Sobering Look - how far out of relevance NU has fallen

[Redux]

Thats just it, mid major. If were gonna do this I want a slam dunk "Were taking back college football" hire. I just dont see it out there. Im sure there is a mid major coach out there who could do it but who?

That's the problem, no one knows and no one can know until they are doing the job and doing it well and we're on the track back to greatness. No way to predict it..............

 

Absolutel. There is no way to predict it. Thats why if there is no clear "perfect fit" available or willing we need to stick with Bo. Gambling on an unknown at this point ciuld set us back even further.Nobody wants that. Were at a tricky spot with our staff. A corner might get turned and we will tKe thatnext step. Or we stay the course and continue the trend of 9 wins. Its not an awful place to be, just not what the majority wants. Are we ready for a losi g season should we decide a gamble is worth it?

[carlfense]

I was part of the "fire Callahan" crowd.

I was too. Eventually.

 

Six years after Callahan's termination, are we in a better place? Or are we in the same place?

Better.

 

Six years after firing Pelini, are we going to be in a better place?

Impossible to know. Might be better. Might be worse. Might be roughly the same.

[carlfense]

The decision can't only be: It's not getting done under Pelini. Let's fire Pelini.

Actually, if Pelini is not getting it done and can not get it done that is the decision. At that point a new direction is necessary.

 

And the people who think that aren't the only ones using sound reasoning in this situation. There are legitimate concerns with firing a coach. It's not simply that people don't think we can do better firing Pelini.

There are absolutely legitimate concerns with firing a coach. Perhaps it would have been better for everyone if Pelini was chosen for one of those jobs that he was chasing. There are also legitimate concerns with keeping a coach who loses at least 4 games each year . . . several in absolute blowouts.

 

The fact that we might do worse after firing Pelini is a legitimate reason to keep Pelini.

Completely disagree. If past results are the best indicator of future production he is not good enough for Nebraska. Period.

[Redux]

I do think that we'll see one parallel to the Callahan era. The percentage of fans who believed that Callahan was the right coach for Nebraska seemed to decline over time despite an impassioned defense by certain writers/posters/fans who were so invested in "believing" in Callahan that they were unable to even entertain the idea that we could do better. I suspect that we'll be seeing a similar situation. It's possible that we already are.

 

I was part of the "fire Callahan" crowd. Six years after Callahan's termination, are we in a better place? Or are we in the same place?

 

Six years after firing Pelini, are we going to be in a better place?

 

The decision can't only be: It's not getting done under Pelini. Let's fire Pelini.

 

And the people who think that aren't the only ones using sound reasoning in this situation. There are legitimate concerns with firing a coach. It's not simply that people don't think we can do better firing Pelini.

 

The fact that we might do worse after firing Pelini is a legitimate reason to keep Pelini.

 

I Think that is the most legitimate reason to keep him. Kinda strange thats where we are. Weve seen the extreme low and the extreme high of wbat a staff can do. The unknown is a scary thing.

[knapplc]

The fact that we might do worse after firing Pelini is a legitimate reason to keep Pelini.

Completely disagree. If past results are the best indicator of future production he is not good enough for Nebraska. Period.

 

No, not period. Because the inability to get someone better means keeping him is the lesser of the two evils.

 

We MUST have a better hire in hand before firing Pelini. Without that, he must be kept.

[Redux]

The fact that we might do worse after firing Pelini is a legitimate reason to keep Pelini.

Completely disagree. If past results are the best indicator of future production he is not good enough for Nebraska. Period.

 

No, not period. Because the inability to get someone better means keeping him is the lesser of the two evils.

 

We MUST have a better hire in hand before firing Pelini. Without that, he must be kept.

 

The Last thing we need is another scramble hire like with Callahan.

[kchusker_chris]

The fact that we might do worse after firing Pelini is a legitimate reason to keep Pelini.

Completely disagree. If past results are the best indicator of future production he is not good enough for Nebraska. Period.

No, not period. Because the inability to get someone better means keeping him is the lesser of the two evils.

 

We MUST have a better hire in hand before firing Pelini. Without that, he must be kept.

The issue is you can't know if your hire is better until he is in place. Scott Frost could bring in an All-Star group of assistants and everyone would be pissed because he's not a better hire due to his lack of experience. And he might not be. Or he might be. We could land Tressel out of purgatory, and with his decade of huge success at Ohio State he could be better, or he might not be. You can't tell at the time of the hire, you can only put someone in place with the potential to succeed and then give him the tools he needs.

 

Does Bo, based on what we know after six years possess more potential than some of the names out there? Has the situation started to become to toxic? We know he has everything he needs to succeed, but is the potential still there? That was a buzzword for Pelini 3 years ago. You don't hear it at all anymore. So if not, then the decision has been made IMO.

[carlfense]

We MUST have a better hire in hand before firing Pelini. Without that, he must be kept.

Actually, I agree with that. I'm saying that if this is what we can expect then that process should be in motion.

 

Edit: I agree that we should have a hire in hand before Pelini is fired. As kchusker_chris pointed out, we won't know if the hire is better until much later.

[carlfense]

The issue is you can't know if your hire is better until he is in place.

Yep.

[TGHusker]

This is my analysis/questions as I mull this over - Carl, Knapp and others have touched on various parts of it:

1.What trajectory are we on? If it is the "status quo average ranking of 22 - 35 range", is that good enough?

2. If the answer is no, which it should be, then the questions: How do we change the trajectory & does Bo & staff have the skills to get us to be a top 10 top 15 program consistently?

3. Since past experience normally predicts future performance, then the answer is that Bo and staff do not have the skills to bring us to that level without the introduction of some change agent.

4. Could the change agent be a new independent experienced DC and new independent experienced OC leaving Bo the freedom to be the CEO? Bo seems to me to be too loyal and wants to be in control too much- I don't see that happening.

5. Therefore, the change agent I see, is a new experienced coaching staff coming in to make the needed changes to get us to the next level. Therefore the final question

6. Does the admin and boosters have someone in their back pocket and are ready to offer? If not, then I see Bo getting one more year to make it happen - if no hardware next year then that is the end of the Bo era.

[Landlord]

This is my analysis/questions as I mull this over - Carl, Knapp and others have touched on various parts of it:

1.What trajectory are we on? If it is the "status quo average ranking of 22 - 35 range", is that good enough?

2. If the answer is no, which it should be, then the questions: How do we change the trajectory & does Bo & staff have the skills to get us to be a top 10 top 15 program consistently?

3. Since past experience normally predicts future performance, then the answer is that Bo and staff do not have the skills to bring us to that level without the introduction of some change agent.

4. Could the change agent be a new independent experienced DC and new independent experienced OC leaving Bo the freedom to be the CEO? Bo seems to me to be too loyal and wants to be in control too much- I don't see that happening.

5. Therefore, the change agent I see, is a new experienced coaching staff coming in to make the needed changes to get us to the next level. Therefore the final question

6. Does the admin and boosters have someone in their back pocket and are ready to offer? If not, then I see Bo getting one more year to make it happen - if no hardware next year then that is the end of the Bo era.

 

 

1. It depends on how close you're looking.

 

 

The trajectory of this value is increasing overall, but if you were to only look at that middle section, you might think it had plateaued or was even regressing. This is where you have to trust Shawn Eichorst and Harvey Pearlman to look big picture, because you know sure as sh#t that we fans are only capable of looking small picture. The trouble is, it's hard to draw really solid conclusions with Bo Pelini, even zooming out. A lot of extenuating circumstances, a lot of inconsistency (I'm not talking about our play on the field - I'm talking about the trends of the program. Things that were problems are no longer problems, things that used to be good are now piss poor, that sort of thing), and even though it's longer than the status quo, six years' worth of data is not much to go off of as a "sure thing".

[carlfense]

4. Could the change agent be a new independent experienced DC and new independent experienced OC leaving Bo the freedom to be the CEO? Bo seems to me to be too loyal and wants to be in control too much- I don't see that happening.

Why would we want Bo as a CEO? That sounds a bit snarkier than I intend so I'll try to elaborate a bit. If Bo isn't coaching (and fielding) a good to great defense every year why would we want him? Certainly not for his recruiting, his PR skills, etc.

 

If we're going to go down the head coach as CEO route . . . shouldn't we want a good CEO?

[knapplc]

The issue is you can't know if your hire is better until he is in place.

Yep.

 

Agree with this. It's an unknown, and there's no pat answer to the question.

[TGHusker]

4. Could the change agent be a new independent experienced DC and new independent experienced OC leaving Bo the freedom to be the CEO? Bo seems to me to be too loyal and wants to be in control too much- I don't see that happening.

Why would we want Bo as a CEO? That sounds a bit snarkier than I intend so I'll try to elaborate a bit. If Bo isn't coaching (and fielding) a good to great defense every year why would we want him? Certainly not for his recruiting, his PR skills, etc.

 

If we're going to go down the head coach as CEO route . . . shouldn't we want a good CEO?

yes we would Carl - but this is what I've seen many post before - "Bo just needs an experienced DC and/or OC and that would cure the problem - it would free Bo up to manage the program as a CEO".

 

Well, my original question was somewhat rhetorical - If Bo was a good CEO, he would have surrounded himself wt the best coaches possible but instead we have a coach in training program going on here - both at his level and at the coordinator level and wt several assistants. A good CEO never feels threatened by having very experienced assistants - yet I suspect that Bo would either feel threatened or would not want to loose control of the D - since that is his reputation.

[beanman]

EDIT - Bill Snyder comes to mind, if you forget that he retired and had to come back to save KSU from Prince.

Bill Synder I thought of, but it only took him 4-5 years or so to get KSU out of the dumps.

 

Won 1,5, 7, 5 before winning 9, 9, 10, 9, 11, 11, 11, 11. So by his 5th season he has the doormat KSU team winning big games (and a top 20 ranking) his first time around. Second time around it only took him until his 4th year.

 

Whereas Bo has never won less than nine after inheriting a doormat.

With a hell of a lot more talent that KSucks has ever had. Don't ignore that.