Enhance
Administrator
The statistical facts support his firing. You're entire argument, for the most part, is based off of the presumption that things might have been different if he were given more time. That problem is that his four years here were unimpressive, he had one horrendous year and the facts did not support his retaining.So a fired coach is a bad coach? Is that for for all coaches or just BC because it's convenient?Callahan's '07 offense finished outside the Top 10 in yards gained, but didn't finish inside the Top 25 in points. That's pretty significant, if you ask me. His offense may have been good, but it wasn't even a Top 25 in points earned.
As far as Callahan's "track record". You do know he got fired from Oakland, yes? For being what? A bad coach.
I'm not going to emulate anybody other thoughts on this, because everything I think has been said already. There's so many reasons that have been spoken about ad nauseum that it's just repetitive. Firing Bill Callahan was the right move and a necessary move. His overall record, his lack of connection to the fan base, his poorly developed talent and his demeanor were just down right bad. The guy thought he was doing a pretty good job as a coach near the end of the 2007 season. How full of yourself do you have to be to honestly think your team with a losing record is being well coached?
I don't have the quote but if somebody could find it for me, that'd be great.
and yes...it's not an easy to task to go against conventional wisdom and group think. You have to consider ALL facts and context and usually it's just easier and more comforting to cling to what you and others think they know and have always known.
I have considered all the facts, and all the facts lead me to my own conclusion - he shouldn't have been the coach at Nebraska football. Not in 2004 and not any year after that.
And you're right. Somebody who gets fired is quite obviously good at what they do.