This is what's maddening about the Gattis hire. The guy's toxicity was known in coaching circles. How or why it was ignored by Mario boggles the mind. But, if Mario's exhaustive vetting process was as thorough as we believe it, I start to question the purpose of it in the first place and the fact that Mario being the sole decider of a coordinator is not the best idea. Thankfully, I think this is where Alonzo can help. I don't believe Alonzo was in place before the Gattis hire, though.
Couple of things.
I don't think it was ignored by Mario. I think it wasn't known. Mario tends to trust his own impressions/instinct more than anyone else's. I don't think he sought out any kind of "personality-based" input on Gattis, and I think he values his own impressions based on interviews/conversations, etc. For comparative purposes, I have asked a number of people close to UM's program why Mario was so surprised by the way the returning players bailed on what he was asking from them. And I think it's simple, when a guy is very convincing in a one-on-one conversation with Mario, he tends to believe that the person will do what the person is promising.
I think that Mario projects that other people will treat challenges and opportunities as he does. But as we saw, there were a bunch of soft returning players that didn't do what they told Mario they would do, and I think it's not a huge leap to comprehend that Gattis spun a load of bullcrap about what happened at other jobs, and Mario was convinced. Clearly, that kind of "failing upwards" with a good interview has worked for Gattis more than once.
As for Mario's "exhaustive vetting process", I've said this before, whether people have picked up on it or not. Mario's long interviews have focused on the on-field stuff (schemes), the "ability to teach your system to players", and a stated commitment to recruit like a demon. WHETHER THE CANDIDATE ACTUALLY BELIEVES ALL THAT, or is just saying what the interviewer wants to hear, is a different subject. When it comes to things like "getting along well with others" and "doing what you actually promise to do", I think that Mario is the functional equivalent of Major Applewhite at Houston, and Mario's job candidates are the functional equivalent of D'Onofrio's horrible letter promising to do great things at Houston. Saying you want to be great and doing what it takes to be great are two different things.
And that's where Mario needs to have "evaluating job candidates" taken out of his portfolio. I've talked about Alonzo doing that part of the job, not because I just have an opinion, but based on very specific traits that Alonzo has that Mario does not have.
I still think that Mario can succeed. But if he has proven nothing else, he has definitely shown that he can IDENTIFY TALENT in coaches, but that he also has a terribly insular and paranoid approach to conducting interviews with coaching candidates and making decisions on said coaching candidates.