How would things have gone if we had retained Solich as coach?
- Thread starter undefeatednebfan
- Start date
AFhusker
Banned
The key there was that the players didn't respect him because he didn't hold certain players and coaches accountable without disciplining them or firing those coaches for their actions. It was wrong the way he was fired, but he was doomed to fail and never would have made to 2008. I am guessing that he would have only made it one two at most. The total lack of talent and depth of the 2004 team would have given him another .500 or lower season and then only the delusional people would have wanted to keep him here.
He's a MAC level HC and there is nothing wrong with that. His biggest problem was that he followed Tom and he demanded that Frank be the next HC. Frank wasn't qualified then or now for that matter to be the HC at NU.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious what the age of the posters on this thread is. If you are younger than 30, you probably weren't cognitive of what Frank was really like and what he did for NU. I'm also curious how one can justify saying Frank would have failed with his revamped staff but can look at a similar (or worse) record for Mike and think he will be successful. Those two positions are hard to reconcile.
Anyway, Frank left more higher draft picks for Callahan than Callahan left for Bo, so the argument he couldnt recruit top athletes is pretty hollow.
Anyway, Frank left more higher draft picks for Callahan than Callahan left for Bo, so the argument he couldnt recruit top athletes is pretty hollow.
Last edited by a moderator:
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
While I think this has been thoroughly discussed too many times to count, I will add my views in a nutshell:
It was generally acknowledged by nearly all the pundits that Frank was not recruiting well (whether personally or with the aid of his staff before and after the mass firings).
In my view, he should not have fired the best of his staff in an effort to shift responsiblility and blame for the lack of recruiting going on by 2001 and following. Milt Tenopir was not physically well and couldn't travel but he was still picking goog linemen and we were still doing well in that area. Frank's offense had deteriorated into a QB run right, QB run left and QB run for his life in any direction, system. Crouch followed by Lord. No serious DUAL threat (yes he should pass too!) was giving Frank serious consideration.
for whatever reasons, he made some poor choices in his RB selection (he kept thinking power over speed and elusiveness - maybe going all the way back to his Fullback days or something?). Receivers would be wasting a career with Frank since he would not throw the ball in Lincoln although he has used the forward pass more in Ohio oddly enough.
His defenses were lacking toward the end and that may have hurt some in the recruiting on that side of the ball as well.
I think his biggest issues were recruiting and off the field (behind the headlines) as have been cited numerous times before. There were drinking and driving issues and other even more scandalous things floating around as well. Fortunately, for everybody's sakes, the worst never made the newspapers. Social media had not blown up to where it is now or God forbid the stuff we'd be reading today.'
I liked Frank and felt Tom would not deliberately impose him on Husker Nation unless he believed he could handle the job. But friendship can cloud one's judgment, even the highly accute judgement of a legend. Tom was deeply loyal to all of his staff and the Osborne firings were few and far between. In return for your best effort, he was decent and honorable so far as we know in every way to the Nth degree (perhaps his only major fault was being too good and too loyal and giving too many second and third and fourth chances).
I think Frank was destined to fall short of the expectations of Husker Nation and the 'gravitating to mediocritity' would have been completed within a couple more seasons. Sadly, the Bill Callahan era was no better and by the time another change was made, the Husker magic was all but gone. We were no longer elite and the long slow climb to the summit has begun yet again. Hopefully, it only takes a few more years and not decades. I believe the assent has begun.
It was generally acknowledged by nearly all the pundits that Frank was not recruiting well (whether personally or with the aid of his staff before and after the mass firings).
In my view, he should not have fired the best of his staff in an effort to shift responsiblility and blame for the lack of recruiting going on by 2001 and following. Milt Tenopir was not physically well and couldn't travel but he was still picking goog linemen and we were still doing well in that area. Frank's offense had deteriorated into a QB run right, QB run left and QB run for his life in any direction, system. Crouch followed by Lord. No serious DUAL threat (yes he should pass too!) was giving Frank serious consideration.
for whatever reasons, he made some poor choices in his RB selection (he kept thinking power over speed and elusiveness - maybe going all the way back to his Fullback days or something?). Receivers would be wasting a career with Frank since he would not throw the ball in Lincoln although he has used the forward pass more in Ohio oddly enough.
His defenses were lacking toward the end and that may have hurt some in the recruiting on that side of the ball as well.
I think his biggest issues were recruiting and off the field (behind the headlines) as have been cited numerous times before. There were drinking and driving issues and other even more scandalous things floating around as well. Fortunately, for everybody's sakes, the worst never made the newspapers. Social media had not blown up to where it is now or God forbid the stuff we'd be reading today.'
I liked Frank and felt Tom would not deliberately impose him on Husker Nation unless he believed he could handle the job. But friendship can cloud one's judgment, even the highly accute judgement of a legend. Tom was deeply loyal to all of his staff and the Osborne firings were few and far between. In return for your best effort, he was decent and honorable so far as we know in every way to the Nth degree (perhaps his only major fault was being too good and too loyal and giving too many second and third and fourth chances).
I think Frank was destined to fall short of the expectations of Husker Nation and the 'gravitating to mediocritity' would have been completed within a couple more seasons. Sadly, the Bill Callahan era was no better and by the time another change was made, the Husker magic was all but gone. We were no longer elite and the long slow climb to the summit has begun yet again. Hopefully, it only takes a few more years and not decades. I believe the assent has begun.
AFhusker
Banned
For the first part all you have to do is look at the depth chart and the talent (or lack there of) on it. The facts are there if you are willing to read them without a biased eye. That revamped (crappy) staff led the offense to worse numbers in 2003 than they had in 2002, the only difference was that they played a much easier (one of if not the easiest in school history) schedules. All of this has been covered, but you refuse to accept facts since they don't back your revisionist history of Franks failure.
I would LOVE to see the proof behind this non truth in that last line. That one literally made me laugh out loud. I hope you really don't believe that, on the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if you did.
AFhusker
Banned
Well said, the only thing I would change would be that the "Husker Magic" was gone before Bill took over. Husker Magic wouldn't have gotten blown out 62-36, 38-9 at home...etc.
I've posted the numbers numerous times. Look them up. Or post your own numbers showing it's a "non-truth."
That '03 staff has been among the best we've had since then.
Stuff happens. Was 62-36 or 38-9 that much worse than 45-10 loss to unranked OU or bad losses to FLA schools?
Those losses under Frank (and Bo) were bad, but at least they were to pretty good teams.
We can't say "fire them for that" unless we are going to admit that the expectation is that any coach who doesn't obtain Osborne-esque success should be fired. Because take those bad losses away, and the results on paper at similar points of their career were the same.
NU isn't going to fire and hire it's way to a top 5 all time coach.
Agree with this.
I'd add that I don't think we'd have experienced a losing season. Regardless of recruiting, there was enough talent and ease of schedule to avoid them. Switching to a system not suited to that talent was the issue with 2004.
I don't know if we fans, nor SP, would've had the patience for consistent 9 win seasons (similar to Bo). However, would SP have lasted longer? Would Solich have asked TO to take on a more prominent consultative role that maybe hastens a quicker fix?
I'd bet that Bo leaves after a couple more seasons for a HC job, or other. I think Gill continues to stick around.
Finally, how does the change in rules to better help passing offenses change things in terms of available talent for the triple option? Not only would players have to be willing to play in that system, but where might the talent come from? Would Nebraska HS still run option offenses like they did then? Would Solich have maybe switch to a more zone read attack like Oregon's?
Things may have been better overall, but at some point in the near future from 2003, there'd likely have to be a change in philosophy to get us to a championship level.
alwayshusking
Starter
Not very well imo. 2004 he would have had Dailey at the helm and we'd have struggled. He would have probably been let go after 2004 if he had been retained in 2003. Recruiting was his biggest downfall as stated by some in the thread.
Good man, good Husker imo.
Good man, good Husker imo.
Landlord
Banned
I don't know the ins and outs of Solich's tenure, but looking back at the numbers it's hard to see how people have so much certainty that he would have failed.
His recruiting classes weren't ranked nearly as awfully as some make it out to sound. His class rankings, not including the year he got fired, were 10, 25, 12, 14, and 28. For comparison, Bo had one class in the top 20. He definitely struggled when it came to quarterbacks and other positions, but then again, 2 seasons after Eric Crouch does not a reliable data set make.
As far as his ability to coach, of course he had the added benefit of Osborne's machine and players for a while. But you still don't win a conference championship, go 42-9, and finish in the top 10 3 times out of 4 years on luck or accident. How many Osborne players were left on the 2001 squad that started the season 11-0? Of course the season had an ugly ending, but it was still the best result we've had since.
People act like it was inevitable that Solich was going to drop down a cliff if he hadn't gotten fired in 2003. Maybe that's true. But 4 years of really good football following the best coach ever, and two underwhelming but not abysmal years after that, doesn't seem to be much evidence to make any confident conclusions from, imo
His recruiting classes weren't ranked nearly as awfully as some make it out to sound. His class rankings, not including the year he got fired, were 10, 25, 12, 14, and 28. For comparison, Bo had one class in the top 20. He definitely struggled when it came to quarterbacks and other positions, but then again, 2 seasons after Eric Crouch does not a reliable data set make.
As far as his ability to coach, of course he had the added benefit of Osborne's machine and players for a while. But you still don't win a conference championship, go 42-9, and finish in the top 10 3 times out of 4 years on luck or accident. How many Osborne players were left on the 2001 squad that started the season 11-0? Of course the season had an ugly ending, but it was still the best result we've had since.
People act like it was inevitable that Solich was going to drop down a cliff if he hadn't gotten fired in 2003. Maybe that's true. But 4 years of really good football following the best coach ever, and two underwhelming but not abysmal years after that, doesn't seem to be much evidence to make any confident conclusions from, imo
Watch games from 97 or earlier on youtube and look at the quality of athletes. Then watch a game from 2003 and check the quality of athletes again. There is a significant dropoff.
