Wistrom Disciple

Agreed, perfect example is Boe Wilson. If he stays, he might have a split duty again so it makes sense that he may look elsewhere to go enjoy an opportunity in his last season. That said, as @Mavric pointed out - Anderson, Lynn and Fritzsche are all at the tackle spots where players in their class or younger are already starting at their positions. Sure, it would be ideal if they stuck it out and competed to win a spot. However, given that they have limited eligibility, it's understandable that they may go somewhere else and get a better opportunity. Since the staff overloaded on the offensive line recruiting a couple years ago (signed six I believe), I think some attrition would be expected after a few years. Now, hopefully they have a better handle on the depth and can be more methodical in adding a few every cycle instead of five-plus.

Please send that word back regarding Dismuke... Stille & Honas would be solid to bring back.

Feels like a lot but also seems to be average for a lot of teams across the country (~8-12 a year). At 85 scholarships, not surprising to see 10-15% turnover.

I think it will open a big can of worms over time, especially in regards to Title IX. How long before a star women's player files a lawsuit because of inequalities from endorsements? Or claims that the school's social media team promotes men's sports more frequently, gets basketball on TV more than swimming, soccer, etc.? Just hypothetical situations but certainly plausible. Normally capitalism rules the day in regards to the endorsements for the general public but Title IX overtakes capitalism in college athletics. Otherwise schools wouldn't have to provide equivalent scholarships for men's and women's sports. Therefore, I believe Title IX will factor into the situation before too long. My personal opinion is that if an athlete takes an endorsement deal over X amount ($500? - $10,000?), they should not be given an athletic scholarship but instead have to pay tuition and for the extras. The athlete can decide whether to stay on scholarship with all the benefits that entails or instead choose the endorsement route.

It's a very philosophical post which is fine but using LSAT/GMAT words doesn't mean you're adding wisdom to the discussion. In this case, it took until the underlined sentence above before there was a takeaway for how your posts apply to Frost and the program under the topic being discussed. To which regarding said underlined post, Frost has changed assistants each year since he's been here. Last year he let go of two assistants that had been with him for 3-4 years already. He has made one great hire (Tuioti) and the two new hires that are hard for me to put a grade on after this weird year (Dawson & Lubick). Therefore, I am inclined to believe Frost's "direction of self-reflection" is acceptable for my liking at this stage of the program.

You're right, I can see now where I took your initial question "does this assistant coach give Nebraska...." as posed by Moos instead of an internal question for Frost himself. Your rebuttals including that "the AD has a right to discuss staff with the head coach" is where I pulled the implication. Moos can ask the grand scheme questions but I don't think he should be involved with the staffing decisions. Moos certainly is responsible for the program but since day one of the Frost hire (and Hoiberg too for that matter) he has made it clear that he lets the coaches run their programs and has taken on more of a hands off approach. Changing that now is something Eichorst would do and we all saw how that worked out. Thank you, @TheSker, my thoughts exactly. The coach is constantly evaluating and presumably, the AD team is there whenever needed.

Thank you for your contribution?

If you don't think Frost is already self reflecting and overanalyzing everything in the program, then I think you're underestimating him. I am not implying that Frost should not have to have a review of his program or be held accountable when appropriate, I am simply disagreeing with your logic that the AD is the right person to decide whether (for example) Barrett Ruud is the right guy to coach our linebackers. If Moos were replaced by a different AD, say one without previously playing college football, would you trust that person to evaluate whether the cornerbacks and safeties have developed well enough to compete for a Big Ten title? I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't trust that AD's position-specific critiquing but instead suggest that the AD evaluates the program as a whole to which Frost must discuss and defend if pressed.

Yes, Frost and Moos should discuss the program at large but I don't believe the AD should be getting involved with position specific coaching decisions. Would you expect the AD to tell Hoiberg that Doc Sadler isn't getting it done on the defensive end of the court? Or that our pitching coach isn't showing results and Will Bolt needs to evaluate replacing the pitching coach? You're thinking too corporate and it's that mentality that resulted in us getting Bob Diaco for a year.

Agreed, but we're not at year 5 yet and the AD shouldn't be deciding which assistants a coach hires or fires unless there is a legal or moral issue with said coach (check and balance). Your implication is that Frost must justify every assistant with the AD each year and that the AD would be a good evaluator of position specific coaches. I do think Moos is knowledgeable and likely does offer advice from time to time but I would be very surprised if that advice has to do with staff personnel. I don't see the AD-coach relationship as a traditional business structure with Moos being as hands on in the staffing decisions but instead answering for the totality of the program. That totality of the program is on Frost and Moos to defend/discuss but the coach must be the one choosing staff or else forced marriages rarely work in athletics. Think of it this way, if Moos were to retire tomorrow and in stepped Garrett Klassy (Senior Deputy AD) or Pat Logsdon (Deputy AD - Senior Woman Administrator), do you think either of those two should make suggestions on who Frost should fire or hire? Edit: Frost can have the bolded discussion internally and seek advice if he feels the need but I don't view that advice receiving as a requirement.

Yes, Pelini would meet with his boss after the season. However TO did not force change onto the staff, nor make demands of coaching personnel selections. The way you're envisioning corporate America and the program are the same which is the wrong approach. Moos is charged with overseeing the whole athletic department but his involvement is and should be limited to being a sounding board for Frost and each coach/sport. If Frost were to come in and requests X dollars in order to go hire a different coach, yes he could meet with Moos and request that funding. It should never be the other way around (Moos bringing X dollars to Frost telling him he's going to get XYZ coach). Eichorst's decision for Riley to hire Bob Diaco is exactly why the Top-Down approach does not work in college football.

I’m hoping Walker can provide some stability and will communicate well for the team. Looks like we often don’t trust one another on the defensive end. Some great stretches today but also some more of the same head scratchers. Glad to see the team still working hard after the blowout. Just gotta put together a complete game and we should be able to win some games.

He might be waiting to see how the coaching carousel shakes out too (Fleck to NFL?). I am rather surprised more recruits don't wait to sign until the coaching staffs are in place at some of these schools. Helps us in that Frost is not going anywhere and presumably, the bulk of the staff will be staying put.

Design a play to get to the basket would be helpful. Looked too much like an NBA game plan of getting the ball to one player, let them go one-on-one. Then next time let player B try it. This team would greatly benefit from having a Mack/Burke type of speed to help the flow. Seems too mechanical and slow. Last five minutes with the subs it looked like we had some nice sets. Obviously making open shots is crucial but when those aren’t hitting, Fred needs to find some bread and butter interior plays if we hope to win anything.

This is pitiful, little semblance of an offense and it appears that Fred has zero answers. Refs aren’t helping whatsoever but we couldn’t hit an open shot if the hoop was the size of an SUV. Sad.

Agreed, which was part of the point in my response. If a transfer is a stud and wants to come here, yes take him. But that transfer must be better than the guys we already have in the program or else it is unnecessary to take transfer projects at this stage.

I agree that they should get the best talent on the field. However, in developing a program we cannot rely on hitting a home run with the JC & transfer market every time. This staff has shown mediocre success in finding JC and transfer players who have come in and made an impact. Some have been great additions (ie - Honas, D. Williams, Daniels & Mills). Others show a little promise so far (Martin, Payne, Vokolek) while even more have gone relatively unnoticed (Bell, Cooper, Green, Noa, Manning, Joseph, Mauga-Clements, Riley, Nouili, Bubak, Woodyard, Williams, etc.). Still time for some of the JC/transfers to make an impact but the track record of the staff hitting gems is pretty weak. Unfortunately, this staff does not have the evaluation talent that Pelini had regarding JC players. I realize that some transfers could be impact players for us but it has to be the right fit. I hope they do their due diligence on the transfer and JC markets if they intend to bring anyone in at their positions. Personally, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Fisher and the defensive coaches that they recruited well already. Now hopefully we get a normal year with spring football and fall camp to get the young guns ready to roll come next season.

You're right on the depth aspect after many of the Miami kids left but overall, DBs are a relatively impressive group: Cam, Newsome, Farmer, NPG, Clark, Gifford, Joseph & Lynum. Unproven in many cases but a lot to like from the group. Like Junior College recruits, I think we should only take one if that person can be an immediate improvement. Any of the four mentioned could be improvements but we would need to be very picky if we chase after them. I'd hate to see a young but developing player (like an NPG, Newsome or Lynum) transfer because we chase after a one and done transfer.

True, though is 12 more months of workouts, practices while forgoing a paycheck worth 12 Saturdays and (hopefully) a December bowl trip to Tampa or Miami? For some it is but I'd expect many will pursue the NFL or hang up the cleats.

Well Manning isn't exactly the transfer that Reed was referring to in his writing. Manning went to a JC to qualify for D1 schools. Obviously didn't get on the field to help us this year but nothing to indicate he was a bad fit for the program. I'd withhold judgment for the time being.

Yes, offensively we performed poorly this season... again. And yes, we finished in the middle of the division which is disappointing. However, I believe that all of the issues are mental mistakes which can be corrected. Playing as many young guys as we did along the line, some of those issues should be reduced as they mature and get more comfortable. The snapping appears to have been corrected with a technique adjustment so that should help us going forward. Young receivers running the wrong routes should also be corrected with time and practice. I'm in the camp that we're not far from winning the division as it is now and should not make drastic changes. Though young, we are finally a team that looks the part in sheer size & skill and got rid of the quitters mentality we previously had at the end of the Riley era. The mental aspect is the biggest hurdle of course but I am optimistic that a return to normalcy in 2021 will go a long ways towards returning to the top of the division.

Yes, past Wisconsin teams have played well against us but to state they would do so again would be an assumption at best... kind of like assuming we would beat Illinois this year, or assuming we would have lost to Penn State (preseason top 15 team). Too many inconsistencies this year to draw conclusions. Instead, we can only use the stats and results we have on the subject. In this case, the stats and results suggest that we aren't many steps for regaining the top position in our division. Some better discipline with penalties, catching a few dropped passes, avoiding errant snaps and it is likely that our record improves. We finally look the part again in terms of size and talent, it's now just a matter of developing consistency and sharpening skills as we have the talent to win the division.

Wisconsin averaged 22.3 ppg in their six games, including only 10 points each game over their last four. They would've probably helped our stats. - Cincy would have been more of a challenge.

Time of Possession Season average - 28:42 minutes per game (93rd in the nation out of 127 eligible teams in '20) -- 28:54 in '19 (85/130) -- 28:02 in '18 (104/130) -- Home games - 23:49 mpg (123/127) -- 26:36 in '19 (122/130) -- 28:25 in '18 (97/130) -- Away games - 31:37 mpg (T-32/127) -- 32:07 in '19 (18/130) -- 27:35 in '18 (109/130) I believe there is a correlation between time of possession and success, specifically with our defense. The longer our defense is on the field, the more likely we are to give up points. Also, the longer our offense is able to hold onto the ball and sustain drives, the more effective our pace can be over four quarters. It was not a coincidence that Rutgers was gassed this past game as we held the ball for nearly 40 minutes and ran 86 plays. If Frost & Co. can solidify the formula for the possessing the ball and churning out first downs while occasionally mixing their penchant for home run play calls, we should be much more effective long-term.

Since there is no slam dunk or even close to a sure fire upgrade at this point, I’d lean more towards sticking with who we have unless a big improvement comes along. Yes, we could name a few dozen transfer QBs who turned out to be great improvements for their respective programs. However for each great improvement, there are 5x-10x more who didn’t pan out