Who should our next HC be?

[PaulCrewe]

100% spot on. We are a top 20-30 recruiting team year in and out. It doesn’t translate to the field. We need a developmental coach, who recruits to their strengths. Continue to build from there. This is a decade long fix not a 2 year fix. Need to build an identity and culture. 
 

Stoops or Klieman off that list for me.

A real coach can instill culture and identity in a year.  All this talk about another rebuild is the biggest load of s#!t.  Look around the country programs are flipping records in a year.  

The next guy needs to know this conference and coached at a high level power 5 school.  So that whole list goes to the garbage.  

 

[Rk_kerk]

People keep mentioning coaches I've never even heard of. How do you expect these guys to be able to recruit here? Am I missing something?

Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa recruit below us year in and year out. Programs are very solid. A headline coach won’t make us a top 6 recruiting school instantly because of name recognition. 
 

Even during the height of Oregon, Chip Kelly, Nike and their uni’s they weren’t pulling top 10 classes consistently, because of geographic location.

Look long term, get your development program better than Wisconsin. Then our top 25 recruiting classes we get now can consistently lead to winning West/being top15 school. With consistent success comes better and better recruits. With the development foundation laid our top 6-10 class (probably peak due to location) can out perform the schools use to out talenting everybody else.
 

Takes a identity, development, and fundamentals if your going to beat the more talented. And we will never pull Top 5 classes.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

A headline coach won’t make us a top 6 recruiting school instantly because of name recognition. 

I don't think anyone is expecting that. Top 15-20 classes would be a good goal. Point is, you've gotta have someone who can give you an edge when it comes to recruiting. MJ has proven that for the right coach, kids will come here to play. Put a no-name guy in with no name value, and our recruiting will be even worse than it has been. Forget Iowa and MSU; we need to compete with Michigan and PSU and Ohio State and the upper echelon. It's only going to get worse when the PAC teams arrive.

 

[Dansker]

The problem I have with recruiting rankings is usually the 4 star guys we target are players who are not on the recruiting board of most P5 schools. Clemson has consistently finished in the top 15 recruiting from 2008 to present. Most of their national championship teams were with high 4 star players targeted by every big named school you can think of.
 

We need better Jimmy and Joes and also an identity. Run the ball better, stop the run better. Even Bo knew this. I have no idea why Frost and his staff can’t grasp the idea. Until we get back to our roots of having a better OL and DL than our West foes, we’re going to continue to experience 3-5 win seasons.

 

[thexyz]

Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa recruit below us year in and year out. Programs are very solid. A headline coach won’t make us a top 6 recruiting school instantly because of name recognition. 
 

Even during the height of Oregon, Chip Kelly, Nike and their uni’s they weren’t pulling top 10 classes consistently, because of geographic location.

Look long term, get your development program better than Wisconsin. Then our top 25 recruiting classes we get now can consistently lead to winning West/being top15 school. With consistent success comes better and better recruits. With the development foundation laid our top 6-10 class (probably peak due to location) can out perform the schools use to out talenting everybody else.
 

Takes a identity, development, and fundamentals if your going to beat the more talented. And we will never pull Top 5 classes.

Absolutely agree with the assessment (I've bolded). We don't really have an identity. Haven't for quite a long time. At least not one that we want to have. Development and fundamentals hasn't been near what it needs to be, either. I would add physicality.  

I think that a lot of us have had it with words and promises. We want actions that translate to a high level of playing on the field. That fuels our success recruiting. Somehow we got sold on the idea that we need an abundance cuteness and creativity and that somehow compensates for other things.  

Lots of talking and lots of turds laid...

Give me someone that knows how to instill those characteristics you've mentioned in our team. Along with someone with a staff that has the credentials to assemble both solid offensive and defensive lines along with an awareness the necessity to be physical in the league. Smart and disciplined play like Fitzgerald does.  Someone with a scheme and history that gets the most out of players with what they can draw onboard.  

 

[AZ_Husker]

Klieman would not be able to recruit here. 

And you think this why?

 

[Lorewarn]

I don't think anyone is expecting that. Top 15-20 classes would be a good goal. Point is, you've gotta have someone who can give you an edge when it comes to recruiting. MJ has proven that for the right coach, kids will come here to play. Put a no-name guy in with no name value, and our recruiting will be even worse than it has been. Forget Iowa and MSU; we need to compete with Michigan and PSU and Ohio State and the upper echelon. It's only going to get worse when the PAC teams arrive.

Frost had four top 20 classes in a row. Look where we're at.

Riley wasn't amazing but wasn't awful at recruiting. Look where he went.

Pelini was a worse recruiter than either of them, but a better developer. Look how he did.

Development, culture and identity come first, and when those lead to you maximizing your potential in the form of wins, then recruiting success with the brand name/money/history/fan support will follow.

Getting a top 5 recruiting class and then being unranked with a losing season is easy (Callahan did it, Texas is great at doing it, USC has done it).

It's much harder to take a #40 recruiting class and make it a top 25 team, and the foundational building blocks that allow that to happen are what our division opponents do great as they're currently kicking our a$$ every year while we beat ourselves with better recruiting.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

And you think this why?

He’s not a big enough name. Top kids ain’t coming to Lincoln to play for Klieman, sorry. 

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Frost had four top 20 classes in a row. Look where we're at.

Riley wasn't amazing but wasn't awful at recruiting. Look where he went.

Pelini was a worse recruiter than either of them, but a better developer. Look how he did.

Development, culture and identity come first, and when those lead to you maximizing your potential in the form of wins, then recruiting success with the brand name/money/history/fan support will follow.

Getting a top 5 recruiting class and then being unranked with a losing season is easy (Callahan did it, Texas is great at doing it, USC has done it).

It's much harder to take a #40 recruiting class and make it a top 25 team, and the foundational building blocks that allow that to happen are what our division opponents do great as they're currently kicking our a$$ every year while we beat ourselves with better recruiting.

All of that sounds great, but that sounds like a looooong project, all while we slip further and further into irrelevance (not that we can get much lower). I just think we’ve gotta strike now and hope for a quick turnaround because once the conference expands things are only gonna get tougher.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

As far as recruiting goes, yeah you can say Frost had 4 straight Top 20 classes (which isn't quite accurate, but close) and that it didn't work out, but for the most part, recruiting matters if you want to compete for championships. Of course, if you're just trying to be on the level of some other "decent" teams in the conference then I guess it doesn't matter much.

 

[Torgan]

Back in the heyday of the 90's, other teams sent coaches here to see how Nebraska developed it's players.  Our strength and conditioning was top tier stuff, FSU, Florida and Wisconsin, being some of those schools.  Somewhere along the line, we lost that, so perhaps it's time we sent our coaches out and relearn what we've lost.  Or better yet bring in a coach who is already familiar with player development.  Dave Aranda went from 2-7 to 12-2, in one year and Matt Rhule went from 1-11 to 11-3 in two years.  That's development.

Either of these coaches would be able to bring enough in recruiting and be able to develop that talent to be competitive, and get back to winning games we should be winning, with the occasional highlight season.  Just my $.02

 

[HuskerofMN]

Back in the heyday of the 90's, other teams sent coaches here to see how Nebraska developed it's players.  Our strength and conditioning was top tier stuff, FSU, Florida and Wisconsin, being some of those schools.  Somewhere along the line, we lost that, so perhaps it's time we sent our coaches out and relearn what we've lost.  Or better yet bring in a coach who is already familiar with player development.  Dave Aranda went from 2-7 to 12-2, in one year and Matt Rhule went from 1-11 to 11-3 in two years.  That's development.

Either of these coaches would be able to bring enough in recruiting and be able to develop that talent to be competitive, and get back to winning games we should be winning, with the occasional highlight season.  Just my $.02

I agree with that statement and two "candidates."

 

[BaytownHusker]

I agree with that statement and two "candidates."

We might be good in the Big 12 too. lol

 

[NoLongerN]

As far as recruiting goes, yeah you can say Frost had 4 straight Top 20 classes (which isn't quite accurate, but close) and that it didn't work out, but for the most part, recruiting matters if you want to compete for championships. Of course, if you're just trying to be on the level of some other "decent" teams in the conference then I guess it doesn't matter much.

Didn't a few of those recruiting classes get blown up?  Also, the 4* type players have usually been skill positions who also leave.  The DE or DL type guy we recruit is usually a 2nd to 3rd tier type who is more of a "flyer" than anything else.  When you couple that with little development you get what we got ... vanilla.

 

[captain_sasquatch]

Aranda's situation isn't the same as he's in a much better spot post-realignment. Baylor is easier to recruit to, has plenty of money via donations, and will be in the hunt annually once Oklahoma is out of the picture. We don't have a realistic shot at him unless they have a bad year or something unforseen.

Campbell makes sense and will certainly be tied to the job. 

Wittingham came in 2nd to Riley but he'd be a perfect fit. Sounds like he's only got a few years left in him at Utah so no shot there.

I'm surprised Narduzzi isn't getting any buzz. Pitt is a really hard job and he's done well. This will be a pretty telling year for how he is as a coach but he's a big ten guy. Seems like Pelini 2.0 and we can do better, but I'd like to see him at a major job.

What an absolute shame we could have had Whittingham. We'd be in such a different situation right now! 

I think you're overestimating the amount of money Baylor has. They can't compete with us now, let alone when the new media deal hits. Guys like Aranda and Campbell aren't all salary guys, meaning they don't need to be the highest paid coaches around. What they do want, however, is their assistants to be the highest paid coaches around. We can accomplish that better than their current schools can today and even more so in a few years.