All Hail Herbie

7 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I wonder if we could get the team some medals of some sort for best 3-9 team in history. Put it next to the Natty trophies.

As I mentioned in the Spring, an inaugural SP+ Championship Trophy would be the ticket.  It appears that we have several among us that would happily take a selfie alongside this acclaim so it might become a real draw for younger fans.  Something to keep the sellout streak going!

Without the aide of the SP+ analytics machine, I will attempt to make this tricky forecast.  Nebraska loses yet another one score game on Friday and we remain so close to championship legitimacy.

The good news is that with the end of the season, comes the end of the predictable week ahead...

Saturday: Lose One Score Game - Conduct press conference outlining how close we are.  "We are a good team."

Sunday: Review publications arguing how a play here or there would have made the difference with the result

Monday: HC to conduct presser explaining how well the team has responded in practice.  "A lot of energy today"

Tuesday - Thursday: Assistant coaches explain how injured the team is, thus rationalizing the continued losing

Friday: Fans buy in to the notion that this week will be different.  Players getting healthy, coaches gaining valuable insight, it is our time, etc.

Saturday: Rinse and repeat.

14 hours ago, Toe said:

 

Oh SP+ where have you gone?  The last we talked it was pre-season and hopes were abound of a successful season.  SP+ is the great forecaster as we know (like Carnac the Magnificent only with less personality) and the history pointed to a progressively better season.  3 Wins...

When conventional metrics do not provide the evidence one needs to support progress, we turn to alternative metrics such as SP+.  How much better does the fan base feel when the title of "Greatest 3 Win Team" is bestowed upon it?  For many we could point to the VL+ metrics (i.e. Vince Lombardi), "winning isn't everything, but it is the only thing" when it comes to football.  

Let's go find 4 assistant coaches willing to commit to a one year deal, conduct the one year charade which is 2022, and then proceed to transition.  We are competitive, but something is clearly missing when you amass a 5-19 record in one score games.  Undeniable at this stage.

On 11/18/2021 at 4:53 PM, BigRedBuster said:

I’m fine reviewing statistics because I find it interesting. 
 

You can do you. 

My comments this past week were dripping with sarcasm....

As you well know, the statistics do not lie.  

17 hours ago, lo country said:

Potential deals:

(Rumor) Lincoln Riley offered $96 million for 8 years at LSU.......

Mel Tucker (in year 2) gets a $95 million 10 year deal......

 

I can see why it'd be hard to have fired Frost and owe him $20 million......It appears the coaching arms race is here....

 

 

Agreed on the ridiculous salaries being offered.  The money is absolutely ruining the game...

That said, it might be worthwhile to examine the fine print on these agreements.  The top line figures always get press attention, but how much is actually guaranteed upon termination and what are the performance metrics?  Does the university have any right to re-negotiate if certain conditions are not met?  These are terms that will likely never be reported on.  Of the two, Riley is the more proven commodity at this stage.

4 hours ago, MdStine said:

 

Could it be there IS a serviceable QB on the roster but Frost is deficient in evaluating talent and knowing when to adjust and change?  Prior to the Baylor game look at OU's situation Rattler was the pre-season Heisman frontrunner but was so gawd awful on the field Riley had to make a change, something Scott hasn't or it hasn't dawned on him to do.

You are on point here.  Player development is one root cause of our struggles the past 4 years, and will continue in Year 5.  The most alarming item in my opinion is the fact that our Head Coach does not even recognize that a problem exists.  This remains the best evidence that change is inevitable.  

15 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Is that you coach Riley. You already told Bookie to go to Oklahoma do you really need to tell our coaches to take a better job too 

I presume Bookie is a recruit that did not become part of our roster.  Otherwise, the name sounds a bit like a fairy tale character out of a children's book.  Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt someone as insignificant as myself would have any impact on the fleeting instincts of a recruit.  

In terms of our coaches, I am simply viewing the situation through a professional lens.  If you were part of a corporation or entity on the brink of a hostile acquisition (due to market failure) or bankruptcy, and you were the company's top performer, would not you consider offers to join a stronger and more stable organization elsewhere?  Of course you would.  Whether we want to admit this or not, coaches do not owe any loyalty to a program or organization any longer.  They are all free agents and when their stock is up, they need to strike for their own and their family's interests.

Congrats to Coach Chinander on this great honor.  Given the state of the program, I would recommend he use this as currency now to land a better, and more secure, job elsewhere.  11/2022 is coming fast and no one would blame him for cashing in his chips now.  His stock will never be higher in Lincoln.

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

We should stop reviewing any measurements of the program.  We know these figures as well as our eyes are deceiving us as this team is so close to great success...

Just now, TheSker said:

That's one fact.

 

There are other factors.

 

You probably won't want to hear what Alberts had to say.  You'd put Albert's on the hot seat.

Correct, there are other factors aside from player recruitment.  Fundamentally, and for starters, we are the inferior team in the league.  Second, we do not develop players any longer and I am not referring to the nutrition / strength & conditioning programs.  Players are unable to line up, unable to block, unable to run routes, unable to run to daylight, unable to possess the ball, unable to avoid interceptions, unable to punt, unable to kick, etc.

Finally, I have believed for some time that the team possesses a true inferiority complex.  Routinely, when other teams meet the challenges presented during game action, our team folds.  The trend line on this is established and clear.  Boards such as this spend hours debating the latest tactical blunders in the most recent game when in point of fact, it is now engrained as part of our program's culture.  

3 hours ago, dspanther05 said:

Because the Huskers are not a very good football team. Very good football teams are not 3 and 7.

Thank you and agreed.  Contrary to the assertions of a few, it is not a question of a few plays in each game as the losses are an established trend with this coaching staff (4 years in the making).

1 hour ago, lo country said:

Helfrich had some good years at Oregon.  NU (Oregon influenced) has not.  I do not want any part of any more Oregon influence.  We got sold a whole bill of goods with the Oregon speed meeting Husker Power.  I have no desire to be Oregon lite or ever use the term Duck R again......

 

Riley.....Frost.....Lubick.....No mas influencia de oregon por favor

I agree on ending the PAC-12 experiment in Lincoln.  Rick Neuheisel made a comment the other day that effectively the PAC-12 needs to get bigger, more physical in order to compete nationally again.  It is relevant to our discussion as PAC-12 style simply does not work week after week in the BIG.  We are a good case study on this.

On the broader assistant situation, and bottom line, any staff worth their weight is not going to join a staff knowing that the assignment is likely to be a year or less.  Not to suggest that there will not be staff available to take a $1 million salary for a year, but they will not be the elite of the game.  

The Ty Willingham point of reference could actually make this situation more entertaining.  Just imagine giving our heralded HC a 5th season, fresh with new assistants, and then watching the team go 0-12 under the banner of a "transition" year.

While highly unlikely given the schedule, it would set us up well for a new coach as we would have officially reached rock bottom as a program.  What top shelf coaching candidate could resist a $5 million to $6 million annual salary given our resources and coming off the worst season in program history.

#November2022...

13 hours ago, Enhance said:

Ehh... I think it's a stretch to say he is "not" a strategic thinker. But it is really difficult to process some of the things we've heard in recent days. The idea of him stepping back from the offense is almost being presented like... like the offense doesn't need him and other areas do. With special teams I absolutely agree, but the defense seems to largely be in a good place. I would argue the offense is the most responsible for why this team hasn't been able to win this season. It's just a bit odd.

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with this. He has openly acknowledged that they needed to change things so I'm not sure what you expected him to say. Did you want him to openly dunk on a bunch of guys that worked with/for him for a long time and are friends? Guys he had to fire? Guys that he's probably trying to help damage control their situations? It would be classless and unethical to just be like "yeah these dudes suck for reasons x, y and z."

Happy to offer clarification on both counts.  As to the first, I think it is fair to say that our esteemed HC spends nearly all of his time focused on playcalling and offensive tactics.  In other words, he cannot see the forest for the trees.  Given the results in terms of wins and losses these past 4 years, it would have been helpful for him to step back 2 or 3 years ago and right-size his offensive approach to his defense and special teams (i.e. play field position, field goal decisions, etc.).  I think his view has been so limited, that he operated under the assumption that like his time at Oregon and UCF, he could simply outscore opponents rendering defense and special teams as moot.  That has not happened.  All three units have to work in concert.  

In terms of the second point, of course he should be professional and courteous when dismissing coaches who have been loyal to him and have worked tirelessly for the benefit of the program.  I was simply pointing out that I think his comments were more than professional courtesy.  He simply does not see any structural issues with the approach he is taking and these coaches were merely part of the bargain he made in an attempt to preserve his job status.  That to me illustrates that he is incapable of the course correction necessary to bring about true success.

Based on the little that I cared to watch, I came away from today's presser with two points:

1.) Our beloved coach is not a strategic thinker.  His approach to the game is largely mired in day to day play calling activities and offensive tactics.  I think Trev pointing out that his narrow focus on offense was limiting his view of other program areas of importance was a near revelation to him.  Very telling.

2.) He affirmed the notion that these firings had little to do with job performance.  These assistants did an outstanding job in advancing the program (as we all know).  In other words, he does not recognize that there are problems with his approach or philosophy.  As a result, little will change as we enter this final year of the Frost era.

1 hour ago, Otterpop said:

Yah and I’m sure with 11.5 million he will have after next season if fired he could find a beach house somewhere.

Spot on assessment.  He will be able to take a year away from coaching and live incredibly well.

I have no doubt he will ultimately land as an assistant someplace.

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

This is a really good post.

 

I've seen the "we're doing the same thing and expecting different results" comments too. I don't buy them based on the secondary facts of the situation e.g. the firing of four assistants and the restructuring of Scott's contract (which not only helps with a potential buyout but also crucially gives them more money to hire assistants). What we're seeing here are two parties amicably giving and taking a little bit in order to try to make something work. And if it doesn't, they're both in a position to walk away with something of value.

 

Fans get remarkably tied up in the importance of early success for a coach. I get it. You see guys like Gene Chizik, Ed Orgeron and Mel Tucker all knock it out of the park early on. But a lot of those guys are gone 4-5 years down the road when they can't match their early success. Would anybody be surprised if Tucker is out at MSU in the next few years, either because of a new job or a performance decline? Because I wouldn't be.

 

And yeah... who Frost is certainly played into all of this. Was it a primary determining factor? Eh... perhaps not. There are a lot of other factors playing into it (the defensive success, the team's apparent toughness/athleticism, their unity, etc.) But there's a very common theme we're hearing right now from fans when they see they WANT to see Frost succeed. Would they be saying that about an outsider? I don't personally think so. I think fans would be a lot more willing to cut ties if this were not a former Husker.

I have previously outlined my thoughts on the strategic approach taken by our new AD towards this situation so I will not belabor it here.  All I can say is that he acted with a close eye on professional self-preservation.

As to your second point, I may be unlike the generic fan you are speaking of as I do not put much stock in early success (i.e. wins / losses).  My focus early in a coach's tenure is on fundamentals and mechanics.  If we are losing games, but are consistently executing our offensive / defensive approach without penalties, turnovers, missed assignments etc. and can do so while remaining competitive, I can see the vision.  I can then reasonably presume that with more experienced and ultimately better quality personnel that those close losses will become victories.

However, when you consistently demonstrate the same tactical shortcomings and errors year after year, and those errors contribute directly to losses, it is clear that either the strategy or the instruction is failing.  In other words, the light will not simply "come on" in Year 5 or 6. 

No hard feelings for me as I wish Coach Frost well in his next endeavor (starting December, 2022).

3 hours ago, hunter49 said:

politics has transferred magically to football, sigh.

No.  It is political in the sense that the decision was strategic and calibrated to ensure that all groups remain satisfied and supportive of the path ahead.  Moreover, the decision yesterday was made with self-preservation in mind (for the athletic director).  

7 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Likely.

HaHa.

2 minutes ago, huskerfan74 said:

The disappointing thing about this early announcement is that it was done before the season was even over. What happens if we go to Wisconsin and get our A$$es handed to us? What if Iowa salvages their season by ripping us a new one? How would everyone feel at that point. Trev and Frost are assuming that we will get momentum in our last two games that will carry over to next season. We have not seen this yet this season. Let us hope we actually win our last two games. As it stands, It will be a very long offseason and will become even longer if we lay a goose egg in our final two games. I do not know what exactly Trev accomplished by making this announcement this early! And please do not say recruiting….

Is it even possible that a 7-2 team can salvage their season by destroying a 3 win team?  

You are also assuming two points that are on shaky ground.  The first is the notion that Trev and Frost are in sync with the direction of the program.  Trev made a strategic move today that supported self-preservation in his current job and was less than supportive of Frost.  Second, Trev all but affirmed the notion that these staff changes will not in any way alter the course of the program.  That means that he has no expectation of momentum from this point forward (last 2 games included).  

This Head Coach is on borrowed time...

8 minutes ago, Husker1994 said:

In a lose-lose situation, Trev came out with a W. 
 

And at worst, a moral W - which we know most are fans of! 

Exactly.  While we debate meaningless staff additions that will neither alter our current trajectory, nor maintain a presence in Lincoln beyond November, 2022, Trev is contemplating a post-Frost future...

Frankly, it's the sort of strategic thinking that I would like to see in our next head coach.  Hmmmmm.

2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

And if Frost shocks the world and goes 8-4 next year, Trev will look like a genius for sticking with him.  I have no doubt Trev want's this to work with Scott, but what he has orchestrated here is essentially a probable win-win scenario for himself and more importantly, the University/Athletic Department.  If things go poorly, then at worst Trev has bought himself another year to work on his list of prospective replacement targets.  If one is, in fact needed.  Really a brilliant move.  

No question.  A masterstroke of political genius.  The detractors get something, the loyalists get something, and the University gets something (a buyout rebate).  Not bad.

As for shocking the world, let's leave that to a coach who is capable, such as Jimbo Fisher winning the National Championship at A&M.

2 hours ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Fair point.  If the goal was to help with the financial aspect while also breathing some new hope into the program, I guess you can say he achieved that.  I am not sure Trev would have hurt himself by picking a new coach if that new coach got the job done, but it would be a potentially riskier gamble to take as a first year AD.  

Exactly.  He is maintaining faith with both camps right now (Frost loyalists and detractors).  I think the results next year will be similar and he will then have both the political capital and performance metrics to transition the program to new leadership.

2 hours ago, lo country said:

Crazy thing is if Frost pulls off the impossible and goes 7-5/8-4 next year.  Maybe a bowl win....how do fire that guy......On the surface, based on who we beat this year, next year could just as easily be a 4-8/5-7 year.  Gotta earn it before I will look at Purdue and Minnie and say "teams we should beat"....We are 1-3 against both.  

 

I don't think Trev is willfully allowing the program to dive deeper into irrelevance to save money.  I think he did this in an attempt to prove the doubters wrong and give Frost a lifeline and chance at redemption.  It wasn't to kick he can down the road to make firing easier next year.

 

Idealism will get you into trouble with this situation.  Trev is not seeking to willfully injure the program in an effort to save money, nor is he seeking to give Coach Frost a chance at redemption.  He is simply approaching the situation strategically.  Dismiss half the staff without as much as a whimper (gaining favor with those wanting transition and replacing them with short-timers), limiting the cost of separation next year through a re-structuring and appear to be graceful to those faithful Frost loyalists who would never forgive him for terminating this Coach.   Not bad for a man who has been on the job for 3 months.

2 minutes ago, All Hail Herbie said:

This was nothing more than a strategic decision by the athletic director.  While he is rightly evaluating job performance based on metrics, he recognizes the political aspect at play here; namely the sentimental place that this coach holds with loyalists (boosters and fans alike).  To sack him this season would mean his own undoing.  

 

In effectively removing Coach Frost "piecemeal", he removes half the existing staff in one fell swoop, limits the University's buyout exposure next season, and comes out looking like a fair-minded and reasonable administrator.  Almost Machiavellian the way this was handled....

This quote perfectly illustrates my point (very strategic approach).  Trev knows that this exercise will ultimately fail, but that it checks all three of the boxes I mention above.  The only losers are the fans, but hells bells, what is one more season of losing football so long as we get to cry one more time when watching Coach's 1997 highlight film.  

"There's not a lot of empirical data out there to suggest this will work, let's be honest. But I also think, if there's a decision point - whether it's football or anything else, you know, Scott's a brother, he's a Husker, and he's a Nebraskan."