Just wanted to put a few thoughts out there regarding the type of coach that I think we must have to succeed. Some coaches are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as being primarily recruiters. A good example of that would be Scott Drew, who loads up on talented kids, but by many people's reckoning, he is not a great coach. He wins a lot because he usually puts more talent on the floor. I, for one, think that going the direction of a Scott Drew will not work for K-State, because we will not support a culture like the one at Baylor, which I think is probably important for his recruiting success.
The other extreme is someone who is a great coach, but maybe not a good recruiter. Many people will point to a Jack Hartman or a Bill Snyder as this kind of coach, but I would note that both of those coaches were not able to win solely on the basis of superior "coaching." Look at Jack's last four years or Bill's last two in Snyder 1.0. Jack and Bill both had their most success when they had good talent, e.g., in 1981 Jack to us to the Elite Eight with a team that had two NBA players--Rolando Blackman and Ed Nealy. In any event, the point is that even the best coaches have to have some talent to work with.
This leads me to my point--we have had our greatest success in both major sports when we've had great coaches who also were able to recruit some talent. I know that sounds almost like a tautology, but I think it would be dangerous to look for a coach who is primarily a recruiter. Our history suggests to me that we do better when we have a great coach, who then figures out a way to get sufficient talent in the program. It doesn't always have to be the best talent--Hartman and Snyder both are coaches who seemed to win more than their talent would warrant--but there has to be some mechanism for getting talent into the program. For Hartman, to a degree it was hiring Mark Riner, who if I remember correctly was key to getting Blackman. He sort of lucked into Mike Evans. For Snyder, for a while one of the ways he got it done was by dominating the Kansas jucos. I think both of these coaches excelled at identifying kids who can play at a high level (perhaps with a little development) who aren't being recruited by the "big boys." By the way, I think this has also been a key to the success of Greg Marshall.
The bottom line is we need someone who can coach first, but it is essential that he be able to recruit enough talent to work with. I would submit, for basketball, that a goal should be to sign at least one top 100 type player each year, then fill in with solid 3-star type talent. We're never going to load up on 4 and 5 star kids like KU does, but we can be damn good with this formula, if we have a good coach.
I know there's not much profound here--just some musings as we await what I hope is the commencement of a coaching search in the next few days.
The other extreme is someone who is a great coach, but maybe not a good recruiter. Many people will point to a Jack Hartman or a Bill Snyder as this kind of coach, but I would note that both of those coaches were not able to win solely on the basis of superior "coaching." Look at Jack's last four years or Bill's last two in Snyder 1.0. Jack and Bill both had their most success when they had good talent, e.g., in 1981 Jack to us to the Elite Eight with a team that had two NBA players--Rolando Blackman and Ed Nealy. In any event, the point is that even the best coaches have to have some talent to work with.
This leads me to my point--we have had our greatest success in both major sports when we've had great coaches who also were able to recruit some talent. I know that sounds almost like a tautology, but I think it would be dangerous to look for a coach who is primarily a recruiter. Our history suggests to me that we do better when we have a great coach, who then figures out a way to get sufficient talent in the program. It doesn't always have to be the best talent--Hartman and Snyder both are coaches who seemed to win more than their talent would warrant--but there has to be some mechanism for getting talent into the program. For Hartman, to a degree it was hiring Mark Riner, who if I remember correctly was key to getting Blackman. He sort of lucked into Mike Evans. For Snyder, for a while one of the ways he got it done was by dominating the Kansas jucos. I think both of these coaches excelled at identifying kids who can play at a high level (perhaps with a little development) who aren't being recruited by the "big boys." By the way, I think this has also been a key to the success of Greg Marshall.
The bottom line is we need someone who can coach first, but it is essential that he be able to recruit enough talent to work with. I would submit, for basketball, that a goal should be to sign at least one top 100 type player each year, then fill in with solid 3-star type talent. We're never going to load up on 4 and 5 star kids like KU does, but we can be damn good with this formula, if we have a good coach.
I know there's not much profound here--just some musings as we await what I hope is the commencement of a coaching search in the next few days.
