How Smaller Colleges Can Land Great Coaches

SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN 

One of the realities of hiring coaches at a smaller college is that you are not always competing on equal financial footing.

Another institution may offer a higher salary.

They may have better facilities.

More scholarship resources.

A larger staff.

A bigger recruiting budget.

For athletic directors, it can be easy to look at those differences and assume there is not much you can do.

Our 2026 College Coaching Job Search Study suggests otherwise.

We asked more than 300 college coaches:

“What can a smaller college with limited financial resources do to make an opportunity more attractive?”

The leading responses were:

• Be transparent about limitations and challenges — 52.6%
• Create a realistic plan for improving resources over time — 46.4%
• Establish realistic expectations for competitive success — 44.0%
• Offer flexibility in staffing or compensation structure — 43.0%
• Offer creative benefits, scheduling flexibility, or relocation assistance — 36.8%
• Demonstrate a clear vision and strong institutional support — 36.1%
• Give the coach appropriate authority and autonomy — 35.1%

What stands out is what is not on that list.

The answers are not simply “spend more.”

Many of the most attractive things a resource-limited institution can do involve how the opportunity is structured, explained, and supported.

Start by telling the truth

The number one response was transparency about limitations and challenges.

That may sound counterintuitive during a search.

When you are trying to recruit a candidate, the instinct can be to emphasize the positives and minimize the weaknesses.

But good candidates are going to discover the limitations eventually.

They will see the facilities.

They will ask about scholarships.

They will learn about the staffing model.

They will talk with other coaches.

They will eventually understand the budget.

Trying to hide those realities rarely makes the opportunity stronger.

A better conversation sounds something like:

Here is what we have.

Here is where we know we are limited.

Here is what we believe we can improve.

Here is what we can commit to.

And here is where you will have support.

That does not mean unloading every institutional problem during the first phone call.

It means being honest as candidates move deeper into the process.

A limitation disclosed candidly can become part of the challenge of the job. A limitation discovered unexpectedly can become a reason not to trust the institution.

Coaches want to see a path forward

The second-highest response was a realistic plan for improving resources over time.

That is an important distinction.

There is a big difference between:

“We cannot give you everything you want today.”

and:

“We cannot give you everything you want, and nothing is likely to change.”

Most smaller colleges cannot renovate a facility, add two assistants, increase scholarships, and double a recruiting budget overnight.

But they may be able to explain what progress could look like.

Maybe there is a plan to increase staffing as roster numbers grow.

Maybe fundraising priorities include a facility project.

Maybe an enrollment benchmark would unlock additional resources.

Maybe the institution is gradually increasing operating budgets.

Candidates do not necessarily need promises.

In fact, ADs should be careful not to promise things they cannot control.

But they do want to know whether the department has a direction.

An honest three-year plan can sometimes be more compelling than a vague promise that “we’re working on it.”

Match your expectations to what you provide

The third-highest response may be one of the most important for smaller colleges: establish realistic expectations for competitive success.

A coach may accept limited resources.

What becomes much harder to accept is limited resources combined with unlimited expectations.

If the program has fewer scholarships than its competitors, a small recruiting budget, limited staffing, and average facilities, the athletic director needs to understand what that means.

That does not mean lowering standards.

It means defining success appropriately.

Maybe Year 1 is primarily about stabilizing the roster.

Maybe the first two recruiting classes matter more than the first win-loss record.

Maybe competitive improvement should be measured over three years instead of three months.

During a search, tell candidates what success actually looks like.

The question should not only be, “Can this coach win?”

It should also be, “Are we giving the coach a reasonable opportunity to meet the expectations we are setting?”

Flexibility can become a competitive advantage

Forty-three percent of respondents selected flexibility in staffing or compensation structure, while 36.8% chose creative benefits, scheduling flexibility, or relocation assistance.

This is where smaller institutions should get creative.

You may not be able to add $20,000 to the salary.

But are there other ways to make the total opportunity better?

Could there be flexibility with assistant-coach resources?

Camp or clinic income?

Relocation assistance?

Housing support?

Teaching opportunities?

Flexible scheduling during parts of the year?

A more secure contract?

Other institution-specific benefits?

None of these eliminate the importance of salary. Our broader study makes clear that compensation matters significantly.

But salary is not always the only lever available.

Before beginning a search, athletic directors should ask HR and senior leadership a broader question than, “What can we pay?”

Ask:

“What flexibility do we have to make the entire opportunity more attractive?”

You may uncover options that have relatively modest institutional cost but meaningful value to a candidate.

If resources are limited, give good coaches room to lead

More than one-third of coaches selected appropriate authority and autonomy.

This may be one of the least expensive advantages a smaller college can provide.

If you cannot give a coach every resource they would ideally want, be careful about unnecessarily restricting how they use the resources they do have.

Can the head coach shape recruiting strategy?

Have meaningful input into staffing?

Prioritize the program budget?

Build the roster in the way they believe is best?

Develop camps and fundraising ideas?

Create the culture of the program?

Good coaches often want the opportunity to build.

Autonomy does not mean an absence of accountability.

It means hiring someone you trust and giving that person appropriate room to lead.

For some candidates, that can be a meaningful advantage over a more highly resourced job with significantly less authority.

Show them that limited resources do not mean limited commitment

Another 36.1% selected a clear vision and strong institutional support.

Candidates are trying to distinguish between two very different situations.

One school has limited resources but believes deeply in athletics, has a plan, supports its coaches, and is building toward something.

Another has limited resources because athletics simply is not much of a priority.

Those may look similar on a spreadsheet.

They feel very different to a coach.

This is where the athletic director and senior leadership matter tremendously during the search.

Explain where athletics fits within the institution.

Talk about what the department is trying to become.

Show where there has been progress.

Let candidates meet people who can demonstrate institutional support.

A candidate may accept constraints when they believe leadership is committed to helping them succeed within those constraints.

Don’t rely on the wrong sales pitch

Some of the lowest-rated responses are instructive too.

Only 16.8% selected excellent search communication and professionalism as a way to make the actual opportunity more attractive. Professional development was 13.1%, emphasizing mission, relationships, and community was 11.7%, and helping the coach or family learn about the community was 6.5%.

Those things still matter.

You should absolutely run a professional search.

Mission matters.

Community matters.

Candidate and family experience matters.

But they do not appear to compensate for structural weaknesses in the job itself.

Telling a candidate, “We are like a family here,” is unlikely to overcome unrealistic expectations, unclear resources, little autonomy, and no plan for improvement.

Start with the substance of the opportunity.

Then let mission and community strengthen the case.

Smaller colleges have more control than they think

You may not be able to win a bidding war.

You may not be able to build the newest facility.

You may not have the scholarship resources of another institution.

Those disadvantages are real.

But the study suggests smaller colleges still have meaningful ways to compete.

Be transparent.

Set expectations that match reality.

Have a credible plan for progress.

Look for flexibility beyond base salary.

Give capable coaches room to lead.

Demonstrate that the institution has a direction and that athletics has support.

And throughout the search, help candidates understand not only what the job lacks, but what makes it worth taking.

You do not need to convince candidates that your limitations do not exist.

You need to show them that the opportunity can still work despite them.

For the right coach, that may be a much more compelling recruiting pitch.