SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN
Most college coaching job descriptions tell candidates plenty about what the institution expects from them.
They list responsibilities, qualifications, compliance expectations, and application instructions.
But they often say very little about something candidates care deeply about:
What will I actually have to work with if I take this job?
As part of our 2026 College Coaching Job Search Study, we asked more than 300 college coaches:
“What information that is usually missing from a job description is most important to you?”
The most commonly selected responses were:
- Recruiting/financial-aid support — 57.2%
- Program budget — 56.7%
- Institution financial/enrollment condition — 49.2%
- Assistant/support staff — 46.5%
- Senior leadership support — 38.5%
- Fundraising/enrollment duties — 38.5%
- Competitive expectations/timeline — 33.7%
There is a pretty clear theme.
Coaches want to understand the actual operating environment they are stepping into.
They want to know whether they will have a realistic opportunity to succeed.
Coaches want clarity about the tools they will have
The top four responses all point in essentially the same direction.
Can I recruit the student-athletes I need?
What kind of budget am I working with?
Is the institution financially stable?
What staffing support will I have?
Those aren’t necessarily requests for more resources.
They are requests for clarity.
A coach may be willing to accept a modest budget, limited scholarships, or a smaller staff. The issue is whether they understand those realities before they make a major career decision.
One of the broader themes emerging from our study is that coaches do not necessarily appear afraid of difficult jobs.
They are much more concerned about jobs where the expectations, resources, and reality do not line up.
Recruiting support and budget are at the top for a reason
More than half of coaches selected both recruiting/financial-aid support and program budget.
That suggests candidates aren’t simply asking how much money a program has.
They are trying to understand how the program functions.
How competitive is the financial-aid model?
What support will admissions provide?
What does the budget realistically cover?
How much discretion does the coach have?
Are there meaningful fundraising expectations?
Those details tell a candidate much more than a generic line in a job description that says, “Manage the program budget” or “Recruit qualified student-athletes.”
Institutional stability is part of the decision
Nearly half of respondents wanted more information about the institution’s financial or enrollment condition.
That is significant.
Candidates aren’t only evaluating the athletic program. They are evaluating the institution behind it.
For smaller colleges in particular, this can be a difficult topic to discuss. But avoiding the subject does not necessarily create confidence.
Candidates may already be asking themselves:
Is enrollment stable?
Is athletics supported by senior leadership?
Is the institution positioned to sustain this program?
If there are challenges, candidates do not need to hear that everything is perfect.
They need enough context to understand where the institution is, where it is going, and how athletics fits into that direction.
Expectations have to match the resources
About one-third of coaches selected competitive expectations and timeline as information they want to know.
That may be one of the most important findings in this section of the study.
Candidates aren’t simply evaluating what they will receive.
They are comparing those resources with what they will be expected to produce.
A modest budget or limited staffing may not automatically turn someone away.
But if those resources are paired with expectations to win immediately, the opportunity can look very different.
Athletic directors should be able to explain what success looks like in Year 1, Year 2, and beyond.
Is the priority winning?
Roster growth?
Retention?
Academic success?
Program stability?
Recruiting development?
The more clearly those expectations are communicated, the better candidates can evaluate the opportunity.
Not everything belongs in the job posting
Of course, a public job description cannot include every detail.
Some information is confidential. Some needs context. Some is better shared only with serious candidates.
But there are still opportunities to give candidates a clearer picture.
Instead of simply writing:
“Responsible for recruiting academically and athletically qualified student-athletes.”
You could add a sentence about how the coach works with admissions and financial aid.
Instead of:
“Manage the program budget.”
You could clarify whether the coach oversees recruiting and operating funds and how much responsibility they have for fundraising.
You can also be more specific about staffing structure, secondary duties, or whether the position is a rebuilding opportunity.
The goal isn’t to publish every number.
It is to help candidates understand the nature of the job.
The bigger opportunity is in the conversation
The job description is only the starting point.
The larger opportunity comes during initial conversations and interviews.
A good first conversation should not simply help the athletic director decide whether the candidate is qualified.
It should also help the candidate decide whether the opportunity makes sense.
That means being prepared to talk candidly about:
- Recruiting and financial-aid realities
- Budget and staffing structure
- Fundraising or enrollment expectations
- Competitive expectations
- Institutional direction
- Senior leadership support
- The degree of authority the coach will have
This does not mean sharing confidential information too early.
It does mean avoiding unnecessary ambiguity.
If important information can reasonably be shared, holding it back usually does not help the search.
A candidate may assume the situation is worse than it really is and withdraw.
They may continue through the process and pull out later.
Or they may accept the job with an incomplete understanding of what they are walking into.
None of those outcomes serves the institution.
The goal isn’t to make the job look perfect
Candidates do not necessarily need you to convince them that the opportunity has no weaknesses.
They need an accurate picture.
A limited budget may be workable.
A struggling program may be exciting.
A smaller staff may be manageable.
The right coach may welcome the challenge.
But candidates cannot evaluate those tradeoffs if the information they care most about is never discussed.
Perhaps the better question for athletic directors is not:
“How do we make this job sound more attractive?”
It is:
“How do we help good candidates understand this opportunity accurately?”
The goal of a good search isn’t to eliminate every concern.
It is to eliminate unnecessary surprises.
And that starts with sharing the right information, with the right candidates, at the right time.
This analysis is part of the 2026 College Coaching Job Search Study from Bechler Search. We surveyed more than 300 college coaches about how they evaluate opportunities and navigate the college coaching job-search process. Additional findings and the full report will be shared in the coming weeks.
Dan Christensen is the Director of Collegiate Consulting for Bechler Leadership. Founded by Jamy Bechler in 2018, Bechler Leadership helps schools, athletic departments, and organizations build stronger cultures and maximize their potential. In the last three years, they’ve worked on 60+ searches, specializing in meeting the needs of “smaller” colleges. Dan can be reached at dan@bechlerleadership.com.