South Pender wrote:Well the choice of questions and scenarios is very important, but what I was getting at is the enormous gains in both reliability and validity of the ratings when multiple data points are aggregated. This is where the panel interview is valuable. Instead of being held captive to the biases of a single interviewer, using multiple ratings to each question and/or scenario helps to wash out individual bias, halo effects, and so on. As for getting a guy who is "in touch" with today's players, that could be a central focus (or one of several) of the questions/scenarios. Having perhaps younger, but knowledgeable, panel members would be important too in this context.
Wally could always ask a former friend/coach Dave Ritchie and perhaps Roy Shivers or Don Matthews to sit in on the interviews and provide feedback to him. Of course Buono has to wear the decision so in the end he would need the ability to make the final decision.
In my experience with panel hiring, each question is rated, in terms of the interview. But the interview is only one aspect of the process. You could even give each perspective coach a take home scenario question as well as scenario questions in the interview.
Here are some scenario examples
1. Under what circumstances would you bench J. R. LaRose. Answer: if he wasn't playing well. Strike One
2. What would be your favorite strategy to confront a full blitz. Answer: Go with 6 recievers and an empty backfield. Positive points plus a bonus point for maximizing the use of the spread offence. Worked like hell in Calgary in the 90's.
3. Give an example of a motivational strategy that you have used in the past that has worked for you? Answer: On a hot summer practice day, I get each player a treat of a cup of hot tea. 1 point plus a bonus point for innovation in that you didn;'t choose a cold treat like our last Head Coach. The team went cold on him after all those cold treats.Your idea could lead to a hot streak.
4. If you had three Canadian recievers on your roster and you could only start one of them, which one would you start, the one with a French background, a Greek background, or an Italian background? Answer: I'd pick the best one. Strike 2 - you should have chosen the receiver with the Italian background.
5.. As the GM I just made a trade for a player who is completely useless. There is a receiver on the roster who can play much better at the same position that the player I just traded for. Which one would you start. Answer: The better player who is on the roster. Strike 3. You should have said I would play the player you traded for....even if you have to throw him one yard outs and two yard wide bubble screens. He must get the football somehow. If asked about the trade you should have said it was the trade of the milenium.
Thanks for applying for the job. We are cutting your interview short. It appears that your personality is not the best fit for this job.
I'm boring you all to death but I'm amusing myself.
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)