Just four short years ago, you could have been forgiven for believing that incoming State System of Higher Education Chancellor Frank T. Brogan was going to be the answer to Pennsylvania’s college problem.

Brogan, then the chief administrator of Florida’s state-owned system of higher education, a former university president and former lieutenant governor under Jeb Bush, seemed to be everything Pennsylvania’s state system was looking for: a smooth government operator, experienced leader and educator, Brogan was the embodiment of creativity and integrity, to hear the system’s board of governors tell it at the time.

As we said, you might forgive them the avalanche of plaudits. By most accounts, Brogan’s tenure as chancellor of Florida’s university system was a resounding success. He helped to rehabilitate what had become a dysfunctional relationship between that system’s board of governors and the Florida legislature, oversaw increases in enrollment, degree production, graduation rates and academic achievement.

In 2012 Brogan told a Florida task force on higher education reform that the system needed to focus on collaboration between and flexibility for its schools, more focus on STEM degrees, and a smarter way of deciding when and how to raise tuition.

Brogan brought nearly the exact same message to Pennsylvania when he became chancellor of our State System of Higher Education in 2013. His first State of the System address focused on giving schools more local control over academics and tuition, revamping online offerings and increasing non-traditional student enrollment, and increasing the system’s flexibility and responsiveness to challenges.

For whatever reason, what worked in Florida seems to have failed miserably here in the Keystone state. And on Monday, in the wake of a report criticizing the system’s leaderhsip, Brogan announced his retirement effective Sept. 1.

Any retrospective on Brogan’s tenure with PASSHE must come to terms with the fact that his performance in the $346,000-a-year post (the highest-paying job of any state official in Pennsylvania) was hardly a smashing success.

Brogan proved woefully incapable of bridging the gap between the system’s 5,000-plus employees and management. And in 2016 classes ground to a halt for three days, in the first faculty strike in the system’s 34-year history.

His long-term plans and vision also failed to stabilize shrinking enrollment across most of the system’s 14 universities. As of March, enrollment was down more than 11 percent over the last six years, according to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. Eight schools saw decreases of 15 percent or more; and four saw enrollment drops of more than 20 percent, the group reported.

The cherry on top came last week, when the consulting firm National Center for Higher Education Management Systems delivered a brutal assessment of PASSHE’s health. The firm criticized the system’s leadership as inadequate and ineffective, its finances as unstable and its universities as counterproductively competitive.

All of these problems in a system that, at slightly more than 100,000 students, is only one-third the size of the 327,000-student system Brogan left better off in 2013. Why did his leadership succeed in Florida but fail here?

That question will likely dog Brogan’s legacy for years to come. But in the short term it’s immaterial.

As with so many other things in Pennsylvania, PASSHE’s crisis seems to be one of leadership and innovation. The chancellor’s impending departure presents the state with a golden opportunity to change course and revitalize the state system.