CalBear95

Link to Dilly interview? Could use a little inspiration at moment (also, “es tut mir leid” as the Germans say (‘sorry’) for being AWOL of late. Been a long and tough month. Time to get back to talking Ducks football!) I watched this and thought the Ducks have their guy. His hiring of a CoS is the clearest sign he’s a delegator. And that, as we saw w/MC, is an incredibly important management skill.

Now we know why Pittman left. Imagine him in that group….<sigh>

THIS He never said he was offered. He answered in vagaries which, were I in the middle of a contract extension conversation, I would be more than happy to create the narrative that (1) you almost lost me, (2) but I stayed because I am bullish on the future, and (3) who knows what happens with the next offer. I still don't buy he was offered. The word choice he uses is vague to the point that it lets you fill in the narrative. If he said "I turned it down because we can do great things here" then I would gladly get on the 'what was Mullens thinking' and 'wow, it is better to be lucky than good' train. But, again, I don't.

Texas just showed how limited that thinking is because they have finally landed on the obvious conclusion to the NIL model: Don’t be the agent, be the reseller who cares not at all if a license actually has any commensurate marketing value. As I think more on this, I hope the players unionize and implement a salary cap. Seriously. If some Yahoo from TX wants to spend $50k per lineman and that eats up some TBD % of NIL spend per program, well, those better be some good linemen. As a collective, not every P5 program wants to get into this spending war. Maybe this once again shifts the conferences based on overall spending power of their alumni base but the smart money sees the value of a broader league based model rather than 10 haves and 47 d-league schools randomly dispersed across the country No idea how it works but I do see a ‘there’ there. IDK. Thought exercise/tossing it out for improvement.

This is in no way surprising. In fact, I am surprised it took someone this long to get there. If I create, say, a $100 MM fund that is used for the sole purpose of buying an NIL license for as few or as many players as I want, I am not paying players directly. Whether I even use those NIL rights is a whole other question. If I have to make a good faith effort to do so, I can create a ton of low cost widgets - if needed I pair with logos of businesses contributing to the fund - and I can literally buy a team. They should just drop the act and do pay for play. While we are at it, a salary cap might be a good idea so we can add a whole other layer of complexity to the AD’s office. NFL lite!

Now can he pull back Mycah Pittman (if he hasn't already left for SC)

At a micro level, these questions feel to me to be...aggressive. If he were to do so, Mullens could not be blamed for reading these as coming from a place of frustration at the outcome of the search rather than a genuine interest to understand the backstory. Does it matter how Chip's interview went or whether he interviewed at all? I cannot imagine any AD ever discussing other specific candidates they might have considered or interviewed and would probably answer with something along the lines of 'we conducted an extensive search of amazing people...clear best candidate was Lanning'? Does it matter whether Wilcox was offered the job and flat turned it down (which, in all transparency, I believe is an utter fabrication by boosters who were ride or die with that candidate)? If you really wanted Wilcox, I understand the desire to know what happened with him, but this is a press conference introducing the new coach. If you were to ask, perhaps, "how did you manage the process of taking input from the many passionate camps among fans and boosters" and/or "reaction has been largely positive but some were vocal the program would be best served reaching back into the program's roots (i.e., Kelly and Justin Wilcox). How have you reached out to these groups and what do you think you can do to get them to share in your excitement in hiring Lanning?" I think you would be on firmer ground.

Per above, I doubt that Wilcox was ever offered the job. This has all the hallmarks of an inside faction torching and undermining a decision they did not like. I would be shocked if this “rebuff” story is in any way true. Also, I would be willing to bet PK knows exactly which boosters did this and they may find themselves frozen out for the foreseeable future.

This is a hit job by the faction of boosters that demanded Wilcox be hired. They were Canzano’s ‘sources’ saying nothing with Lanning was done yet and that reports were “inaccurate.” If they couldn’t have Wilcox, then they would exact revenge by embarrassing the administration and taking the shine off Lanning. And this tale is spreading online as ‘the true story behind the Oregon hire’ and the boosters have accomplished their goal. Canzano is either an unwitting tool to this end, should know better that he is being used, or in on the game because, clicks. It is all despicable behavior. If you don’t buy what I want, I’ll do my best to damage whatever you do.

So, he interviewed to turn them down? He wasn't sure the pressure would be immense until he had an interview at which point, it dawns on Wilcox that perhaps Oregon's investments in the program and the recent run of recruiting classes, being in the hunt for the NCP, and so forth, means there is an expectation the HC deliver high level outcomes? He realized that despite being known to be frustrated by Cal's administrative bureaucracy, he actually had it pretty good in his current role? My mind is blown. It is here that we pick up the incredible tale of the One That Got Away... But before they tucked tail and settled on this DC from UGA, the administration would not take no for an answer. They made a last run at Wilcox. They begged him to take the job. Mullens and Phil were not going to be denied in their pursuit of a coach no other team had even considered poaching. A coach with a history of strangling offenses. Rebuffed, the Ducks regrouped, licked their wounded pride and finally settled for this rising and acknowledged star with massive potential upside. I too, Canzano, will always wonder what could have been if that brilliant and elite coach, Justin Wilcox, had not spurned the Ducks to toil in mediocrity and sub-par facilities. Truly a loss for the Ducks' program.

I think Riley has the highest probability of topping this list. But if Lanning looks anything like other GA coordinators in their HC careers, I think Lanning probably dominates. Lanning is going to bring an SEC style program to the P12. In the CFP, when paired up against the SEC, Riley's teams have been utterly stomped. Yes, some of those SEC teams were very good but Oklahoma's weakness has always been defense. It isn't like he had sub-optimal DCs nor did he lack in talent on that side of the ball. He has just never been able to have a consistent defense. If the Ducks get a solid O and in any real way look like an SEC defense, the Ducks will be the program to be feared in the P12 (Not that USC won't. They will. Washington probably the #3 power in the league.).

I just can’t join you in this perspective. Smart’s hiring at GA and Day’s at OSU are proof of this. You think either school had to ‘settle’ for less than they wanted? Or Notre Dame this cycle either (you don’t think Fickle would have turned them down)? There was no real splashy name to be hired at this point in the year. That is the reality of hiring late in the process. if they had hired Wilcox or Kelly then I would conclude that either your point is exactly right or the hiring group had a total failure of imagination. Let me ask this a different way. You think Lanning was going to take a HC job at just any school? In many ways, Oregon’s ability to land him says a lot about the status of the opportunity and job.

I freakin' love this hire. I mean love it to the point I am fired up about next season more than I've been in lord knows how many years. First, I want to acknowledge that this hire is certainly not without risk. I'll avoid the trite 'everything has risk' comment because it is as insighful and informative as pointing out the water is wet. I think the CBS reporter highlighted this well when he pointed out 'say what you will about him as a head coach, Muschamp has been a successful DC wherever he has gone" (or basically said that...I'm paraphrasing here as I am just too disinterested in getting the details right when the sentiment is correct...I believe this is also known and the Law of Diminishing Returns. But I ramble and digress...) The risk is he could be either a Muschamp or an Aranda or Tucker. We won't know for probably 2+ years. But I want to acknowledge this so those who are disappointed, nervous, or anywhere in between, know thier criticism is both heard and - at least by me FWIW - seen as entirely valid. But I don't think there was any other risk/reward hire to be made given when MC left. Kelly has...baggage. But even settng that aside, there is enough of a body of work, that we can reasonably conclude he has either reached or, at best, nearing his peak (i.e., low upside). Wilcox doesn't strike me as a coach with high potential upside either. While I am very willing to bet he can reach higher heights than Kelly (relatively speaking), I don't feel his track record justifies the risk/reward ratio (and what is not often noted is that Oregon can very easily slide back into a middling program so the downside risk of getting a 'safe' choice isn't de minimis either). MC did one great thing for the program: he showed it was possible to recruit at a high level. And in doing that, he showed a new path open to the Ducks. But I am actually quite glad to see MC go. Yes, the timing was terrible and it certainly opened old wounds from the affaire de Taggert but I if forced to do so, I would short his future. That may prove wrong but there were a number of issues suggesting he may ultimately be a middle of the road talent who can recruit at an elite level (coaching and talent development being two major areas where he was meh or worse). I wish him no ill nor hold any malice in my formation of this opinion. It is simply a read based on the sample size of his tenure at Oregon. Lanning has a lot of signals suggesting this is not as much of a gamble as others perceive it to be. Again, betting on whether a coordinator has what it takes to be a head coach carries more risk than turning to someone with a track record in that role. But given there we no real proven assets with this experience, this is what I would have done as well, were I Mullens (hire a very promising, hot O/DC talent) First, he has consistently overperformed at every level of the football ranks. And often his title was not indiciative of the broader role he actually played. Second, he has been mentored by incredibly elite systems in which the HC let's his assistants do their job (Saban runs his program wth an iron fist but that in no way should be read as overly controlling. His hiring and deference to Kiffin is a perfect example of him hiring elite coaches and remembering why he did so). There is no guarnatee Lanning has internalized this style or, maybe more to the point, he has yet to be in a high stakes position that requires him to execute it. There are many stories of first time managers that struggle with not being micromanagers. But having been taught and experienced the value of those systems, it would be reasonable to believe he will run his program that same way. Third, recruiting and in a conference that is ruthlessly competitive in that endeavor but keenly aware it is the lifeblood of the program. Fourth, he seemingly knows how to develop talent. This is where I think MC really fell short. It is great to recruit great talent. But the level of skill and development cannot be stagnant. Time will tell. But risk had to be taken and I think this decision reflects a very thorough and thoughtful assessment of the downside and how great the upside. If he can do the job, trust me, he is going nowhere. I just hope we get a definitive enough read in a short time frame to know to lock him up before ever giving him a chance to be poached (for the record, I thought MC deserved a raise to see if he would prove to be worth a more lucrative contract than he was on but the amount of money Miami tossed at him was utterly unjustifiable from Oregon's current position (Miami probably less so)).

I've said this in other posts: this is a 'must have' for Oregon's (or any program seeking to be elite) hiring criteria. As I see it, there are six key elements that define high level coaching (possibly seven if you include knowing how to play the politics of the booster community): (1) Leading and managing a complex organization. You would be surprised how overlooked this is and yet, beyond critical. (2) Coaching acumen (aka Xs and Os, game management, etc.) (3) Hiring a high skill coordinators and being able to both support them and let them do the job you hired them to do (also somethign a lot of people struggle with) (4) Talent evalaution and assessing as a fit for your schemes (5) Recruiting prowess (6) Talent development A person need not be 'A' grades in all of these areas, and in fact, the hallmark of a good manager is to find those people who can complement areas of weakness. But a candidate cannot be overly lacking in any particular area either. A Chip Kelly who famously disdains recruiting is an example of being too deficient in a critical area (and while he can hire ace recruiters, the investment a coach makes in recruiting players versus just outsourcing the 'odious task' to an underling goes a long way to pulling in high talent recruits. Think about it, would you want to work for soemone who really didn't seem all that interested in you as a person or showed an passion for your making the company/organization better). Dan Mullen is the case study on this point. Compare and contrast that w/Kirby Smart's answer to that same question posed to him in direct response to Dan Mullen's 'really not worried or focused on that' answer. Not to overrotate on recruiting but I think I land my point. Good head coaches are hard to find because being no worse that fair at any of these traits, and excellent in many, is really, really hard.

I read an earlier link from OBD forum that the Wilcox interviews and outreach to Chip are very likely politics to keep the Oregon man/reach into our glory days factions satisfied without ever really meaning to go that direction. If so, it would be an incredibly savvy move by Mullens. I get the feeling that the best chance Wilcox has is if all other options fall through and they have to hire someone. The proverbial safety school. I feel many people are giving Wilcox too much of a pass for his failings and placing to high a share of blame on the school. The reality is Wilcox kills offenses as a HC. He is the anti Chip in that he his track record seems pretty clear that he has no idea how to evaluate a good OC, recruit offensive talent, and create a system that makes that side of the ball at least some level of threat to take advantage of the defensive scheme he is good at promoting and implementing. A lot of people have justified looking at Chip with arguments that fall roughly along the lines of 'well, if we pair him with a really good DC and someone who loves to recruit..." First, any college coach not 100% committed to recruiting versus looking at it as the part of the job they really don't like isn't ever going to win at an elite level anywhere. Chip's advantage when at Oregon was the disruptive scheme. That advantage has since been removed as the rest of the P5 caught up to it and effectively rendered it ineffective as anything other than an occasionally used tactic during a game (aka 'they're moving to tempo on this drive..."). Kelly is in one of the premiere recruiting hotbeds in the country with an elite educational institution to boot. And he still can't land the high level players that fit his scheme (the star rating isn't the key, it's their talent level for the scheme. Not that 5 star recruits are not to be prized but they ultimately need to fit into the scheme to be an optimal talent). Second, Chip has never really had a strong DC. For those who, I suspect are being sarcastic, but if not, advocate Chip HC + Lanning DC have to answer a simple question: why would Lanning ever leave Georgia to take a lateral move in a lesser situation and when his history shows he has never done this even though given previous choices? The macro point is that I get the sense Chip would have no idea what a good DC looked like even if he ran them over and conversely, I don't know that top level DCs really want to work for Chip. Putting a bow on it, Wilcox and Kelly are, in many ways mirror images of each other but for many represent one common theme: the past. Kelly is lost as a HC on defense and that has always been his Achilles heel. Wilcox, conversely, would seem to run systems where offense goes to die. Some coaches just can't make the jump our of their area of expertise and that happens. That doesn't make them bad coaches, it just makes them poor or mediocre head coaches. A coach has to come up from one side of the proverbial ball, no doubt. The coordinators that turn out to be good head coaches are those who can get out of their own narrow area of expertise and lead broadly (Aranda and Kirby Smart are fantastic examples of highly skilled DCs who now lead programs that both can score and defend). Anyhow, my novella take.

Regardless whether this is poor reporting (and I suspect it isn't because the ACJ ain't no scrub as the song goes) - and I honestly cannot blame anyone for posting a local, major paper versus the ESPNs who seem almost purpose driven to troll the fan base with the laziest of lazy reporting - I like the thinking if this is how Mullens is approaching the search. Six reasons for six years of (relative) instability in the program's coaching position: (1) Lanning has ties to the SEC which means he knows how the award winning sausage gets made. (2) He works for Kirby Smart who is admittedly a dogged recruiter. (3) Smart has aggressively fought to keep him which, considering the man's defensive pedigree, suggests Lanning probably has a bit more than a clue as to what he is doing. (4) He isn't rooted in any particular locale so won't be pining for the (insert your own adjective here) Florida lifestyle (or midwest, etc.). (5) He doesn't read as a mercenary (his comment on stability and longevity as high order bits). (6) He clearly wants his next job to be as a HC and incubated within a, frankly, really good coaching staff and well run program. When the people you are (rumored to be) targeting are not being pursued by any other soul in this D1 football world, that might be a signal that you view talent quite different from the crowd. Whether that different perspective makes you 'not a sheep' with some preternatual ability to see potential and skill nobody else can, or an ad agency's favorite demographic, the impulse buyer watching late night TV, that is not for me to say. Lord knows I have no corner on the elite coaching talent evaluation market.

One of my co-workers is an Oregon alum. We work together pretty often and have beome pretty friendly in a short amount of time. Anyhow, apprpos the initial post, the last thing he said to me before he took off for a 3-day weekend was somewhat in jest and somewhat forlorn: hopefully Oregon lands a coach by the end of this weekend. So, on his behalf, I thank you for the update and will be sure to pass along lest he carry any anxiety into what is a celebratory 3-day period (he was promoted yesterday )

This move is a rational one. He is solving for the ‘known’ rather than risk the new HC letting him go and find himself unemployed and hunting for a role.

The expanded playoff is going to happen. There is simply too much money at stake for it not to. If the model is all P5 conference champs get auto bids (and we all know why Sankey of the SEC wants no part of that), the headwinds the P12 faces (and they are strong indeed) should be lessened quite a bit. Donuts to dollars that is why Riley went to USC (that and the $$$ of course). He feels he can perennially vie for if not own the P12 title and when that leads to automatic bid, a ton of the recruiting liabilities go away. Oregon is in a position to take advantage of that same life line. I see real upside for the P12 in a model that isn't really all that far away.

Thanks for the clarifying comment. Yes, I meant that to read as as a future state, not a present condition that needs to be maintained or improved at the margins.

When I think about the Crossroads (admittedly borrowing from earlier post because this is spot on) Oregon football finds itself, I think 'where does Oregon take this journey that started with... That is the spirit of Oregon at its core. Special, scrappy, humble, but today, elite. My wife has, I think, the level of cynicism born of years of heartbreak. She loves the Ducks but holds back (that's what the Ducks do. Blow it.) because the heartbreak is too much. When I remember her reaction to the infamous Auburn 'roll over the tackler and keep running' it truly broke my heart. She truly hurt and that pained me almost to the point of tears. And I sense many Duck fans are at this point now. And I think there are those who want to, understandably, embrace the familiar be it the recent past or more distant. And then there are those who just want the 'natty' outcome (Urban Meyer). Urban's personality, as well as those of his ilk, are, IMHO, in direct contrast with the spirit of The Pick. The reversion to the known is more pure in its intent but I too view it as contrary to that same moment. The Pick is when it all changed. The trajectory from always getting beat down and condescended to by the hated Husky fans. I say go big but go humble. Be the P12 bully that you kinda actually like because of the good natured and passionate fans, a really adorable mascot, Puddles, and an icon beloved by all (Donald Duck). Embrace the the apex of the trajectory enabled by the Pick

The title comes from some saying in Mindfulness (I don't remember where exactly). The concept it seeks to convey is that while our emotions may be incredibly uncomfortable in the moment, letting them pass is a far better outcome than resisting them because that is the nature of suffering. In my earlier admonitions to fellow travelers on OBD to check the natural instinct to shift away from the pain, I failed to follow my own advice. I was frustrated at the volume of 'let's hire an Oregon man, Chip, what have you' and let that frustration seep into aspects of my posts. Not good and not in accordance with the rules of the road. First, the frustration is really just another form of arroagance if I am being honest with myself and - if you are in to mindfulness this will make sense - a true emphathy and equanimity fail. Nobody's opinion is more valid than anothers because we aren't talking about subjects like 'is gravity a thing?' So my apologies. But circling back to the title, I failed to sit with my own discomfort and executed the mirror image of what I was cautioning against. I think that is what is referred to as irony (as an aside, in my high school English course, the subsets of irony proved almost impossible for the teacher to land with the class, and this is before Alanis came along and really made a mess of the word). Setbacks are a gift if you see them as opportunities to learn and so I humbly apologize for veering into hyperbole when - again, irony - level headed assessment and dare I say, showing by example, would have been other, more acceptable paths. Why I am I thinking of some "Halo" post I read the other day

Mr FishDuck: Many thanks for the freindly edits to what is probably my need to mediate and come back in a bit.

I can say it only so many times and maybe that should be a clue to myself. This 'blast from the past,' 'get the band back together,' 'hire local hero from days or yore' thinking is flawed in my view. Lest any of you think I am advocating hiring a mercenary or someone who clashes with Oregon's culture I am not. My grandparents lived in Woodburn and my aunt (thier daughter) lived in Eugene on Nixon street. I spent many a summer going to the 5th Street Market and Prince Pucklers. In my early 20's I was a lost soul and spent the summer working and staying at my aunt's house. I hit up the Xenon cafe. Caught Emerald games. Haunted the High Street pub. I try and go the game when Cal comes to Autzen (and I never wear a rain coat because, well, you know). I have nothing but fond memories of my times spent there and it will always hold a special place in my heart. While I am not an alum and in no way can make the claim to any level of bond that only that type of relationship can forge, I have a love affair with Eugene. What makes the city and school special is something I would hate to see thrown on the bonfire of ambition for football dominance. So take this with how it is intended (tough love): you are better than this and I hope for the team's sake, the administration rises up and acts with its head and not some whacked out opium induced dream of how we need to 'get back to our roots.'

@latracey I don't mean to pick on you as I am only grabbing one example of the same themes I am seeing on OBD. You just did a really excellent job of summing them up in a few sentences. To me, these sentiments all read like textbook examples of rationalization. You are talking yourselves into this being at all a good idea when, I suspect, deep down, you kinda know it isn't. None of Oregon's past coaches have been Nick Saban so when you start latching onto the past, it is a red flag. There is a line in Michael Clayton that captures this perfectly. The context is the head of the firm talking to Michael Clayton about the past: And if it's nostalgia? "Oh boy you should've seen me when I was a D.A. back in Queens." Let me give you a serious piece of advice. Leave it there. God forbid you're not as good as you remember because I've seen that happen too.