IMO. Some of the most important things are talent acquisition (especially evaluation), team unity, a consistent system and players that grow in the program.

I always thought Scott Drew was an idiot who could recruit and rolled the ball out but over the years it became apparent to me that he was very good at player evals. Some of his best players were transfer nobody had heard of. His best years were not when he was just getting five stars but developing players that worked hard together that fit his system.

What are some things you think successful coaches do?

I think I have dementia and post this every year.

I don't know, but I'm a big "John wooden/pyramid of success" guy when looking at coaches.

Always be early!
No excuses!

Mikesyracuse1

Have their teams playing their best basketball in February/March.

Not sure how they do that but it definitely separates ones ability to coach.

Someone should do a case study on Drew. I agree that for some reason the stars aligned there for a few years and it looked like he'd cracked the code on becoming a great coach and now they're kind of back to their same old crap the last couple of seasons where they look a talented mess.

I think you can be a good coach in a lot of ways. Excellent at getting player effort and buy-in (Buzz, Pearl), excellent at talent acquisition (quite a few guys,) excellent at player development, excellent at teaching/running a system and recruiting players to that system that might be undervalued otherwise (McDermott, Smart, Painter), being ahead of trends in the game (Oats). Probably others I'm not thinking of a Saturday morning.

Good coaches are really good at one of these things, great coaches are good at multiple of them, elite coaches are good at almost all of them or are among the absolute best at several of them.

The other thing is great coaches know their own weaknesses and hire people around them with those strengths and they hire people who bring fresh ideas or challenge their status quo. This was one of my big Buzz criticisms was his cult of yes men. It's also a VERY encouraging thing with Bucky was his big weakness was obviously just experience running a program at this level of basketball. Resources are nice but with resources come more responsibilities and things to keep track of. He hadn't done that but he sure brought in some guys that have. Having a former high level head coach on his staff is probably so huge for some of those organizational things.

I think this the end product of coaches who are good at self scouting and constant evaluation. There's some coaches who are pretty good at teaching and getting to a high level, but the ones who excel at continuing to find ways to improve really stand out.

Scott Drews staff disintegrated over the last couple years with Tang, Jakus and Brooks III all long termers there taking new jobs

McCasland too though he was gone before they really got their stride. But that's the other thing that goes to my assistants thing, successful coaches are incubator/accelerators for other successful coaches.

Seems like 10% of college basketball coaches were assistants at Baylor at some point

Tang may be back in Waco in short order come April.

Drew was one to two years early on the "we should just fill the roster with super old guys" trend and it worked for a bit. It was also an incredibly weird time in the sport with the beginnings of the portal + covid.

It wasn't just signing old dudes though, they found some real sleepers at the lower levels, they had success redshirting players, it wasn't just one thing they hit on to get those old dudes.

But they seem back to star chasing these last couple years for sure.

frenchtoast said:

---

Win games.

---

Method Man said:

---

I think I have dementia and post this every year.

---

Is it still true?

I think the best one's develop roster depth when they can because inevitably a key player gets sick, hurt, or in foul trouble at a critical time.

The best also seemingly have a play or a defense to run for any situation. They are prepared for anything and have their team prepared as well. Doesn't always work but it gives them a fighting chance

Good coaches:

- know what roster pieces they need and fill them.
- have a deep knowledge of the game (offense and defense)
- are not stubborn and adjust lineups and schemes "timely" as the game is played
- develop excellent team chemistry - first and foremost by recruiting high character players and later through discipline and team building
- (related to theorem above) Excellent at the psychology of young men- in that they know how to keep each player motivated and committed to the team win or lose.

JMJLAW said:

---

Good coaches:

- know what roster pieces they need and fill them.
- have a deep knowledge of the game (offense and defense)
- are not stubborn and adjust lineups and schemes "timely" as the game is played
- develop excellent team chemistry - first and foremost by recruiting high character players and later through discipline and team building
- (related to theorem above) Excellent at the psychology of young men- in that they know how to keep each player motivated and committed to the team win or lose.

---

THIS PLUS A SCHOOL THAT GIVES THEM A GOOD AMOUNT OF NIL TO WORK WITH.

win