A lot of the focus around the next coach is W/L record, etc.
I think W/L is a byproduct of culture and team identity, which the HC is responsible for establishing. Usually, the identity/culture associated with a HC travels pretty well. But a PJ Fleck culture would not go over well with Ucla (either the student body or the football players specifically), just like Eric Bieniemy didn't go over well with Ucla football (just look at the mass defection within days of the season ending last year).
Jim Harbaugh worked at Stanford and Michigan. But Brady Hoke didn't work at Michigan.
My sense is that the next HC at Ucla is going to have to have respect for the players who decide to come to Ucla. A lot of the players want to be treated as more than just a piece of meat. They want to be taught and educated, not berated and left to figure it out for themselves and stuck in the doghouse until they do.
I haven't heard a lot of conversation about the identity of, say, a Golesh (sp?) team. Do they run the ball? Are they typically pass happy? Heavy blitz centric on D?
You knew with Harbaugh that his teams were going to run the eff out of the ball. That they were going to control the clock that way. And that they were going to be good v the run, because they were so committed to running the ball on o. But they weren't going to have the fanciest passing game, almost by default.
tOSU, otoh, until last year, has the identity of being a softer program. With all that WR talent, the run game got neglected over time. And in big games, that would rise up and bite the Buckeyes.
We know what a Mick Cronin team will look like, year after year, no matter what people say or spray, for better or worse. Of the candidates for the Ucla HC job, do any of them have a defined identity? They seem cipher-like to me, frankly.