1. has candidate turned a program around, over a period of time - by coaching his guys up and recruiting increasingly better players? 2. you can eliminate the concern that he is just using some other coach's players (Fresno State) but has done this with his guys. 3. you can eliminate that he's not the lucky recipient of a really hot assistant coach (Hawkins with Peterson) 4. you can establish that he is a football guru, usually means he was a coordinator at one point (this can be tricky) (none of these factors necessarily eliminates a guy, but you want to understand these items if you are comparing coaches) Any coach ought to be able to discuss at length the pro's and con's of the various spread offenses, why the NFL isn't using it, why people don't seem to slow down Oregon (however Stanford did). This is a huge issue confronting our conference. What is the strategy to defend it? What is your offensive philosophy and how do you know it will work at this level? Is it a prayer or is their evidence to support your opinions? What will your assistant coaches look like (more than a few of us howled when EB was announced as the plan)? How risky are they? We've discussed in the past how important is experience in the region for recruiting (CO, CA, TX)? Helpful, but assistant coaches really have this responsibility. See Jim Mora's staff. How much background did Mora have? Harbaugh? Yes, there are recruiting superstars out there, but staffs who've turned a program around are very likely to have good eyes for talent and the ability to sell their program/system to recruits. Assuming again, that they improved a program measurably over a period of time. I think Embree is a good recruiter, but it didn't matter much as nobody was going to buy into what he was selling in the end. Results talk louder than words.