Can Bo get it done

[Count 'Bility]

This is slightly off topic, but a follow-up to something I just mentioned above and a question for someone that follows basketball far closers than I do. Is football unique in that coordinators are made head coaches at fairly big programs early in their careers? Obviously, bball staffs are different, but do major college bball programs (say, the top 50) hire head coaches that don't have prior head coaching experience often?

That's not to insinuate the Top 15 college football programs in the country don't hire prior head coaches. This is just mainly out of my own curiosity. From a very broad and not-in-the-know perspective, it seems that football tries to get by with this type of hiring practice at times and that a lot bball programs look for head coaches. I could be way off base though. Perhaps it's fairly even across both sports.

I was thinking about this the other day. In football it seems like assistants are always moving up the ladder to be head coaches. While in basketball, it seems like mostly assistants remain such and make lateral moves position wise, while head coaches just remain.

 

[Enhance]

This is slightly off topic, but a follow-up to something I just mentioned above and a question for someone that follows basketball far closers than I do. Is football unique in that coordinators are made head coaches at fairly big programs early in their careers? Obviously, bball staffs are different, but do major college bball programs (say, the top 50) hire head coaches that don't have prior head coaching experience often?

That's not to insinuate the Top 15 college football programs in the country don't hire prior head coaches. This is just mainly out of my own curiosity. From a very broad and not-in-the-know perspective, it seems that football tries to get by with this type of hiring practice at times and that a lot bball programs look for head coaches. I could be way off base though. Perhaps it's fairly even across both sports.

I was thinking about this the other day. In football it seems like assistants are always moving up the ladder to be head coaches. While in basketball, it seems like mostly assistants remain such and make lateral moves position wise, while head coaches just remain.

Precisely. And then you get guys (like Miles) that start at very small schools as head coaches in order to work up the ladder.

Coaches definitely do this in college football, too, but I'm curious how these two sports compare/differ.

 

[74Hunter]

Talent is one piece of the equation.....taking over a Nebraska football program with a rich history, yet had two losing seasons in four years and missed bowl games for the first time in decades is nothing short of a train wreck.

Yessir. It was pretty much a dumpster fire in Lincoln when Bo got here. But, let's not let that small detail get in the way of the #9whiners' witchhunt.

 

[sd'sker]

Talent is one piece of the equation.....taking over a Nebraska football program with a rich history, yet had two losing seasons in four years and missed bowl games for the first time in decades is nothing short of a train wreck.

Yessir. It was pretty much a dumpster fire in Lincoln when Bo got here. But, let's not let that small detail get in the way of the #9whiners' witchhunt.

just for our reference, how long will the state of the program when bo took it over be relevant?

 

[NUpolo8]

Talent is one piece of the equation.....taking over a Nebraska football program with a rich history, yet had two losing seasons in four years and missed bowl games for the first time in decades is nothing short of a train wreck.

Yessir. It was pretty much a dumpster fire in Lincoln when Bo got here. But, let's not let that small detail get in the way of the #9whiners' witchhunt.

just for our reference, how long will the state of the program when bo took it over be relevant?

Fair question, it stopped being relevant for Callahan pretty quickly.

 

[sd'sker]

Fair question, it stopped being relevant for Callahan pretty quickly.

yeah, i was being sincere.

we can debate whether or not it was a train-wreck. i would say 'no', because the only thing that really matters when taking over a program like nebraska is the talent that stays. at the time, the offense seemed competent enough and sw even stayed, providing continuity on offense. ostensibly, all bo had to do was fix the defense.

but if we are still talking about 2007-8 as if those years are relevant, i am curious how long we can expect them to remain relevant.

 

[NUpolo8]

Fair question, it stopped being relevant for Callahan pretty quickly.

yeah, i was being sincere.

we can debate whether or not it was a train-wreck. i would say 'no', because the only thing that really matters when taking over a program like nebraska is the talent that stays. at the time, the offense seemed competent enough and sw even stayed, providing continuity on offense. ostensibly, all bo had to do was fix the defense.

but if we are still talking about 2007-8 as if those years are relevant, i am curious how long we can expect them to remain relevant.

I think it's a difference between relevance or actual history. Those teams had boatloads of talent, perhaps more than any recent team Bo has had, they just had mentally checked out.

 

[sd'sker]

I think it's a difference between relevance or actual history. Those teams had boatloads of talent, perhaps more than any recent team Bo has had, they just had mentally checked out.

i agree. i am just trying to figure out, if we were to agree, for argument's sake, that it was a train-wreck, how long is that relevant to bo's tenure?

 

[Redux]

Fair question, it stopped being relevant for Callahan pretty quickly.

yeah, i was being sincere.

we can debate whether or not it was a train-wreck. i would say 'no', because the only thing that really matters when taking over a program like nebraska is the talent that stays. at the time, the offense seemed competent enough and sw even stayed, providing continuity on offense. ostensibly, all bo had to do was fix the defense.

but if we are still talking about 2007-8 as if those years are relevant, i am curious how long we can expect them to remain relevant.

They arent relevant to 2014. Different coaches, different players. Different conference.

Doesnt change the fact Nebraska was a clown car of chaos when Bo took over. Nations longest bowl streak shattered in Bills first year and solidified in his last. Regaedless of talent, it was a dumpster fire.

 

[The Dude]

I think it's a difference between relevance or actual history. Those teams had boatloads of talent, perhaps more than any recent team Bo has had, they just had mentally checked out.

i agree. i am just trying to figure out, if we were to agree, for argument's sake, that it was a train-wreck, how long is that relevant to bo's tenure?

My vote would be 4 years at the very most. Callahan had nothing to do with the Jimmies and Joes Pelini brought in.

 

[sd'sker]

My vote would be 4 years at the very most. Callahan had nothing to do with the Jimmies and Joes Pelini brought in.

i totally agree. by then, you have had time to get your players and implement your 'process'.

personally, i find it concerning that bo's teams seemed to have peaked in '09-'10.

 

[NUpolo8]

Fair question, it stopped being relevant for Callahan pretty quickly.

yeah, i was being sincere.

we can debate whether or not it was a train-wreck. i would say 'no', because the only thing that really matters when taking over a program like nebraska is the talent that stays. at the time, the offense seemed competent enough and sw even stayed, providing continuity on offense. ostensibly, all bo had to do was fix the defense.

but if we are still talking about 2007-8 as if those years are relevant, i am curious how long we can expect them to remain relevant.

They arent relevant to 2014. Different coaches, different players. Different conference.

Doesnt change the fact Nebraska was a clown car of chaos when Bo took over. Nations longest bowl streak shattered in Bills first year and solidified in his last. Regaedless of talent, it was a dumpster fire.

If it was so chaotic and toxic, why did some of the old staff stay? Clown car chaos continuity?

 

[Whistlebritches]

I think it's a difference between relevance or actual history. Those teams had boatloads of talent, perhaps more than any recent team Bo has had, they just had mentally checked out.

i agree. i am just trying to figure out, if we were to agree, for argument's sake, that it was a train-wreck, how long is that relevant to bo's tenure?

I think under most circumstances people feel like 4-5 years is good line. After five years the coach has all of his own players and the upperclassmen have a couple years experience with the system. The conference change makes it a little different, I guess.

Callahan's last two years were abysmal but Bo hardly inherited a team lacking talent. I agree with you that we haven't had a team as talented as what Bo had in his first two seasons.

 

[74Hunter]

My vote would be 4 years at the very most. Callahan had nothing to do with the Jimmies and Joes Pelini brought in.

i totally agree. by then, you have had time to get your players and implement your 'process'.

personally, i find it concerning that bo's teams seemed to have peaked in '09-'10.

In a normal coaching cchange situation, I'd agree. But after year 3 we did have that little conference change thingy go on that factored into the equation.

Kinda changed things up in the program. And even with all that going on, he's still done nothing less than win 9/10 games a year, much to the chagrin of the entitled fans.

 

[sd'sker]

In a normal coaching cchange situation, I'd agree. But after year 3 we did have that little conference change thingy go on that factored into the equation.

Kinda changed things up in the program. And even with all that going on, he's still done nothing less than win 9/10 games a year, much to the chagrin of the entitled fans.

that is a good point. the B1G was always a much better conference than the big 12.