Temp check: 7-5

[marko polo]

The nebr. way used to be play hard nosed D and develope solid offensive lines, and then be stronger and out coach most teams. That worked pretty damn good. Eventually teams with great team speed would expose us, so Osborne said I have to get me some of that. So he recruited some questionable characters but we got the speed we needed for the 90's run. I am condensing all of this so keep up.

Then Tom retires and bring on the frankie show. Well Frankie was decent but he was never going to be Tom, so he had to go. So we bring in Calahan, who actually had a lot of Offensive experience but had noo idea how the college game worked. So we get rid of him and enters pelini who was a good defensive mind when he had talent but mediocre when he did not, but the chance of him ever becoming an accomplished championship coach at this level was almost nil, so he had to go. Enter Smilin Mike, man if you don't like smiling mike there is something wrong with you. Now after watching last yr and his whole coaching resume and I was a betting man I would bet that mike and crew are going to suffer the same fate as the last 3. I could go into a lot of details why I don't think Mike will bring championship ball here but just to name a few, 1) Offensive line when was the last time we were anything more than average, now take note here "we will never be remotely successful without way better line coaching and play! 2) Defense, do you honestly think banker is the guy to bring us anything more than an average at best defense, hmmmmmm I think not, and to make it worse Mike will not cut him loose. The result is almost inevitable. If we had somehow managed to replace tom with a proven winner back in the day, well who knows where we would be. We went from the NE "way" to lost in the wilderness. If you take emotion out of the equation and just look at things , I think you would agree.

 

[cm husker]

How can people look at the resumess

"18 years"
The thing is, if we don't can Solich in the mid 00s, we probably have a 6 or so year wait between conf championships, considering how bad the B12 became during the 00s.
It was the foolhardy "fire and forget" method to coaching searches that got us into trouble in the first place.

This has virtually nothing to do with Frank Solich.

How we proceed as a program should very much have to do with decisions and outcomes of the past.

THere are people in this thread and elsewhere that are claiming they have a crystal ball about how a coach would never have won a championship if given time.

My concern is that M. Riley will win 9/10 games during the each of the next two season and people will want him fired, too. To me, that would be a disaster, and it demonstrates we aren't learning from previous missteps.

Riley is slightly a different case because he's at the end of his coaching career anyway, but NU can't operate with that mindset and hope to regain its previous level of on field success.

 

[Redux]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

 

[Enhance]

How is learning from the past being a prisoner of it?

Seems to me that we had a winning formula, a lull in winning, and instead of tweaking the formula (or allowing the '02/'03 tweaks to play out), we decided to scrap it. That makes no sense to me,

Nobody said learning from the past makes you a prisoner of it - his point, to which I agree with, is you can learn from the past without becoming dependent upon it for future success.

While I remain unconvinced as of yet that the program is heading in the right direction, I believe it is naive to suggest one type of formula is successful at any university. I have a preference and a way I'd like to see things done, as does everybody else. But, I think I'm also realistic of this being Riley's monkeys and his zoo, so to speak.

 

[Enhance]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

 

[cm husker]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:
1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

 

[cm husker]

How is learning from the past being a prisoner of it?

Seems to me that we had a winning formula, a lull in winning, and instead of tweaking the formula (or allowing the '02/'03 tweaks to play out), we decided to scrap it. That makes no sense to me,

Nobody said learning from the past makes you a prisoner of it - his point, to which I agree with, is you can learn from the past without becoming dependent upon it for future success.
While I remain unconvinced as of yet that the program is heading in the right direction, I believe it is naive to suggest one type of formula is successful at any university. I have a preference and a way I'd like to see things done, as does everybody else. But, I think I'm also realistic of this being Riley's monkeys and his zoo, so to speak.

I absolutely agree that Riley needs to be allowed to try to win however he thinks is best. We'll see how it plays out.

If it doesn't work out, I sincerely hope NU returns to its championship roots, the things that set it apart from other programs, the things that mitigated the otherwise disadvantageous situation of being a college football team situated in the middle of nearly nowhere.

 

[Redux]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

Neither of those points are factual.

 

[cm husker]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

Neither of those points are factual.

Why not?

 

[Enhance]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:
1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

I somewhat agree with these points, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm saying the fact that Bo won 9 games each year, didn't win a CCG and didn't win the games that mattered hurt his cause for retainment.

 

[cm husker]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:
1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

I somewhat agree with these points, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm saying the fact that Bo won 9 games each year, didn't win a CCG and didn't win the games that mattered didn't help his cause.

Sorry, wasn't posting that as an argument against yours, but rather a supporting statement to your post (which I agree with).

 

[Enhance]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:
1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

I somewhat agree with these points, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm saying the fact that Bo won 9 games each year, didn't win a CCG and didn't win the games that mattered didn't help his cause.

Sorry, wasn't posting that as an argument against yours, but rather a supporting statement to your post (which I agree with).

No worries!

 

[Redux]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

Neither of those points are factual.

Why not?

Because they are simply your opinion.

Bo could have won a comference title in 2009 to meet that 1 more (or 1 period...) CCG criteria you set above. He would still have been fired in 2014.

 

[cm husker]

For about the millionth time, Frank and Bo were not fired because of their W/L records.

Well, it certainly didn't help their cause.

And that claim is disproved by two simple tests:1. If each had won at least one more CCG, neither would have been fired, so obviously any "off field issues" weren't really the cause - and certainly weren't on their own justification for the disruptions.

2. If each had zero off field issues (and other than Bo's meanie face, neither did have any verified off field issues), they still would have been fired for "not winning the games that mattered" as both offending ADs stated.

Neither of those points are factual.

Why not?

Because they are simply your opinion.

Bo could have won a comference title in 2009 to meet that 1 more (or 1 period...) CCG criteria you set above. He would still have been fired in 2014.

I would be highly surprised if that were the case. Though I acknowledge that the Chancellor and his lacky may have carried out the personal vendetta anyway, I think there would have been serious uproar, because the central argument among the "fire Bo" crowd is that although he had a good overall record, he couldn't win a championship. It would have been an exceedingly unpopular decision to fire a coach who was still on pace to win a CCG 1 out of every 4.

 

[Mavric]

You guys know not all success stories happen overnight right? Like sometimes it takes a little wait?

Care to give some examples? As in coaches that got noticeably worse their first year then recovered to have good "success."