12/8/2023 at 9:52 AM, basketballjones said:

more Ted Kaczynski vibes. 

 

The original "Coach K".....did amazing things when he had explosive talent. 

[basketballjones]

50 minutes ago, tcp said:

 

The original "Coach K".....did amazing things when he had explosive talent. 

That’s a great joke and you deserve attention for it. 

[Norm Peterson]

12 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

That’s a great joke and you deserve attention for it. 

 

We're very easily entertained around here.

[Roast Beef]

On 12/8/2023 at 9:52 AM, basketballjones said:

I think we way over think recruiting here for NU bball. I have an entire philosophy on this, but I'm afraid if I type it entirely out I'll be giving off less Kirby Smart vibes and more Ted Kaczynski vibes. 

I would read your manifesto on this.

[Dead Dog Alley]

On 12/8/2023 at 9:52 AM, basketballjones said:

I think we way over think recruiting here for NU bball. I have an entire philosophy on this, but I'm afraid if I type it entirely out I'll be giving off less Kirby Smart vibes and more Ted Kaczynski vibes. 

 

I have no idea what Ted Kaczynski's philosophy on recruiting was; but since he was a Michigan graduate, I'd assume it would involve cheating.

 

Which would make it very similar to Kirby Smart's philosophy.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Dead Dog Alley