I understand that you don't want him fired and I don't either. However I don't believe you can use one argument as supporting a past coach and dismiss the same argument that also applies for another.
Sure, the University makes a lot of money as a result of our football program. However, when we are talking about student-athletes, I'm going to need more convincing that this is a true business.
I agree. I thought, and still think, Pelini was an above average hire. There are obviously more qualified head coaches out there, but Pelini's resume was pretty good before he came here.
Just for clarification, I don't want Pelini fired, but that's not going to stop me from saying someone like Petrino would be a good hire if Pelini left in the near future.
I hate working in hypotheticals, but consider this. Let's say another program and Nebraska both wanted Petrino at year's end, and for whatever reason, Petrino had Nebraska as his first choice. We pass on him for moralistic reasons and hire somebody with a less impressive resume, but our hire is a "good guy." Petrino goes to the other program and has them winning conference titles in a couple years and competing for national titles, while Nebraska lingers in that 9-10 win range. TONS of fans would be sitting at home thinking "maybe we should've hired that guy..."
Is Nebraska willing to sacrifice a little moral integrity to win again? I know it sounds awful, but a high level program is likely going to come calling for Petrino in the future. I think many underestimate this state's desire to win, and many have forgiven and forgotten about Petrino's transgressions. It's just something to think about. Does the program settle for a less impressive coach in the name of integrity or make a bold move to win? I'd be interested to see how it played out if that scenario ever came to fruition.