SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN
Hiring a college coach is one of the most important decisions an athletic director makes.
It is also one of the hardest.
A coach hire affects far more than wins and losses. It shapes team culture, student-athlete experience, retention, department morale, institutional alignment, and the long-term direction of a program.
That is why we recently gathered input from 60 college athletic directors across junior colleges, NAIA programs, and NCAA Divisions I, II, and III for our 2026 College Coaching Search Report. The goal was simple: better understand what athletic directors are experiencing, noticing, valuing, and struggling with in today’s coaching searches.
The full report includes data and insights on video interviews, on-campus interviews, application materials, search-process frustrations, standout candidate behaviors, favorite interview questions, and what effective ADs do throughout the process.
But three takeaways stood out to me.
1. Preparation is still one of the biggest separators
One of the clearest themes from the report is that many candidates still do not prepare well enough.
That may sound basic, but it showed up repeatedly.
In video interviews, the most common mistake athletic directors identified was lack of preparation or research. That often meant candidates did not understand the institution, could not clearly explain why they fit the opportunity, or did not ask thoughtful questions.
On campus, that issue became even more obvious. The report found that lack of preparation or research was again the most common on-campus interview mistake, and it showed up in several ways: not researching the school, lacking clarity on fit, failing to ask meaningful questions, or not knowing who was involved in the interview process.
For coaches, the message is clear: preparation is not optional.
And preparation is not just looking at the roster or checking the team’s record.
It means understanding the institution. The mission. The conference. The academic profile. The department. The recruiting realities. The student-athlete experience. The challenges. The opportunity.
The best candidates do not come across as if they are simply trying to get a job. They come across as if they are trying to understand whether they can serve this specific institution well.
For athletic directors, this is also a useful reminder. Preparation reveals seriousness. It reveals attention to detail. It reveals whether the candidate has moved beyond generic interest and into genuine alignment.
A candidate does not need to know everything. But they should demonstrate that they cared enough to learn.
2. Generic materials and generic answers raise real concerns
Another major takeaway from the report is how quickly generic application materials can hurt a candidate.
Athletic directors noted concerns with templated or AI-generated materials, poor spelling and grammar, referencing the wrong school, vague content, irrelevant information, and excessive length.
Some of these mistakes may seem small. But in a coaching search, details communicate.
A cover letter that sounds like it could be sent to 20 different schools does not create confidence. A resume that is cluttered or careless makes the reader work harder. A letter that references the wrong institution can be very difficult to recover from.
For coaches, the lesson is not that application materials need to be fancy. They do not.
They need to be clear, accurate, specific, and aligned.
A strong application should help the athletic director quickly understand three things:
Why this role makes sense.
Why this institution makes sense.
Why your leadership fits what the program needs now.
That same principle applies in interviews.
Athletic directors in the report were not looking for perfect, rehearsed answers. They were looking for clarity. Fit. Alignment. Self-awareness. Leadership. The ability to think through real challenges.
Their favorite interview questions pointed toward themes like institutional fit, first 30-to-100-day plans, long-term vision, staff management, conflict, failure, adversity, and how the candidate would add value beyond their primary role.
In other words, ADs are not just asking, “Can this person coach?”
They are asking, “Can this person lead here?”
That is a much deeper question.
3. The best searches are intentional, transparent, and relational
The report also highlighted what effective athletic directors do well during the search process.
Several practices stood out: communicating clearly about salary and expectations, being honest about challenges and limitations, providing detailed information before campus visits, involving key stakeholders, using structured evaluation tools, conducting thorough reference checks, and creating opportunities to observe candidates beyond formal interview answers.
I think this is important.
A good coaching search is not just a sequence of steps. It is a leadership process.
The best ADs are not simply trying to fill an opening as quickly as possible. They are trying to create the conditions for a wise decision.
That requires structure.
It also requires honesty.
Candidates should understand the real opportunity, not just the polished version. They should know the challenges they would inherit. They should understand the expectations, resources, institutional realities, and support systems.
That kind of transparency helps both sides.
It helps the athletic director evaluate whether the candidate truly understands the role. It helps the candidate decide whether they can lead well in that environment.
The common thread: clarity
For both athletic directors and coaches, the common thread in the report is clarity.
Athletic directors need clarity in what they are looking for, how they structure the process, and how they evaluate candidates.
Coaches need clarity in how they present their experience, why they fit the institution, how they lead, and what they would do if entrusted with the program.
Successful searches are not built on credentials alone.
They are built on preparation, alignment, intentionality, and trust.
For ADs, this report offers a helpful look at what peers are experiencing and what practices are strengthening their searches.
For coaches, it offers a valuable window into what athletic directors are actually noticing throughout the process.
I would encourage both groups to read the full report.
Whether you are hiring a coach or hoping to become one, the insights are worth your time.
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.