Mr. Rogers said, "Look for the helpers." Artificial intelligence offers an additional resource to help in the selection process.
First, I listed ten questions that might provide insight into a candidate. They're not designed to be "Gotcha" questions. Then, I'll post the ChatGPT Plus prompt and response.
- What is your philosophy about basketball?
- Share why this position is interesting or attractive for you.
- Describe some of your major coaching influences.
- If you could have lunch with any coach, living or dead, whom would you choose and why?
- What 'policies' do you follow to communicate with parents?
- You are (or are not) a school teacher. Discuss why that should or should not impact your application.
- Your learn that your best player wants to transfer. How would you approach that conversation?
- Share your thoughts on your ideal basketball culture.
- What are your thoughts on single versus multisport athletes?
- What two things do you want to achieve on your first day in the job?
Ron, I’d build the interview around what the coach believes, what the coach has actually done, and how the coach learns when those two diverge. Character and competence overlap: honesty about a mistake can reveal both integrity and the ability to improve.
Tell candidates beforehand: “We’re interested in how you think. Specific examples help us understand your experience. You’re welcome to pause, ask for context, or explain what additional information you would need.” That makes this a professional conversation rather than a performance under interrogation.
Here are twelve questions, with the evidence each should help uncover.
“Tell us about your basketball philosophy. What would we see in a typical practice, a close game, and your interactions with players that demonstrates that philosophy?”
Moves from attractive words to observable behavior. Listen for whether the coach’s methods support the stated values.“Describe a team you coached that needed something different from what you initially intended to give it. How did you recognize that, and what did you change?”
Explores adaptability, listening, and whether the coach serves the players or expects every roster to serve a preferred system.“Tell us about a player you initially misunderstood or underestimated. What changed your assessment, and what did you do afterward?”
Reveals humility, fairness, and the willingness to revise judgments. A useful follow-up: “How do you give players opportunities to change your mind?”“Choose a player whose development you are proud of. What did the player need, what did you do, and what evidence showed improvement? Who else contributed?”
Examines teaching competence, assessment, and the ability to share credit. Improvement might involve skill, decisions, confidence, reliability, or belonging.“Tell us about a coaching decision you would handle differently today. What did it cost, how did you address it with those affected, and what changed in your subsequent practice?”
Tests accountability and learning. The revealing part is the corrective action, not how dramatic the mistake sounds.“Suppose your most productive player repeatedly falls short of a team expectation, while a reserve has been held accountable for the same behavior. Walk us through your response and the information you would need.”
Explores fairness, judgment, and communication. Strong answers can distinguish consistent principles from identical consequences while explaining the distinction credibly.“A player tells you, ‘I work hard, but I don’t think you believe in me.’ How would you approach that conversation, and what would happen afterward?”
Reveals whether the coach can listen, deliver difficult feedback, and create a realistic path forward without promising playing time.“Describe a substantive disagreement with an assistant, parent, or administrator. How did you understand the other person’s concern, and how was the disagreement resolved—or left unresolved?”
Explores conflict management and professional boundaries. Listen for whether the coach can describe another person’s position fairly.“You inherit a program with committed people, uneven results, and differing opinions about what needs to change. What would your first sixty days look like? What would you preserve, investigate, and potentially change?”
Assesses diagnosis, relationship building, and priorities. A thoughtful candidate should have questions before prescribing solutions.“How would you determine whether this program is succeeding after one season and after three seasons? If the record improved but participation, player trust, or academic engagement declined, how would you interpret that?”
Makes the candidate define success and confront competing evidence. Listen for measures the coach would actually collect and act upon.“A player brings you a concern about a teammate’s wellbeing or an adult’s conduct and asks you to keep it confidential. How would you respond, explain the limits of confidentiality, and decide whom to involve?”
Examines judgment, care, and recognition of professional responsibilities. Candidates should be comfortable identifying when they need institutional guidance or expertise.“What would you need from this administration to do your best work? What should we expect from you when those needs cannot all be met—and what should we understand about you before deciding whether this is a good fit?”
Gives mutual fit equal standing with candidate evaluation. Look for realistic expectations, self-awareness, and the ability to distinguish essential support from preferences.
For most answers, use the same neutral follow-ups: “What did you personally do?” “What happened next?” “How do you know?” and “What would you change?” These produce comparable evidence without turning the interview adversarial.
Score each response independently before the committee discusses it:
| Dimension | Evidence to look for |
|---|---|
| Character | Ownership, fairness, respect, candor |
| Competence | Clear diagnosis, purposeful action, credible evidence |
| Learning | Reflection, adjustment, recognition of limits |
| Fit | Alignment with the actual players, resources, and institutional expectations |
AI could help organize the answers, identify unsupported claims, and suggest consistent follow-ups. The committee should judge demonstrated behavior rather than let polished language become a proxy for coaching ability. A useful final check is to ask references for examples connected to the same questions—especially how the candidate responds when challenged, disappointed, or wrong.
I found the AI questions and rationale insightful.
Lagniappe. That'll do.
Coaches (Especially HS coaches just getting under way): I had this on my desk as I prepared every practice daily. How organized would your practice be if you knew one of your mentors or heroes was going to show up that day? https://t.co/WoYueqjTgK
— Fran Fraschilla (@franfraschilla) October 31, 2026
