Echoing what others have said: positives are Tavita embodies the characteristics of the university, understands its mission deeply (not insignificant after the disaster of the TT tenure).
Negatives to me seem this is a complacent hire at a time when we can least afford to be complacent. I have always rated David Shaw's tenure higher than Harbaugh's (on account of the peaks being higher and Shaw doing it for longer), but we need a Harbaugh like figure in the sense of innovation and trying something different (because the last several years simply haven't worked).
I think I was as optimistic on David Shaw at the end of his tenure as anyone on the board, but time and circumstances call for different hires at different times. Continuity hires (like David Shaw) work really well when the program is on a high. Yes, our last change hire was a disaster on the field and apparently off, but I believe we need a change hire when we haven't put up a winning record in 5 years.
At the end of the day, even if we set aside convincing the donor base (which is arguably very important in the NIL era), Tavita is going to have convince recruits with other options football and NIL wise why his tenure as HC will be different than 2019, 2021 and 2022 as OC. I think Tavita will be a great representative of the university, but I don't think this question will be an unreasonable/unfair one from recruits, donors etc.
Negatives to me seem this is a complacent hire at a time when we can least afford to be complacent. I have always rated David Shaw's tenure higher than Harbaugh's (on account of the peaks being higher and Shaw doing it for longer), but we need a Harbaugh like figure in the sense of innovation and trying something different (because the last several years simply haven't worked).
(11-28-2025, 04:58 PM)Chupacabra Wrote: The pessimism here is embarrassing. We really don't know anything about him as a coach, he was a non-play calling OC under Shaw. He got a great year out of Jayden Daniels as a rookie, though that's hard to quantify because of Daniels's talent and Kingsbury as OC. He does now have two years under a really good coach in Quinn. We don't know anything about the system he wants to run or where he lands on the CEO-play caller scale.
What we do know is that he was the QB for what was possibly the most important win in program history, and that Andrew Luck believes in him. He's also an alum, which increases the chance that he's not going to jump to a bigger program or the NFL at the first sign of success.
I'm convinced many on this board don't actually want to enjoy the team, preferring to wallow in their misery instead of living optimism.
I think I was as optimistic on David Shaw at the end of his tenure as anyone on the board, but time and circumstances call for different hires at different times. Continuity hires (like David Shaw) work really well when the program is on a high. Yes, our last change hire was a disaster on the field and apparently off, but I believe we need a change hire when we haven't put up a winning record in 5 years.
At the end of the day, even if we set aside convincing the donor base (which is arguably very important in the NIL era), Tavita is going to have convince recruits with other options football and NIL wise why his tenure as HC will be different than 2019, 2021 and 2022 as OC. I think Tavita will be a great representative of the university, but I don't think this question will be an unreasonable/unfair one from recruits, donors etc.