1) ABILITY TO RECRUIT<div>
</div><div>We have to be realistic about a few things. You have to have strong talent to compete in most cases - to get that talent you have to cater to AAU factions and sell kids on Starkville. Both aren't the easiest things in the world. Teams that get by without lack of elite talent do so with high basketball IQ - however those type of players are very hard to come by in the Southeast - that's just a fact. Our recruiting area produces raw athletes that are often not the most fundamentally sound or have been taught the thinking part of the game very much.</div><div>
</div><div>2) PERSONALITY</div><div>
</div><div>Next focus needs to be making sure our next guy has a strong enough personality to deal with the prima donnas he's going to be coaching and demand their respect. You want find a nicer guy than Stans and while the players liked him, we see what happened when the locker room didn't respect/fear him. I'd prefer a guy who is a little brash and cocky in the mullen/cohen mode as our fanbase has responded to that. But you don't want to go too far and end up with a guy that makes a fool of the university at some point.</div><div>
</div><div>3) STYLE OF PLAY</div><div>
</div><div>While I don't think we should be full court press, the fact that we're going to have to rely on more athletic ability to X & O execution means you're going to want someone who plays some uptempo offense but puts a lot of emphasis on hard-nosed defense. Basically when I look at a film of the teams he's coached, I better see guys blocking out and showing some effort.</div><div>
</div><div>4) EXPERIENCE</div><div>
</div><div>Showing success as a head coach is preferred but not required. I wouldn't put a guy like Prohm really much higher than a Collins/Antiqua in this department. I either want a guy who has shown success at a head coach beyond just lucking into one great player that carried him for 2 years or something like that. What's the background as assistants and who have they coached under. For example my concern with Prohm would be that he inherited a Sr. laden team and that's all you have to go on. My concern with a C. Collins or Wojo is the lack of success other Duke assistants have had. Part of me wants to believe it's b/c they have to recruit harder and have to deal with a differnt type of player personality than they are used to. It's why Amacker might be having more success at Harvard than he did Michigan. by the same token guys like Antiqua and Payne should have picked up something from their mentors by now or they'll never be HC's</div>
</div><div>We have to be realistic about a few things. You have to have strong talent to compete in most cases - to get that talent you have to cater to AAU factions and sell kids on Starkville. Both aren't the easiest things in the world. Teams that get by without lack of elite talent do so with high basketball IQ - however those type of players are very hard to come by in the Southeast - that's just a fact. Our recruiting area produces raw athletes that are often not the most fundamentally sound or have been taught the thinking part of the game very much.</div><div>
</div><div>2) PERSONALITY</div><div>
</div><div>Next focus needs to be making sure our next guy has a strong enough personality to deal with the prima donnas he's going to be coaching and demand their respect. You want find a nicer guy than Stans and while the players liked him, we see what happened when the locker room didn't respect/fear him. I'd prefer a guy who is a little brash and cocky in the mullen/cohen mode as our fanbase has responded to that. But you don't want to go too far and end up with a guy that makes a fool of the university at some point.</div><div>
</div><div>3) STYLE OF PLAY</div><div>
</div><div>While I don't think we should be full court press, the fact that we're going to have to rely on more athletic ability to X & O execution means you're going to want someone who plays some uptempo offense but puts a lot of emphasis on hard-nosed defense. Basically when I look at a film of the teams he's coached, I better see guys blocking out and showing some effort.</div><div>
</div><div>4) EXPERIENCE</div><div>
</div><div>Showing success as a head coach is preferred but not required. I wouldn't put a guy like Prohm really much higher than a Collins/Antiqua in this department. I either want a guy who has shown success at a head coach beyond just lucking into one great player that carried him for 2 years or something like that. What's the background as assistants and who have they coached under. For example my concern with Prohm would be that he inherited a Sr. laden team and that's all you have to go on. My concern with a C. Collins or Wojo is the lack of success other Duke assistants have had. Part of me wants to believe it's b/c they have to recruit harder and have to deal with a differnt type of player personality than they are used to. It's why Amacker might be having more success at Harvard than he did Michigan. by the same token guys like Antiqua and Payne should have picked up something from their mentors by now or they'll never be HC's</div>
