Outside Topic UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney (/thread-25922.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney (/thread-25922.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - norcard10 - 12-02-2025
(12-02-2025, 05:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: are you being facetious? I think it is possible to have identified a preferred candidate at the onset and still carry out a thorough search. In fact it would be negligent not to. The preferred candidate could wind up getting a better offer elsewhere, or maybe a red flag pops up during their vetting. I’ve seen candidates who knew they had the inside track blow off the process and make everyone question the initial assessment. Sometimes a dark horse just totally blows everyone away.
I think you guys are jumping to conclusions about a process that none of us know anything about. All we know is that the candidate that, at the onset looked like the most likely candidate to get the job got the job. Tha doesn’t mean the process was flawed or that it wasn’t thorough.
About the only thing we know is that Luck elected to bring Reich as a temporary coach for a year. I’m pretty sure that if Stanford wanted Pritchard, we could have had him in March, which tells me that, actually, Stanford wanted to conduct a more thorough search than simply identifying Pritchard and bringing him in.
BC
I hope tavita wasn't the preferred candidate at the onset and that he actually shined during the process with better football knowledge and vision for the program. There's too many available coaches with better resumes than his for he to be the defacto preferred candidate at the start.
I do agree the bar for "30+ candidates" is low. I strongly doubt even 10+ highly valued coaches (aka, people that were being poached for power 4 head coaching positions elsewhere) would consider this given the amount of money being thrown around in college football at the moment. BYU's coach is about to get $9M for instance.
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - BostonCard - 12-02-2025
Fair points. As I said, “A pool of more than 30 candidates” is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I agree that the pool of candidates where Stanford would have made an offer (but for having a more preferred candidate on the list) and the candidate potentially accepting is narrower than 30.
But it’s probably not that much narrower. The universe of candidates we have drawn from in the past is pretty large, actually. We’ve taken FCS coaches (Taylor, Harbaugh), coordinators in college (Shaw, Dowhower) and the pros (Walsh, Wiggin), head coaches from P4 FBS programs (Harris, Green), position coaches with no coordinator experinece (Willingham), retreads working as OCs (Teevens), G5 Head Coaches (Elway).
I think out of Matt’s list, once you get beyond the first 10 or so names, Stanford would have been an attractive opportunity for several dozen, and whether Stanford gave them a significant look or not, they would have made reasonable candidates if the powers that be in the search committee had wanted to (we have no insight on whether they did or not).
There are only 60 P4 head coaching jobs in the country, so even one on the bottom end of desireability for institutional reasons is a big deal and would be highly coveted by someone currently coaching a G5 school, an FCS school, who is currently a coordinator in the college (and some in the pros), or who was fired from a more high profile coaching gig.
BC
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - norcard10 - 12-02-2025
(12-02-2025, 06:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Fair points. As I said, “A pool of more than 30 candidates” is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I agree that the pool of candidates where Stanford would have made an offer (but for having a more preferred candidate on the list) and the candidate potentially accepting is narrower than 30.
But it’s probably not that much narrower. The universe of candidates we have drawn from in the past is pretty large, actually. We’ve taken FCS coaches (Taylor, Harbaugh), coordinators in college (Shaw, Dowhower) and the pros (Walsh, Wiggin), head coaches from P4 FBS programs (Harris, Green), position coaches with no coordinator experinece (Willingham), retreads working as OCs (Teevens), G5 Head Coaches (Elway).
I think out of Matt’s list, once you get beyond the first 10 or so names, Stanford would have been an attractive opportunity for several dozen, and whether Stanford gave them a significant look or not, they would have made reasonable candidates if the powers that be in the search committee had wanted to (we have no insight on whether they did or not).
There are only 60 P4 head coaching jobs in the country, so even one on the bottom end of desireability for institutional reasons is a big deal and would be highly coveted by someone currently coaching a G5 school, an FCS school, who is currently a coordinator in the college (and some in the pros), or who was fired from a more high profile coaching gig.
BC
True but I wonder how many of the candidates fit my qualified statement "I strongly doubt even 10+ highly valued coaches (aka, people that were being poached for power 4 head coaching positions elsewhere) ". After all, i could have college students on campus apply and count that as 100+ candidates..=).
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - 82lsju - 12-02-2025
(12-02-2025, 06:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Fair points. As I said, “A pool of more than 30 candidates” is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I agree that the pool of candidates where Stanford would have made an offer (but for having a more preferred candidate on the list) and the candidate potentially accepting is narrower than 30.
But it’s probably not that much narrower. The universe of candidates we have drawn from in the past is pretty large, actually. We’ve taken FCS coaches (Taylor, Harbaugh), coordinators in college (Shaw, Dowhower) and the pros (Walsh, Wiggin), head coaches from P4 FBS programs (Harris, Green), position coaches with no coordinator experinece (Willingham), retreads working as OCs (Teevens), G5 Head Coaches (Elway).
I think out of Matt’s list, once you get beyond the first 10 or so names, Stanford would have been an attractive opportunity for several dozen, and whether Stanford gave them a significant look or not, they would have made reasonable candidates if the powers that be in the search committee had wanted to (we have no insight on whether they did or not).
There are only 60 P4 head coaching jobs in the country, so even one on the bottom end of desireability for institutional reasons is a big deal and would be highly coveted by someone currently coaching a G5 school, an FCS school, who is currently a coordinator in the college (and some in the pros), or who was fired from a more high profile coaching gig.
BC
well ND did hire Gerry Faust when he was a high school coach so maybe the pool is larger than I think it is, anything is possible....
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - Goose - 12-02-2025
(12-02-2025, 05:59 PM)norcard10 Wrote: I hope tavita wasn't the preferred candidate at the onset and that he actually shined during the process with better football knowledge and vision for the program. There's too many available coaches with better resumes than his for he to be the defacto preferred candidate at the start.I would be amazed if Tavita wasn't the preferred candidate at the start. Tavita and Luck know each other well. Virtually everybody involved in the process knows Tavita. They generally would not "know" the other candidates. Sight unseen, Tavita would be the choice. You can't hire a resume as a football coach. You hire a person. It is however also true that part of the process would be to get at least a top-level relationship with the other candidates. Presumably that was done, but at the end of the day Tavita was the choice.
IMO the vast majority of the coaches that have a great resume and significant experience would not consider Stanford because (among other things) they don't want to work for Andrew Luck. The role of the college general manager of football is a new one. Exactly how the relationship of the coach to the GM should be crafted is still a work in progress. At Stanford, it is clear that Andrew Luck intends to be directly involved with the players on a daily basis, be on the field during games, and will be the de-facto "face" of the franchise. The coach reports to the GM. In the power hierarchy Luck is above the head coach and is going to be actively involved. Luck is 36 years old. He is a Stanford Icon. He isn't going anywhere. An already-successful head coach is not going to work under such a structure. Said coach will want to be the "big dog". At Stanford he can't be. The ADs for which he previously worked were administrators that were almost faceless. The HC ran the show and got what he wanted. In a "power struggle", the HC would win as long as he was above .500 for sure and probably even if he was below. Against AL, he would not. Saban and his peers (or aspirants) aren't going to accept such a relationship. They don't have to.
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - norcard10 - 12-03-2025
(12-02-2025, 08:46 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-02-2025, 05:59 PM)norcard10 Wrote: I hope tavita wasn't the preferred candidate at the onset and that he actually shined during the process with better football knowledge and vision for the program. There's too many available coaches with better resumes than his for he to be the defacto preferred candidate at the start.I would be amazed if Tavita wasn't the preferred candidate at the start. Tavita and Luck know each other well. Virtually everybody involved in the process knows Tavita. They generally would not "know" the other candidates. Sight unseen, Tavita would be the choice. You can't hire a resume as a football coach. You hire a person. It is however also true that part of the process would be to get at least a top-level relationship with the other candidates. Presumably that was done, but at the end of the day Tavita was the choice.
IMO the vast majority of the coaches that have a great resume and significant experience would not consider Stanford because (among other things) they don't want to work for Andrew Luck. The role of the college general manager of football is a new one. Exactly how the relationship of the coach to the GM should be crafted is still a work in progress. At Stanford, it is clear that Andrew Luck intends to be directly involved with the players on a daily basis, be on the field during games, and will be the de-facto "face" of the franchise. The coach reports to the GM. In the power hierarchy Luck is above the head coach and is going to be actively involved. Luck is 36 years old. He is a Stanford Icon. He isn't going anywhere. An already-successful head coach is not going to work under such a structure. Said coach will want to be the "big dog". At Stanford he can't be. The ADs for which he previously worked were administrators that were almost faceless. The HC ran the show and got what he wanted. In a "power struggle", the HC would win as long as he was above .500 for sure and probably even if he was below. Against AL, he would not. Saban and his peers (or aspirants) aren't going to accept such a relationship. They don't have to.
Should Tavita not be a good hire, I don't see luck lasting long in the GM role unfortunately.
RE: UCLA is hiring James Madison’s Bob Chesney - washingtonismoney - 12-03-2025
(12-03-2025, 12:47 AM)norcard10 Wrote: Should Tavita not be a good hire, I don't see luck lasting long in the GM role unfortunately.
One thing I found revealing about the press conference is how much Luck deferred to Donahue (calling him "boss" and so on.) Could be an odd org chart.