Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[Saunders]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.

That is the point. Some of you don't want to pull the trigger because you think it might go back to Callahan product.

 

(You may have heard he's coaching in Dallas, which is like a career sentence).

As I said, that is one possibility but I don't think that describes everyone who wants to keep Bo. I'm not even sure it's a large percentage. Bo's win-loss record - amongst other things - has been significantly better than Callahan's. It is not hard to see how someone who wanted Callahan gone because of his lack of success would not have the same feelings about Bo because he's had a lot more success. It doesn't have to have anything to do with fearing a repeat of Callahan's tenure.

 

That's a fair argument, Bo is clearly an upgrade. I think my opinion is closer to the outside perception.

 

One tenet of a Tier 1 Program is that it won't tolerate extended mediocrity. That is why people were impressed, albeit shocked, when Solich was fired for 9-3.

Impressed? All I remember NU getting raked over the coals by the media, and coaches saying "no thank you."

 

I'm of the mindset that you only fire someone if you know you can get a better replacement. That's generally why people are fired for doing a poor job, and not an above average one.

[kchusker_chris]

changes in culture

 

True, and what are the changes in culture happening now? I'm thinking that's what most of the detractors are upset about.

I have no idea. Maybe none. That wasnt my point. I was just pointing out that that's what happened after 1990. And that I found it pretty conventient that he left off just prior to what may have been one Osborne's most dissappointing seasons, with clearly 2 of his worst losses. It was just a thought.

Actually I stopped at the end of the 80's because HuskerMax data is grouped in decades and I was tired of copy/pasting - so it was convenient. He implied Osborne frequently got clobbered in big games. His losses were usually pretty close. Adding another couple years into that still would have hardly equaled what Bo has done in 6.

[kchusker_chris]

I'm of the mindset that you only fire someone if you know you can get a better replacement. That's generally why people are fired for doing a poor job, and not an above average one.

I can see this, but you also have to know that you aren't able to identify your pool of candidates until after you've already fired the guy. There can be some closed door discussions, but until the yearly coaching carousel beings...you don't have a good gauge on what is available. chicken/egg thing.

[TheSker]

I think ADs have an idea of who might be available and interested. This isn't the age of direct contact with coaches any longer......it's the age of agents, consultants and search firms.

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 BCS bowl games to Nebraska's zero, other than that, yep the records look similar

 

Slightly more relevant. Not far more relevant. One meaningful season sandwiched between the kind of seasons Husker fans find unacceptible.

 

I'll go ahead and envy that 12 - 1 season, but between Mantei T'eo, the Alabama beatdown and the drop-off this season, I'm not exactly green.

 

Notre Dame and Nebraska have more in common here than not. Looking at both programs post 1997, I'd still take Nebraska.

[zoogs]

Since 1997, you've added 2 BCS bowls (1 national title appearance) plus an 11-2 season for Nebraska (and one for Notre Dame), but the original criteria said 2004 onwards, which changes the outlook. Granted, Notre Dame's been kinda going through their coaches with a LOT of mixed results. So it must've been a trying decade for Domer fans, too. And perhaps they offer a blueprint for how scary coaching changes can be.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Since 1997, you've added 2 BCS bowls (1 national title appearance) plus an 11-2 season for Nebraska (and one for Notre Dame), but the original criteria said 2004 onwards, which changes the outlook. Granted, Notre Dame's been kinda going through their coaches with a LOT of mixed results. So it must've been a trying decade for Domer fans, too. And perhaps they offer a blueprint for how scary coaching changes can be.

 

IMO we showed the danger of hanging onto an unsuccessful coach hoping for a metamorphosis into a great coach. There will always be a recruiting class endangered or a couple close losses. You aren't changing the result but kicking it down the road.