cm husker

The difference is in magnitude and weight. You're suggesting an HR manager making "one of his/her hires", and it turning out poorly, is the equivalent of an athletic director hiring the head football coach at one of the most storied, respected, and well-funded football programs in the country, and that hire not turning out. Very different circumstances. You could make a list of the most important jobs in this state and NU's head football coach would be Top 5. That's not a place you can make a hire and casually not let it "work out." The AD's number one job at the University of Nebraska is the sustained success of the football program, and that means having the right head coach in place. The baseball, basketball and volleyball programs are nice, but they're not what makes the department tick. 1. Hr managers dont hire people. They are facilitators. Departmental managers make hiring decisons. 2. Comparing a run of the mill hiring decision to the nebraska head football coach is disingenuous at best. Thats comparing apples to elephants. Just a dumb comment. Actually, a lot of HR managers DO hire people. And you folks have no idea what I am talking about. I'm not talking about hiring Jane Does off the street for menial tasks. I've watched the process to find/hire new store managers for Wal-Mart. District HR managers and (and another district manager, I forget the exact title atm) make the decisions on who is going to be the next store manager. This is a huge decision that can affect many things in how the store is run including the profitability of that store. When a store manager doesn't work out, the people who hired him/her don't get fired, they simply do another search and hire someone else they feel will get the job done. Frankly, you're wrong about most hr managers. And if Walmart let's their poor upper management continue doing a poor job, I'll be divesting my position. Actually, no I'm not. Every company I've worked for the HR managers make hiring decisions every day. For c level executive leadership? Are you insane. The entire analogy is silly. Pederhorst isn't an HR manager.

The difference is in magnitude and weight. You're suggesting an HR manager making "one of his/her hires", and it turning out poorly, is the equivalent of an athletic director hiring the head football coach at one of the most storied, respected, and well-funded football programs in the country, and that hire not turning out. Very different circumstances. You could make a list of the most important jobs in this state and NU's head football coach would be Top 5. That's not a place you can make a hire and casually not let it "work out." The AD's number one job at the University of Nebraska is the sustained success of the football program, and that means having the right head coach in place. The baseball, basketball and volleyball programs are nice, but they're not what makes the department tick. 1. Hr managers dont hire people. They are facilitators. Departmental managers make hiring decisons. 2. Comparing a run of the mill hiring decision to the nebraska head football coach is disingenuous at best. Thats comparing apples to elephants. Just a dumb comment. Actually, a lot of HR managers DO hire people. And you folks have no idea what I am talking about. I'm not talking about hiring Jane Does off the street for menial tasks. I've watched the process to find/hire new store managers for Wal-Mart. District HR managers and (and another district manager, I forget the exact title atm) make the decisions on who is going to be the next store manager. This is a huge decision that can affect many things in how the store is run including the profitability of that store. When a store manager doesn't work out, the people who hired him/her don't get fired, they simply do another search and hire someone else they feel will get the job done. Frankly, you're wrong about most hr managers. And if Walmart let's their poor upper management continue doing a poor job, I'll be divesting my position.

Not following this reference. Probably too young to remember "Clapton is God" Guess so

The AD hired this man in less than one week. Its all on him. And if he would have taken longer you would have bitched because it took him to long to find a new coach while recruiting time was slipping away. You are truly the ultimate apologist. Do you really think you're right here or so you refuse to admit you've been wrong?

We just lost to Purdont dude. We have hit bottom once again. If your company HR hires a ceo that destroys your company, you bet your áss the HR gets his papers I don't think certain people have ever worked a management level job. Otherwise, they couldn't possibly harbor these thoughts. Way to succinctly put that garbage line to rest.

So did Bo poison the well at Oregon state too? Blame blame blame. Bull crap bull crap bull crap.

Heck, Illinois may have been a worse loss. But nothing is worse than the NU loss to KU under Callahan. That was the worst since devaney.

Yeah, those 9 and 10 win seasons. Competive bowls against OOC competition. Yep, NU has always sucked. Shove your revisionism up SE's tailpipe please.

It's a shame the talent on this team is being wasted.

Not following this reference.

NU doesn't need a name or a "CEO type." NU needs a Briles type. An innovator. Recruiting is recruiting. NU will recruit about the same no matter what. We need a coach who is dynamic to win. Say what you will about Bo, but he knew D. Was he perfect? Of course not. No coach ever is. TO's offenses laid eggs on occasion. But it's about probabilities.

We have athletes on the line. We have zero coaching. I'd go so far as to say negative coaching.

The lack of running game is 100% on the coaches. The talent is there, but it must be utilized. The mentality is not there and that's due to coaching.

Obviously those aren't the two options. Chatelain, as usual, is a complete flipping moron. Fire the AD. That must be done. He has zero credibility at this point. I don't see how he can function as a fundraiser at this point, for example. Bring in a guy who can run a fair assessment on the program. However, if NU finishes 3-9, fire Riley immediately. Sort out the new hire during the missed bowl season. Fool me once, shame on you, pull another Callahan "extension," shame on Husker Nation.

Sadly, this is very possible. A 3 win season with 9 losses? FDR may have been the President the last time that happened? Or maybe we never lost 9? And if it happens, so what? No one seems to give a dang if this team wins 9 games or loses 9 games. Riley's seat is as comfortable as ever. Let him have 7 years and retire into the sunset at age 72. To be honest, I don't. The end result once all the bowl games are over and the final polls are released is virtually the same. You must be kidding me...

Uhm, all of his decisions that have led us to this point?

I didn't even call for callahan to be fired, because I trusted TO and whatever his decision would be. I trust no one at NU now. Clean house among the administration immediately.

It fits the narrative so people will push that agenda. Tom Osborne was around Pelini a lot. He had an opportunity to hire Gill and he had an opportunity to fire Pelini. Instead, he doubled down on him and also endorsed him for subsequent jobs. Why do some Husker fans insist believing they know more about Nebraska football success than Tom Osborne? What sort of arrogance does that require? It's really kind of childish to try to scapegoat your former coach. I'm sure some people think they look intelligent doing their revisionist history but really they don't. Bo wasn't the greatest, wasn't the worst. If he hadn't been fired and had the meeting with the p and c words, most people wouldn't be shouting all the vitriol and blaming him for the deficiencies of this current staff that has more experience than Methuselah and was predicted to make everything great again. It seems like there's always a group that engages in this crap and they'll probably be trashing Riley if it doesn't work out. Yep. Exactly. At readily admit that I will actively advocate for keeping coach Riley if he can get NU to .700+, though unlike first time coaches such as Frank and Bo, I don't see his maintenance of that level of success as an indicator that he will be positioned to jump to the next level.

Funny that he could complete screen passes last year... perhaps receivers, particularly running backs, aren't getting in the right position to receive those plays? Similar to how TA sometimes breaks pocket improperly.

lol I amended it to include TM as being possibly better. But TA is a better QB than Lord, Newcombe and Taylor, though I respect what each of those guys did at NU (especially Lord).

That post.... wow. But to answer your Q, TA is a better QB than anyone listed, other than Crouch and maybe Martinez, though I think if Beck were here, he'd be having a better overall season than TM's average.

What's particularly interesting to me as that so many of these people knew ALL the factors before the season that they are pointing to now as excuses for why Riley has fall flat. Yet those same people were predicting no fewer than 8 wins, even with those factors in place.

As bad as that "dancing bear" play looked, the real reason that kid made the play is that the RB took his angle way too wide. If he keeps his path, then he's still running with an OL out in front. That said, the OLman should have blocked that guy rather than looking to make a bigger play downfield. That certainly isn't an example of an OL getting overpowered, though.

Yet our RB had something like 10 carries for 40 yards in the first half. Not spectacular, but he had no negative plays and that's how you wear a team down. Then disappeared in favor of passing it 49 times in a close game.

You guys are truly unbelievable with your counterfactual examples and revisionism. I guess that's how you make 3-5 seem better than 5-3 or 9-4 or 10-4.