I think he's a smart, driven guy and there's no reason to think he hasn't improved considerably from his literal first year as a play caller.

Cal88 said:

---

atoms said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

His choice of DC is going to be important too.

I'm not sure about Lupoi's level of football smarts, given that he wasn't good enough for Saban to retain as a DC seven years ago. Hopefully he has improved since, or will at least have a staff in place that makes up for the weaker points in his set of skills.

---

Saban kept him on staff for 5 years and promoted him aggressively, gave him his first DC role at Alabama. The idea that Saban doesn't think much of him doesn't scan. And yes, it does look like he's improved quite a bit. His defenses at Oregon have been some of the best defenses Oregon has ever, ever had and top 10 in the country.

---

Saban kept promoting Tosh because he was doing a great job recruiting at Alabama, the clear #1 program in college football at that time. Tosh leveraged his recruiting prowess into annual promotions from Defensive Analyst to position coach (OLB), to co-DC to sole DC.

However by the time he reached the position of sole DC, his liability as a gameday defensive coordinator had exceeded his benefits as a talented recruiter. He was let go by Saban after just one year running the Bama D.

This article from a local Alabama.com journo covering the main sports franchise in his state fully agrees with my assessment above:

https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2019/01/why-tosh-lupoi-leaving-alabama-was-long-expected.html

Excerpts:

Quote:

---

Lupoi, who played defensive line at Cal, had zero experience working with the defensive secondary, a critical component of Saban's defense. Lupoi was known as a tireless worker and talented position coach during his three years as Alabama's outside linebackers coach but there were concerns about whether he'd be up to the task in areas like situational play-calling and recognizing what an opponent is doing in-game and being able to adjust on the fly, which had been a big strength of previous Tide defensive coordinators Kirby Smart and Jeremy Pruitt.

However, Lupoi was the staff's best recruiter -- he's a big reason stars Tua Tagovailoa, Najee Harris and others picked Alabama -- and he was going to have interest from other programs. If Saban didn't promote Lupoi to defensive coordinator, he was likely to lose him. And after overhauling his staff to get more aggressive on the recruiting trail following the 2017 title, Saban didn't think he could afford to let Lupoi go.

Yet, a little more than a year after the bump in title and responsibilities, Lupoi is off to Cleveland to join Freddie Kitchens' staff as defensive line coach. Why would Lupoi take a lesser role and what is likely a sizable pay cut after making $1.1 million this past year? It was actually a decision months in the making after early struggles as Alabama's defensive coordinator.

It wasn't long after Alabama's disastrous national championship game loss to Clemson that word began spreading Lupoi was unlikely to return to Alabama next season as part of a massive staff shakeup. But the inevitable breakup didn't happen because of one bad defensive performance on a national scale. In fact, sources had indicated to AL.com for a while that Lupoi was likely to leave for another job after the season.

After some early struggles during the season, Saban stripped Lupoi of defensive play-calling responsibilities and handed them over to co-defensive coordinator Pete Golding, according to sources. Saban had poached Golding from UT-San Antonio in the offseason in part to alleviate concerns about Lupoi's inexperience with the secondary and as a play-caller. Still, word is Lupoi seemed overwhelmed during practices and didn't totally grasp situational play-calling. While he was still heavily involved in the defensive game-planning, there was no question Golding taking over play-calling represented a demotion of sorts for Lupoi barely into the start of his defensive coordinator stint.

... it was a move that had to happen. It was clear that Alabama's defense wasn't up to snuff this season and that reared its head in the ugly title game loss. Saban knew he needed to make an upgrade as far as defensive staffing, which is why the most recruiting-obsessed head coach in college football history seemingly didn't fight to keep his best recruiter.

---

In any case, I've said my bit and let's hope that the 7 additional seasons Tosh has had in various coaching stints with 4 different organisations have helped him improve his weak spots.

---

It's would also no longer be his job. He's one of the best in the biz at one of the most important aspects of being a head coach... recruiting... but now it's not just players, but also staff, donors, and the fanbase. How good he is at management, organization, etc. remains to be seen but playcalling on defense is far less important.

concernedparent said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

atoms said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

His choice of DC is going to be important too.

I'm not sure about Lupoi's level of football smarts, given that he wasn't good enough for Saban to retain as a DC seven years ago. Hopefully he has improved since, or will at least have a staff in place that makes up for the weaker points in his set of skills.

---

Saban kept him on staff for 5 years and promoted him aggressively, gave him his first DC role at Alabama. The idea that Saban doesn't think much of him doesn't scan. And yes, it does look like he's improved quite a bit. His defenses at Oregon have been some of the best defenses Oregon has ever, ever had and top 10 in the country.

---

Saban kept promoting Tosh because he was doing a great job recruiting at Alabama, the clear #1 program in college football at that time. Tosh leveraged his recruiting prowess into annual promotions from Defensive Analyst to position coach (OLB), to co-DC to sole DC.

However by the time he reached the position of sole DC, his liability as a gameday defensive coordinator had exceeded his benefits as a talented recruiter. He was let go by Saban after just one year running the Bama D.

This article from a local Alabama.com journo covering the main sports franchise in his state fully agrees with my assessment above:

https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2019/01/why-tosh-lupoi-leaving-alabama-was-long-expected.html

Excerpts:

Quote:

---

Lupoi, who played defensive line at Cal, had zero experience working with the defensive secondary, a critical component of Saban's defense. Lupoi was known as a tireless worker and talented position coach during his three years as Alabama's outside linebackers coach but there were concerns about whether he'd be up to the task in areas like situational play-calling and recognizing what an opponent is doing in-game and being able to adjust on the fly, which had been a big strength of previous Tide defensive coordinators Kirby Smart and Jeremy Pruitt.

However, Lupoi was the staff's best recruiter -- he's a big reason stars Tua Tagovailoa, Najee Harris and others picked Alabama -- and he was going to have interest from other programs. If Saban didn't promote Lupoi to defensive coordinator, he was likely to lose him. And after overhauling his staff to get more aggressive on the recruiting trail following the 2017 title, Saban didn't think he could afford to let Lupoi go.

Yet, a little more than a year after the bump in title and responsibilities, Lupoi is off to Cleveland to join Freddie Kitchens' staff as defensive line coach. Why would Lupoi take a lesser role and what is likely a sizable pay cut after making $1.1 million this past year? It was actually a decision months in the making after early struggles as Alabama's defensive coordinator.

It wasn't long after Alabama's disastrous national championship game loss to Clemson that word began spreading Lupoi was unlikely to return to Alabama next season as part of a massive staff shakeup. But the inevitable breakup didn't happen because of one bad defensive performance on a national scale. In fact, sources had indicated to AL.com for a while that Lupoi was likely to leave for another job after the season.

After some early struggles during the season, Saban stripped Lupoi of defensive play-calling responsibilities and handed them over to co-defensive coordinator Pete Golding, according to sources. Saban had poached Golding from UT-San Antonio in the offseason in part to alleviate concerns about Lupoi's inexperience with the secondary and as a play-caller. Still, word is Lupoi seemed overwhelmed during practices and didn't totally grasp situational play-calling. While he was still heavily involved in the defensive game-planning, there was no question Golding taking over play-calling represented a demotion of sorts for Lupoi barely into the start of his defensive coordinator stint.

... it was a move that had to happen. It was clear that Alabama's defense wasn't up to snuff this season and that reared its head in the ugly title game loss. Saban knew he needed to make an upgrade as far as defensive staffing, which is why the most recruiting-obsessed head coach in college football history seemingly didn't fight to keep his best recruiter.

---

In any case, I've said my bit and let's hope that the 7 additional seasons Tosh has had in various coaching stints with 4 different organisations have helped him improve his weak spots.

---

It's would also no longer be his job. He's one of the best in the biz at one of the most important aspects of being a head coach... recruiting... but now it's not just players, but also staff, donors, and the fanbase. How good he is at management, organization, etc. remains to be seen but playcalling on defense is far less important.

---

Yup, though the idea here would be that Ron Rivera is around to help with all of that other stuff.

concernedparent said:

---

It's would also no longer be his job. He's one of the best in the biz at one of the most important aspects of being a head coach... recruiting... but now it's not just players, but also staff, donors, and the fanbase. How good he is at management, organization, etc. remains to be seen but playcalling on defense is far less important.

---

Exactly. He's a great acquirer and developer of talent, seems to be a great culture guy, and has learned from the likes of Tedford, Sarkisian, Saban, and Lanning how to run a program effectively. From where he's been, he's got to have a great set of contacts in CFB and the NFL to be able to effectively hire talented assistants. I think the attributes are there to be able to be a good HC at Cal.

atoms said:

---

I think he's a smart, driven guy and there's no reason to think he hasn't improved considerably from his literal first year as a play caller.

---

Given that he didn't have the playcalling smarts at age 37 after ten years in the coaching business, what are the odds that he will at 44?

Quote:

---

It's would also no longer be his job. He's one of the best in the biz at one of the most important aspects of being a head coach... recruiting... but now it's not just players, but also staff, donors, and the fanbase. How good he is at management, organization, etc. remains to be seen but playcalling on defense is far less important.

---

The ACC is a conference where parity reigns, with many tight games where the game outcome can swing on a differential in playcalling.

Hopefully Tosh does recognize his weak points and will be able to put together the staff that will best complement his profile.

The odds... are pretty high, considering he's doing the play calling very effectively at Oregon?

Also, he probably wouldn't be doing the play calling as a HC, he would have a DC for that.

atoms said:

---

The odds... are pretty high, considering he's doing the play calling very effectively at Oregon?

Also, he probably wouldn't be doing the play calling as a HC, he would have a DC for that.

---

He has never been the sole DC at Oregon, and is working under a head coach who is one of the top defensive specialists in the NCAA, same as at Bama.

In a team where the head coach is a defensive specialist like at Oregon or Alabama, the HC sets the defensive philosophy and often makes the decisions on gameday overriding the DC, and sometimes even the OC.

Oregon can beat most of its opponents on talent alone, but when faced with a similar or slightly worse talent, playcalling, gameplans, adjustments, Xs and Os become the difference. See their game against Indiana, where they were vastly outclassed at home and their D was outcoached by Cignetti.

The best profile for a Cal HC is a moneyball type expert who can outscheme opponents and above all spot, develop, put together and coach up a team with half the payroll of the average playoff-bound or SEC/B1G team. I don't think Tosh is that guy. Hopefully his staff will cover all these requirements as a unit.

Cignetti is literally the best coach in college football. You're basically saying you want to hire the next Cignetti.

That would be fantastic, I'd be on board. Does he exist? Who is it? Is he available?

atoms said:

---

Cignetti is literally the best coach in college football. You're basically saying you want to hire the next Cignetti.

That would be fantastic, I'd be on board. Does he exist? Who is it? Is he available?

---

He does exist, and RR is paid $800k to find him. Tedford and Snyder both fit the bill when they were chosen. I think Stein was one of the candidates that fits that profile as well, but he wasn't going to be available with the UK job open. There are other out there, let's hope one or two younger types end up on Tosh's staff.

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

freshfunk said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

---

After 9 years of Wilcox, people need a reason to be excited. Sure we can harp about his potential deficiencies but what's the point? We weren't in the conversation for any of the G5 playoff teams and we certainly weren't getting James Franklin. Better Tosh than the virtual unknown that Stanford picked up

DoubtfulBear said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

---

After 9 years of Wilcox, people need a reason to be excited. Sure we can harp about his potential deficiencies but what's the point? We weren't in the conversation for any of the G5 playoff teams and we certainly weren't getting James Franklin. Better Tosh than the virtual unknown that Stanford picked up

---

Again, I sort of resent this hyperbole because I don't think it's constructive. We're obviously not a blue blood program but that doesn't mean we can't hire some real coaching talent out there. I don't know who was on the short list and who RR was talking to but UCLA's hire (Bob Chesney) looks like a good one and not someone who I think was out of reach for Cal. Same goes for the former head coach at North Texas. Will Stein would've also been a great hire. Obv these guys have all been snapped up, but just examples of people other than Tosh who would've likely been good hires NOT named James Franklin.

I get the star power around Tosh but I don't get the sentiment that he'd be the only good hire out there (because of his god-like recruiting).

freshfunk said:

---

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

---

There is a little of both. There are people who are getting their heads in the clouds about what he could do and there are people who are just assuming right off the bat that he's no good. The truth is that we don't know. He's a decent candidate. He'll probably be entering to more administrative and donor support than any previous Cal coach in my lifetime. To me, these are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the hire . . . but of course there is no sure thing.

freshfunk said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

---

After 9 years of Wilcox, people need a reason to be excited. Sure we can harp about his potential deficiencies but what's the point? We weren't in the conversation for any of the G5 playoff teams and we certainly weren't getting James Franklin. Better Tosh than the virtual unknown that Stanford picked up

---

Again, I sort of resent this hyperbole because I don't think it's constructive. We're obviously not a blue blood program but that doesn't mean we can't hire some real coaching talent out there. I don't know who was on the short list and who RR was talking to but UCLA's hire (Bob Chesney) looks like a good one and not someone who I think was out of reach for Cal. Same goes for the former head coach at North Texas. Will Stein would've also been a great hire. Obv these guys have all been snapped up, but just examples of people other than Tosh who would've likely been good hires NOT named James Franklin.

I get the star power around Tosh but I don't get the sentiment that he'd be the only good hire out there (because of his god-like recruiting).

---

Those other guys have question marks too. Can Chesney manage in a power conference? He's never done it before. Will Stein has never been a head coach and is still pretty young. Does he have what it takes to be the head man?

Every program that isn't throwing money around for a proven P4 head coach has to take chances like this. Tosh is as good as any.

freshfunk said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

---

I'm confused now, does he have the technical skills (since he is a "great defensive mind") or not?

The skepticism about good recruiter meaning good HC thing is fair and I already expressed my own opinion. In any case, I rather have a HC that is an elite recruiter/salesman and an average defensive Xs and Os guy than the reverse.

freshfunk said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

The argument that Tosh just needs to be a great CEO is not very compelling. There's a reason why you work your way to the way. You prove yourself at each level. Skill at each level allows you to evaluate talent as you move up. As a coordinator, you evaluate who are good position coaches. As a head coach, you evaluate coordinators and position coaches. You're also setting strategy and often making the call, particularly in situations where the choice isn't obvious.

Every coach has to develop and hopefully Tosh has developed under his mentors. But the argument that it's not necessary sounds desperate.

And, as someone else mentioned, even with improved recruiting the next head coach has to be skillful enough (in scheme, execution, strategy) to do more with less here. Otherwise, on-par performance will result in middle of the conference outcomes, not too dissimilar from where we are today.

---

A few things.

1. Why? The head coach is a CEO role where he delegates duties and oversees their work.
2. CEOs in the business world are almost never the most technically (the metaphoric X's and O's) savvy people in the company anyway.
3. Tosh has worked his way up.

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. If there was one, we couldn't afford them anyway. What we do know is that he is elite at one (very important) aspect of the job and deficient at another aspect. I have my skepticism about him as an HC but it's not because he can't do in-game defensive play calling. For example, it's not clear from his resume or public speaking engagements if he understands offense well enough to hire a coordinator and offer good input. Further, can he identify and develop under the radar talent? Can he navigate the system and sell to the university/AD and get them to buy in? Selling to academic bureaucrats is very different from selling to 18 year olds. Those things to me are more important for the job than on-the-fly X's and O's.

---

If we want to follow the analogy, at least in my field the best CEO's are the founders that have good technical skills that the industry requires. The reason why, as I've stated, is because being good is used to understand and identify talent. And that is used to surround yourself with talent when you move up / get bigger and move from the day-to-day.

There are "professional CEO's" that specialize that in taking over a company and managing it, but usually they aren't as good. And those CEO's are typically good at one particular thing like operating the company. Perhaps a good example is Tim Cook vs Steve Jobs. Jobs had a sense of design and could identify good designers and good technologists. Cook is good at operating the company and squeezing out the best margins but he's not a product innovator.

I haven't followed Tosh that closely since his departure from Cal. I know of his stops. I know that Oregon is doing fairly well. What irks me a bit is the rationalizing here. I think some people are getting their heads so far in the clouds about getting Tosh and his recruiting ability that it becomes this end-all-be-all that will automatically turn this program around.

Meanwhile, I'm feeling like there are some (not exact) parallels to Wilcox. Great defensive mind. Good defensive coordinator with stops at good schools under good coaches. Then comes here and struggles on the offensive side of the ball and struggles to hire the right coach at OC. I'm not saying this exact thing will happen as I think we're willing to spend more now -- I'm just cautious that Tosh as a good recruiter means Tosh will be a good HC.

---

After 9 years of Wilcox, people need a reason to be excited. Sure we can harp about his potential deficiencies but what's the point? We weren't in the conversation for any of the G5 playoff teams and we certainly weren't getting James Franklin. Better Tosh than the virtual unknown that Stanford picked up

---

Again, I sort of resent this hyperbole because I don't think it's constructive. We're obviously not a blue blood program but that doesn't mean we can't hire some real coaching talent out there. I don't know who was on the short list and who RR was talking to but UCLA's hire (Bob Chesney) looks like a good one and not someone who I think was out of reach for Cal. Same goes for the former head coach at North Texas. Will Stein would've also been a great hire. Obv these guys have all been snapped up, but just examples of people other than Tosh who would've likely been good hires NOT named James Franklin.

I get the star power around Tosh but I don't get the sentiment that he'd be the only good hire out there (because of his god-like recruiting).

---

I too would've like to be in the conversation for another HC but for whatever reason Ron and the rest of leadership are all in on Tosh. Whether it's because he's actually better or the other coaches don't want to come here we just don't know. We can only hope it's the right call