The Marginal Returns of More Assistants
In some ways, this post speaks for itself. With the sheer number of coaches making up big-time college hoops staffs these days, much of what they do just isn’t repeatable at the high school level.
But what I want to call attention to is the inefficiency of sheer numbers when all those people are devoted only to scheme and skill work.
My degree’s in Business Economics, and the concept of diminishing marginal returns absolutely applies here. There are only so many sets of eyes you can have on the same film before everyone becomes noise, not signal.
My counter argument isn’t fewer people — it’s new tasks.
When I scroll a program’s staff directory — like Florida’s, where this image came from — I see plenty of titles: assistants, analysts, directors of player development, quality control. But not one says Character Development Coordinator, Mental Health Access Lead, or Emotional Fluency Coach.
You’re telling me that wouldn’t be more conducive to winning than another set of scout notes?
We’ve dramatically overvalued film work and undervalued people work.
Coach Prompts
If you could add one non-tactical role to your staff tomorrow, what would it be?
How much of your staff meeting time is spent on who your players are vs. what they run?
Do your assistants know the emotional temperature of the locker room as well as they know the scouting report?
How would your win total change if your players felt seen as much as they’re analyzed?
Player Prompts
How would you describe the “non-basketball” parts of your program?
Who on your team knows when you’re struggling — and what do they do with that info?
What’s one way your team could get better without touching a basketball?
Would you rather have a coach who knows your stats or your story?
