Why is hiring assistants "accepted" for high-major football, but not basketball?

[michigancat]

The Martin hire got me looking around, and I was shocked at how few coaches at BCS schools hadn't been head coaches before taking their current job.  The ones of the top of my head I could come up with are Jay John at Oregon St., Sean Sutton, Tom Izzo, Tony Bennett at Washington State (lord, how could forget to use him in Martin's defense), and Fred Hill at Rutgers.  (There may be more, not sure).

This year, there were 9 BCS coaching changes, and Martin was the only hire w/o D1 head coaching experience.

When you compare that to BCS football, there's more than in the Big XII alone - Mike Leach, Ron Prince, Gene Chizik, Bob Stoops, Mike Gundy, and Mark Mangino.

What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?

[Saulbadguy]

Because there are 330+ Division 1 Bball teams.  Only 120 football teams.

[michigancat]

Because there are 330+ Division 1 Bball teams.  Only 120 football teams.

While that's a major factor, you'll never see a head coach from the a conference like the MEAC, Big South, or Atlantic Sun conference make the leap straight to high major.

It wouldn't be a stretch to see an elite football coach in the Sun Belt or MAC to jump to a BCS school, though.

[ksu_FAN]

I think its partially the nature of the sports and partially the numbers.  When you look at basketball vs football as well, on any basketball staff there is potentially maybe 1 HC candidate, while on most football staffs there are 2 (both coordinators).  That still leaves more candidates in BB than FB overall, so the numbers favor hiring assistants.  Plus, in FB more often than not, the coordinators have a lot of responsibility for gameplans etc, and in basketball some HCs run everything and others give their lead assistant like Huggs did with Martin and even Wooly did with Miller.  It just depends on the program.

Sean Sutton has never been a HC either, and spent all 13 of his coaching years under his dad at OSU.

[michigancat]

Plus, in FB more often than not, the coordinators have a lot of responsibility for gameplans etc, and in basketball some HCs run everything and others give their lead assistant like Huggs did with Martin and even Wooly did with Miller. 

At the same time, you would think basketball assistant's jobs are less specific than a coordinator's.  I realize you have some guys work only with big men or guards, but they have to understand team defense and team offense inside and out.

[ksu_FAN]

True, but in football you can hire a coordinator for the side of the ball you aren't as familiar with.  In FB the head coach has to deligate, there is no way he can do it all, especially at the BCS level.  In BB the HC still has to delegate, but not on near the level as FB. 

[pissclams]

What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?

Nothing.  You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.  Think about it, had he spent 10 years as head coach at UCLA he would have had too much experience with Pac 10 ball and wouldn't be able to understand Big XII defenses. 

None of it really matters.

[michigancat]

What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?

Nothing.  You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.

Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.

[pissclams]

You've answered the question a million times already.

[WildCatzPhreak]

What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?

Nothing.  You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.

Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.

One must wonder why you spend so much time over there, if it's not to emberass them/troll.  Not much entertainment comes out of there this time of year, other than the often overly optimistic prediction threads(which k-state fans keep ruining )

[michigancat]

You've answered the question a million times already.

Not really...I'm not talking about promotion from within, I'm just wondering why guys like Joe Holladay don't get more consideration for BCS jobs.

What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?

Nothing.  You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.

Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.

One must wonder why you spend so much time over there, if it's not to emberass them/troll.  Not much entertainment comes out of there this time of year, other than the often overly optimistic prediction threads(which k-state fans keep ruining )

I like to pass time at work.

[cireksu]

Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching. 

Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.

[WildCatzPhreak]

Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching. 

Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.

I agree with that.

Seriously.  What do you think was Snyder's downfall?  Did he suddenly forget how to coach?

And how many awesome assistants has he produced that later ended up getting BCS head coaching jobs?  Stoops, Stoops, Beleima, Mangino, Leavitt, etc etc etc.

The assistants coaches on a football team make or break it.  The assistant coaches on a basketball team do help, but the head coaches do a lot more.  A good head coach and mediocre/bad assistants on the basketball team can still produce a good basketball team.(Which is also why basketball coaches can hire recruits parents and get away with it, because they're not really important.)  It takes both a good head coach and good assistants to produce a good football team. 


Basically, it's a lot easier for a head coach to manage a basketball team(small!) than a football team(huge!)

[ksu_FAN]

Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching. 

Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.

As was said, its a management/delegation issue.  FB requires a coach to delegate b/c he can't control everything.  Your talking about managing 100 players, 9 full-time coaches, 2 GA coaches, and many other people.  In basketball its 15 players, 3 full-time coaches, DOB, and a few other people.  You can't be nearly as hands on as a FB coach.  Plus in FB you are talking about 8-10 (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, DB) specialized positions to coach versus 2-3 (guards, posts, wings) in hoops.

[chum1]

All AD's read the same "How to be an AD" books.

[pissclams]

Maybe the answer is as simple.  Could it be because it generally takes longer to become a top assistant within a football program than it does within a basketball program?  Sure there's the Venables of the world, but more often that not you've got grinders sitting in the OC/DC positions who are in line for the next open spot.  Basketball seems to be a younger mans coaching world.

I don't buy the managment/delegation issue.  Bill Snyder was as hands on as they come; when your head coach is checking the margarine/butter dishes you may have a problem on your hands.

[WildCatzPhreak]

Bill Snyder was probably as hands on as possible, but he still couldn't manage the entire football team himself.  A basketball coach on the other hand could manage the entire basketball team themselves.

I'm not sure how else you can explain Snyder going from a 10 win coach to a 4-5 win coach.  The talent level stayed pretty much the same.  (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.)  Maybe a slight drop off.

I think the only other explanation is that JUCOs are now a widely tapped resource, and juco recruiting has much stricter rules than it did back in the day.

I still put most of the blame on the assistant coaches.  If you look and see how succesful some of his past assistants have gone on to be at other BCS schools, and the correlation between the "we're awesome!" and "we suck!" with their timeline here, you have to give them their credit for being good at developing players and scheming, and put blame on the failure assistants for when we sucked.

[pufizzle]

The talent level stayed pretty much the same.  (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.) 

 

[chum1]

I honestly kind of wonder if we've accidently started a trend of hiring a head coach in order to land a top recruit.  The trend of hiring assistants for this purpose is getting huge.  Hiring a head coach is the next logical step a program could take in order to gain an advantage - especially if their program needs a little kick-start.

[ksu_FAN]

To add to phreak's post, the Big 12 North probably had the worst 2 years of its history as well in those 2 years. 

[WildCatzPhreak]

The talent level stayed pretty much the same.  (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.) 

 

It's true.

KSU never got many/any of the blue chip guys.  Very rarely did we ever get a top 100 recruit.  We would recruit mediocre talent that the big time programs passed on, and develop them.

You can argue "Yeah, but we haven't had any Michael Bishops, Terrence Newmans, or Mark Simeneau's on the teams lately."  True.  But for every underrated guy that has turned out to be completely awesome for us like those three, we've had a guy come on that's supposedly completely awesome that flakes out.  Matt Boss anyone?  Supposedly full of talent, but never really contributed.  This has happened with a lot of the 'top level' recruits that come to K-state.

Basically I'm saying Snyder's 'talent' was developed, and not recruited, for 95% of his teams.

If you think the reason we were so good was recruiting, you're mistaken.

[ksu_FAN]

Great points Freak.  This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing? 

[catzacker]

Snyder and his assistants evaluated talent very well.  Just because their players didn't have a number of stars next to their names didn't mean they weren't talented.  Dear Lord, we put how many in the NFL during that time?  And compare that to now?  And people can say with a straight face that the talent level didn't drop? 

[ksu_FAN]

No doubt something dropped.  Either the talent level, development of talent, ability to get talent in the right spots, or ability to motivate talent.  Likely a combination of all 4.  For one of the greatest coaches in history to not get his team in contention for a north crown in the worst 2 years of the north, something had to be going very wrong.

[pufizzle]

Snyder and his assistants evaluated talent very well.  Just because their players didn't have a number of stars next to their names didn't mean they weren't talented.  Dear Lord, we put how many in the NFL during that time?  And compare that to now?  And people can say with a straight face that the talent level didn't drop? 

Exactly.  To say the '04-'05 teams were equally talented to the late nineties and early 2000's teams is borderline ridiculous. 

[coitus]

look at how many of the '98 squad went on to play in the nfl.  damn near all of them.

just because the rivals star counts remained about the same does not mean the talent levels remained the same.

[yosh]

Great points Freak.  This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing? 

Scobey and Beisel are the only two I can think of...Kyle Williams and Randy Jordan to a lesser degree.  Cartwright was bigtime out of highschool, but was only a 2-star when he came to K-State after JUCO.  Looks like Freeman and Johnson are going to work out.  I followed recruiting for ten years in both sports for 10 years.  Basketball is a lot better predictor of how players will turn out.  Football, at least when K-State has been concerned, may as well not even pay attention to the ratings.  You could randomly guess who will be the best players and do a better job than Rivals.  I finally stopped following football recruiting.  Now I just wait until signing day.

[chum1]

 

[ksu_FAN]

Great points Freak.  This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing? 

Scobey and Beisel are the only two I can think of...Kyle Williams and Randy Jordan to a lesser degree.  Cartwright was bigtime out of highschool, but was only a 2-star when he came to K-State after JUCO.  Looks like Freeman and Johnson are going to work out.  I followed recruiting for ten years in both sports for 10 years.  Basketball is a lot better predictor of how players will turn out.  Football, at least when K-State has been concerned, may as well not even pay attention to the ratings.  You could randomly guess who will be the best players and do a better job than Rivals.  I finally stopped following football recruiting.  Now I just wait until signing day.

I am the same way with football recruiting.  I used to really follow it closely, but the last few years I just wait until signing day.  Read every update for hoops recruiting though.

[michigancat]

I've always said basketball recruiting is simpler to follow, and you can see immediate impact of the recruiting in real life games.  It's possible for a four star FB prospect to not even see the field until three years after he signs.