Following are some of the key factors
that Ted Leland and the hiring committee might consider in the
hiring process.
1. Recruiting ability.
Stanford presents a set of challenges in recruiting that is
unique among D-1 schools. Not only does Stanford require
its recruited student-athletes to complete full-fledged
applications that are identical to those for the general
applicant pool, but all applications of student athletes are
reviewed by the admissions department. University
administrators have taken the position that Stanford's admissions
standards for recruited athletes are and should be higher than
even those of Ivy League members Harvard, Yale and
Princeton. Given these policies, the pool of high schoolers
from which Stanford can recruit is unlikely to expand any time
soon. Therefore, it is imperative that the new head coach
be an outstanding recruiter who has the patience and savvy to
work effectively with the admissions department. Moreover,
in order to attract interest from elite basketball recruits, it
would be tremendously helpful if the new head man were to have a
national reputation as either an established, known quantity with
a great track record of success or a hot, up and coming coaching
talent. Regardless, as long as recruits and their families
see our head coach as a real draw, for whatever reason, it will
be a huge plus. Any coach who is a relative unknown runs
the risk of being unable to command the requisite interest from
top high school players. Unlike some elite programs with
lengthy traditions of success, television exposure, a large fan
base and a track record of placing players in the NBA, Stanford
is a relative neophyte among the nation's elite programs, and its
success is very much associated with its former head coach, Mike Montgomery. His successor will certainly have a tremendous
advantage relative to Montgomery's situation when he fist came to
Stanford insofar as Stanford is now squarely "on the
map," Stanford basketball is not quite in a position where
the program sells itself.
Within basketball circles, including
among coaches and athletic directors, it is generally known who
is and is not a good recruiter. In the hiring process, it
is imperative that Ted Leland, a true believer in the importance
of recruiting, articulate to the hiring committee the importance
of recruiting and each candidate's ability in that arena. I
believe there is a real risk that recruiting ability otherwise
will not be accorded enough weight in the hiring decision.
I would sound this cautionary note for
those who believe that recruiting is overrated and that pure
"coaching" skills can make up for a lack of recruiting
ability -- even Mike Montgomery, one of the great teachers and
tacticians the college game has seen, was unable to achieve
significant or sustained success until, nearly a decade into his
Stanford tenure, he caught a lucky break in the form of Brevin Knight. Because Knight was overlooked by all of the
basketball powers of the early nineties, his best offers were
from Stanford and Manhattan College. Had Montgomery not
caught a break by landing Knight, which initiated a process of
snowballing success on the court and consequently in recruiting,
there's a real chance that Stanford may never have risen to
national prominence, despite Montgomery's genius, or that it
would have at least taken considerably longer than it did.
2. Teaching skills.
Let's be honest, no matter how good a recruiter and technician
our next head coach is, he'll almost certainly face a talent
deficit relative to other elite programs such as Duke, Kansas,
North Carolina, Arizona and probably UCLA. During the
Montgomery era, Stanford often had one of the three or four most
talented and experienced rosters in the league, and the talent
level was often underrated. Nevertheless, it's fair to say
that during the remarkable run of ten straight twenty win seasons
and NCAA tournament bids, the Cardinal consistently outperformed
relative to the talent level of its players. With the
possible exception of the 2001-02 season, the whole was always
greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, players
consistently improved over the course of their Stanford careers
thanks in no small part to the teaching abilities of Montgomery
and his staff. Whoever succeeds Montgomery will need to
continue this tradition. Fortunately, he will have an
incredible resource to rely on in assistant Eric Reveno, unless
Rev himself is elevated to the head position. As Arizona,
UCLA and even Oregon stockpile talent, it is likely that unless
Stanford's new head coach is a good to great teacher, Stanford
will be hard pressed to remain in the top 2-3 teams in the
conference going forward.
3. Technical skills.
To appreciate the importance of understanding the technical
nuances of the game - the X's and O's - one need look no further
than Stanford's putative rival across the bay. Todd Bozeman
and Ben Braun, two coaches whose appreciation of the finer points
of offense is lacking, have saddled the Bears with a decade of
average to poor offenses that have capped the success of the
Dirty Golden ones. This is in spite of good if not
excellent defensive schemes and execution under Braun. A
good technical understanding of the game is important for any
head coaching job, but much more so in the case of a program that
doesn't have the ability to overwhelm opponents with talent
alone. There isn't any particular style of play or
philosophy necessary to succeed at Stanford, and the next head
coach can be successful with a structured system or one that
relies on loose principles, one that is up-tempo or emphasizes
halfcourt play. But given the realities of the recruiting
pool for Stanford, it is imperative that the next head coach have
a good technical knowledge of the game.
4. Experience at Stanford.
For all of the talk from Leland and from some fans about the
importance of coaching experience at a small private university,
there is no substitute for experience at Stanford. A select
few colleges and universities have admissions processes that do
not allow coaches to offer a scholarship to just any player who
meets the NCAA minimum standards for eligibility and who is not a
miscreant. But there is no D-1 university that has an
admissions process and standards like Stanford's. There is
no University that requires everyone in the athletic department
from the athletic director down to the assistant coaches to
understand and respect the unique and bizarre politics of The
Farm. The risk of culture shock for any coach who has not
been a part of the Stanford family is real. Another
consideration is the nature and extent of each candidates
personal ties to Stanford. Because Stanford is not going to
pay a market salary, the committee must consider the odds that a
given candidate without ties to Stanford may bolt for a higher
paying college job or for the NBA. A related consideration,
though one of relatively minor importance, would be ties to the
Bay Area.
In addition to the specific criteria
above, which I think are particularly important for the Stanford
head coaching job, there are the usual intangibles to
consider. These things are equally important for just about
any college job, and include leadership ability, motivational
skills, managerial skills and media and alumni relations
skills.
In the end, these are just some of the
things that in my opinion ought to be considered in evaluating
the candidates for Stanford's head coaching position. I
would not suggest that these are requirements by any stretch, and
a coach who has weaknesses in some areas may be able to make up
for it with his strengths in other areas. There's no rote
formula for success at Stanford or any other school, and for the
most part, a good college coach is a good college coach,
regardless of the particular setting. On the other hand,
for reasons I described above, Stanford is different from most
schools in certain key respects. If the person chosen for
the job measures well against the criteria I've laid out here, he
will likely be very successful at Stanford.
Are you fully subscribed to The
Bootleg? If not, then you are missing out on all
the top Cardinal coverage we provide daily on our website, as
well as our full-length feature articles in our glossy magazine.
Sign up today for the biggest and best in Stanford sports
coverage with TheBootleg.com
(sign-up)
and The Bootleg Magazine (sign-up)!