Wistrom Disciple

Corey Collier & Eric Fields hitting the portal this morning it appears. Have to imagine at least a few more still to come.

I read somewhere that his name in the portal had already listed a mark indicating that he was not to be contacted as he had made his choice. With his head coach going to St. Louis University and 4-5 teammates similarly entering the portal, I tend to think many of that group will be going to St. Louis, following the coaching staff.

You are entitled to your opinion, I will disagree with your point above that the men’s and women’s game are inherently equal in ‘entertainment value.’ We can cherry-pick games to prove our points on both sides. To your point, a casual fan may not notice a difference if they watch the right set of games. However, I am not a casual fan and have watched the local men’s and women’s basketball scene for upwards of 20 years now. My main point from the original post is that there has been a concerted effort in the recent years to publicize women’s basketball at both the WNBA and college levels. In my view, this has been done in excess and, to a certain extent, exaggerated the true interest in the actual basketball games. You do not have to agree and that’s ok. If the game were as popular as the coverage suggests, sell outs will be more frequent and we should expect many programs to turn a profit soon.

You asked how the media is forcing women's basketball, I answered. I didn't intend to strike a nerve but clearly I have. No problem with women's sports, in fact I wish they would show more women's college volleyball, softball, and soccer on TV beyond ESPN 8 The Ocho. I do think it was a joke that FOX chose to nationally televise two bad volleyball teams last year in Ohio State & Michigan instead of a Penn State or Nebraska match. Big miss on that choice if growing the game was the objective.

ESPN and their affiliates are heavily pushing basketball at-large on most sports fans, though especially women's basketball at both the WNBA and college levels. This is largely due to their investments in carrying the games on their networks and also their social cause agenda (which is under heavy scrutiny between Disney and their investors). You are correct, some games on the women's side were most viewed, namely the games they put on ABC in prime time. If some of those games were on TruTV, how well do you think they would rate for the networks? Where ESPN and the media fail is that they presume that there is a large appetite for women's basketball. I believe that the average college basketball fan might be able to name 5-6 women's college players beyond their home team, I'll spot half with Clark, Bueckers, & Angel Reese. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I really don't believe most could name a starting 5 if you took away their home school team. Which is why the discussions this week in regards to taking the women's tournament from school sites for the first two rounds and putting them in regional sites like the men's tournament is incredibly risky.

This new tourney is a direct competitor to the NCAA-controlled NIT. With there clearly being a bias towards conferences with CBS/ESPN affiliations (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Mountain West) in this year's 64-team March Madness tournament, it seemed inevitable before their main competition steps in. I don't think it's a good idea to create more tournaments, but I do like how this is only a weeklong and at a neutral site in Vegas. The main reason this may not work is if the transfer portal timeline doesn't change and players opt out. Either way, I'm sure ESPN/ABC will continue to force feed us women's basketball again next year.

No doubt, but that's unfortunately the way all of college basketball is trending at this point. This free for all style with the portal is going to leave a lot of kids without a spot on the D1 level and more importantly, not allow many players to graduate. If every team is turning over 20-50% of their roster every year, it'll be a rollercoaster every season. I'm still not convinced that the attrition is done for us (though I hope it is)... Mast, Williams, and Gary would be a huge bonus if we're able to keep them into next year.

They didn't change, they moved quickly in an effort to avoid having an extended egg on the face situation (like the Callahan hiring way back when). They went with the close hire in Gold, who had already been a utility player in the system. And then hired an AD so desperate to leave the West Coast that he jumped at the opportunity six months after taking the job at Washington. He might end up proving to be a great hire and I'm hoping he can do a good job. But it is pretty evident that our program was stronger with Trev at the helm.

I'm not sure that I was disappointed at individuals specifically, but more so the team coming out with such a strong start the first day and then getting the reality checks in the quarters. There were some very tough draws so I don't blame anyone in particular. With half the lineup reaching AA status, that's an impressive feat alone. However, pairing that with finishing outside the top 5 is kind of a letdown. Whole lot of progress this year though and should have a great group returning. Hopefully the team can shore up a few spots and make a run at the title next year.

Kind of crazy to be disappointed when we had five All-Americans, but it does feel like the guys fell short of their potential in most cases. Lots of young guys got some good experience this year so the future still looks bright.

If early retirement was the goal, he could just as easily have stayed here 3-5 years then retired. Based on comments Frost made back in the day and Trev's comments this week, it sounds like the roles (AD & Head Football Coach) had/have pressure from above to perform duties beyond the scope of the typical job description most coaches and ADs do at other schools. I don't suspect that A&M is too much different, however A&M also has the structure in place to support the program and is in a big state with enough competitors that there may not be as much meddling from the top-down, and more from the outside (boosters). I remember reading something to the effect of 'now Scott can get back to focusing on football' once Trev was hired and became more of a fence between the coach and boosters/BoR/whomever. Similarly, I believe Green & Carter might have had that role between Trev and the BoR/whomever. If the meddling was getting to be too much without the leadership to fend off requests/demands, I can understand looking around. However, what I can't understand is the rug-pull aspect of this and staying too politically correct to not find a subtle way to drop bread crumbs of the issues to others. Did he handle it professionally by not revealing more about the issues prior to the action? Sure, but in doing so, it puts the school he loved in a bad light again and leads to immense speculation with no identifiable solutions other than burn down the whole structure to "solve" the ongoing problem(s). All the goodwill Trev built over the past several years is essentially wiped out, he turns into a villain, and Nebraska remains no better off (for now). Quite the bummer.

Too much one-on-one action and not enough running the offense. Also getting overpowered on the defensive end, Illinois playing bully ball definitely plays into their strengths.

I forgot who mentioned it in the thread earlier, but they mentioned that he had thrown his hat in regarding being Big Ten commissioner and something regarding the playoff. They also highlighted that this step would mean he's led at a mid-major (UNO), a Big Ten school, and now an SEC school. It's a resume that could potentially put him in line for something overseeing college athletics at-large ahead. No idea if that's his gameplan or what his goals are, but if the Big Ten & SEC were to break away from the NCAA down the line, he would likely be on a shortlist of candidates to lead the joint venture.

The only part I'll disagree with is the coaches being affected. The AD is ultimately their boss so there has to be a little concern on who their new boss might be. If there is uncertainty about who will lead them, it could easily cause a coach to start looking around at other schools with stability. Essentially, a fear of the unknown sort of thing. Now that said, you're spot on that it should not have an effect on the players, teams, or on field performances whatsoever.

True, it would not take a lot to move again when the next opportunity comes up. However if he's committed to the school, program, state, etc. to the point of actually moving his parents in their 70s halfway across the country, that's a very good sign for all involved. Now hopefully he can enjoy success on the field, our administration uses his wisdom/input in making some crucial decisions, and everything stabilizes in the levels above our coaches and programs.

I agree, though if his "interim" boss already was conflicting with his vision and that interim tag was considered being removed, I can partially empathize with Trev's decision even though I don't like it. Can't be easy to stay at a job out of loyalty when your direct boss does not support your vision/goals. Most relatable example I can point out is between Pelini and Eichorst. Bo got along well with Osborne and shared his vision of how to run a program. Osborne protected Bo from having to deal with Perlman. Perlman's ego couldn't stand Osborne or Pelini so in walks Eichorst who had a different vision of how an athletic department should run. We all know how that played out and have been suffering the consequences ever since.

I agreed with you up until this part. "Loyalty and what it means to be a Husker" could mean any number of things (characteristics) to anyone. You can bash him and blame him for whatever you would like. However, as we've learned in the past 24 hours, the problems within our system extend beyond the AD position and don't appear to have a firm solution on the horizon.

It's a problem because we lost the three most high profile University leaders in less than a year and a half. We don't appear to have a direction as a University and the Board to oversee this direction appears to be dysfunctional. Previously, the AD reported to the Chancellor and University President. They swapped the Chancellor for the BoR after seeing how much trouble Perlman caused with Athletics for 20 years. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, the BoR appears to be messed up on priorities and with no President in place to guide or at least stop the BoR from meddling, Trev didn't want to be their puppet anymore. Hence, we have problem solvers who appear to be the key source of the problem. Regarding the stadium and costs... most fans agree that changes were needed for the stadium. To build a stadium filled with the modern amenities expected from fans, coaches, and players would be significantly more than the suggested remodel price (est. $450 million). A new stadium for +70k would almost certainly exceed $1 billion to be competitive in the modern day. Trev's vision on the stadium was absolutely necessary, it sounds like the BoR were good with the stadium projects... so long as someone else (boosters) would foot the bill. Therein lies the problem.

The employee doesn't get to hire the boss, but the employee doesn't have to stay if he doesn't like the boss(es). The two key figures he signed on to lead "under" were Carter and Green. Green left, the Board of Regents changed the structure to have the AD directly report to the President (Carter). Carter leaves, "interim" President inserted who Trev doesn't align with and Trev bails. There is probably more nuance to the decisions made, but on the surface it appears that Trev didn't like his new boss and didn't see a path where their visions could line up together. I hope the Regents strongly evaluate who they end up signing on as the University President.

Absolutely! I'd also recommend they take the opinions of Manning & Revelle into account as long-tenured coaches who know what is successful and what isn't. If nothing else, figure out the characteristics of an ideal candidate for the athletics side of the equation. Though I also hope/wish they included Cook & Rhule in the interviewing process as both seem to understand and express opinions on matters beyond just their individual sports.

Agreed, there were plenty of ways he could have gotten his message across over the past year with how frequently he was taking interviews and interacting with reporters. Instead, the action yesterday comes across as impulsive, though I'm sure the idea had been under consideration for months. The unfortunate part is that the abrupt change has turned fans from praising him the past several years into an angry group searching to find dirt on him or justify why he's a bad leader/person. We would be dumb not to take him back tomorrow (should he get cold feet), but I'm not sure there is a bridge to get him back. Just sucks all around.

For one, they act as a quasi-fence between the AD and the Board of Regents. No President presumably means the Board of Regents have more control over the AD (and others) which can lead to the Regents treating those under them as their puppets. The lack of alignment within the system is a big problem.

For sure Regents not filling the President spot is a problem. I don't know about the internal politics to give a firm opinion on the governor/legislature end. I can't help but wonder if there were simply too many cooks in the kitchen and without a clear leader, Trev was stuck in limbo trying to make it all work. I do wish his dissatisfaction could have been more well-known prior to today. Not that public sentiment would have changed anything, but it could at least help us avoid being embarrassed again had we had a little heads up that there were issues behind the scenes, enough to the point where Trev leaving was a possibility.

Fully agree, the one spot we thought we had stability in was with Trev as AD. Instead of getting to enjoy the turnaround stories and programs on the rise, we instead will split focus towards the merry-go-round of administrators and AD candidates.

Key difference... he knows who is boss is at A&M and clearly believes in the guy. We apparently don't have a firm vision or leaders in place that instill confidence that the University is set up for success. @knapplc was spot on that the problem lies with the University administration and the Board of Regents. Sad to see it play out as it did today.