[Goose]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".

[Goose]

Ok, fair enough, it happens sometimes. But the decision right now is whether to let him go, and you don’t do that assuming you’ll ever get him back. It’s not the same as paying for his MBA, with a claw-back clause, and expecting to get him back. Many variables would have to align.

I need to be more clear here. I do not believe that replacing Tavita will make Stanford better. I don't know if he is in any way the "root of the problem", whatever that may be. I just don't have the "insider perspective" to know one way or the other. My belief that Tavita should consider moving on is for his sake, not for Stanford's sake.  Shaw should tell him something like the following: "Look, you are the OC. If/when I leave, you are probably out of a job here. You aren't going to get any kind of head coaching job with your current resume. I like the work you are doing, but we have to look at your future. If you go to the NFL as an OC and do pretty well, you will have a shot at a lower-tier college head coaching job. Further, if the stars align, I can get you back here as an Assistant Head Coach/OC with the idea you take my job when I go. Otherwise, you are maxed out here. I will help you out all I can if you decide to look". This is, I think, an accurate statement of reality.
I do not share the belief that promoting from inside is necessarily bad. I do understand the idea that developing a "house palette" is not a good thing. What is most important is that you put together the best functioning team of coaches possible. You can only look at replacing Tavita with a real person, not a "coach to be named later". Also, I am not aware of a meaningful WAR rating for assistant football coaches. Whoever you name must be willing to put up with Coach Shaw calling the plays, or has the ability to convince Shaw to not do so. I don't know the answer, but saying "replace person X" makes sense only when you can show person X is not getting it done ATM, I haven't heard anyone make a good argument that Tavita should be replaced.

It seems like everything you say is right - he would be a better coach with outside experiences

Probably so. Experience is good even if all it does is confirm what you already believe. What it will for sure do is remove the argument he doesn't have any.

It strikes me as a rationalization for wanting him gone, so we can improve our team and coaching now.

To be clear, I am not sure we can improve our coaching by replacing him. Who will replace him? Then I can have an opinion. A new body often just makes things worse. It is also true that fit is important. Would you replace Tavita with Beau Baldwin (assuming we could get him)?  How about Graham Harrell? "Give reasons for your answer".