you have laid out the simple plan that should lead to bring in a new coach and certainly a new AD and we will not stop there, also a new president of the university -- success breeds success -- GO 49er's
Long Beach has some great coaches for sure, so in measuring why some coaches would have contracts renewed or evaluating them, what is the measure by which an AD makes their decision(s)
the ideas of high performing coaches are out there, Wooden, Tarkanian, and especially I find interesting some of the lower level coaches philosophies. The main one I find most insightful was from Fresno Pacific legendary VB coach Dennis Janzen, and two thoughts from him on what a coach needs to do.
#1) "Be what they need me to be"
#2) "Get better at getting better"
I think if one evaluates a coach with those 2 simple ideas of how a coach (should) perform(s), then it's very evident what coaching hire/contract decisions should be.
and for each, 4 categories apply:
2) Scholastic Performance of players
4) Game Performance
if you look at (and probably with little argument) of 2 of our most highly regarded coaches, Hilt-Costello & Knipe, there's basically little question of their excellence in both.
1) Jenny learned (got better) early on that to compete she needed foreign athletes, she did that, found a way to get better at it (from afar) and recruited well. Furthermore it's become even more difficult with every school we compete with doing the same.
2) Check on scholarship and off court performance
3 & 4) I haven't seen many practices, but teh performance of players on court is evidence enough, especially 'in the moment' performances in 1st round NCAA upsets, the 2013 and 2019 titles unexpected, for anyone that knows the sport (I've played competitively from 1974 to today) and has an eye for tennis, you can attest her players ability to get better and for what gets translated from practice into matches. I think the best example was Rozenberg, watching her play one of the first thoughts was how is this player even a D1 player?, she hit moon balls. Yet all she did was WIN, because she learned placement and always knew how to construct and WIN points. it's the type of coaching constructed to a players strengths that is evident in the program year after year.
If there is one area I wish (and I"m sure she does as well) the program had more success in it would be in getting more Calif/US players in the program. Even then, the ones she has had have been stellar (Manesse, Thompson, Munoz) over the last decade. It's a tough nut to crack, partially because of LOng Beach's 'perception' in tennis culture in California that is, for lack of a better word, 'snooty'. Still, it's a little surprising that Long Beach's exceptional performance in tennis hasn't been able to crack that nut.
1) The recruiting is evident, going back 20 years, maybe that period from 2009 to 2013 was tough. But Knipe has the pipeline working. And consider the decisions over Schollies in VB is hard, given it's not a full schollie sport, and you need players paying their own way
3) "1% better every day" is a perfect reflection of the program.
4) there's no question that Knipe overcame the notion of 'not winning a big match' that hung over the program. The 2004 NC, the Taylor Crabb team falling a bit short, the 2017 monster team in TJ/Josh/Ensign's soph year that flubbed in the national tournament. Even the 2012 Olympic team that got knocked out in elimation. that all had to sting on Knipe's resume. it's why the 2018 NC was such a huge, remarkable, significant event for the progam. And to think the margin for error even in the 2018 was so slight (Ohio State came really close and a few plays here and there could have changed that outcome; then UCLA was literally ONE point in that 4th set at so many moments from getting to an insurmountable margin; the players were able to stay in the moment and overcome. Probably no better demonstration of a 'perseverance and growth philosphy' that Knipe has in finally breaking through.
Now, if one applies that criteria to other coaches, I think the decision process for what should happen, or what should have happened in prior contract cases, is pretty clear.
Is your coach what his players need them to be (in all 4 areas?)
Is your coach getting better at getting better? and are your players getter better at getting better?
I think if one thinks in terms of answering those two questions for a program, the answer becomes really very simple about what needs to be done.
and wish it could be applied as well to our PResident and AD, because they don't come out looking like anything but mush if you apply those two criteria