Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. cm husker I respect your football knowledge but unfortunately you have fallen into the exact same fairy tale - make believe syndrome as too many Nebraska fans have done over the last 18 years. Anyone wanting to have a football program that achieves at the highest level would want to study the program that has achieved the greatest success. I am a Nebraska fan but in all due respect Alabama sets the highest standard for winning championships. Their coaching hiring decisions and recruiting program set the high bar. Alabama has won 11 national championships since 1958. That's reality, not make believe - fairy tale. Any program and their athletic directors and decision makers wanting to compete at a championship level would want to have the Wikipedia page of Alabama coaches since 1958 sitting in front of them on their desk at all times. 11 national championships speaks for itself. How do they do what they do? Your misinterpretation of what they do as "fire and forget" is nonsense and you have totally missed the obvious. You believe in rewarding coaches with longevity? Alabama sets the standard: Bear Bryant (who won them 6 national championships) coached at Alabama for 25 years. Gene Stallings (national championship in 92) coached at Alabama for 7 years. Nick Saban (4 national championships) has coached at Alabama for 10 years and running. Alabama supports it's championship coaches with longevity, period. It's what they do with their underperforming coaches that is different from Nebraska. For 18 years Nebraska has blindly and dumbly offered longevity to coaches who just simply did not deserve that. Hanging on to underperforming coaches too long is absurd. The later part of their tenures has resulted in great harm to the program. It's killed our standing in the football world and harmed our recruiting badly. Why? Because we have said to the football world and young players that Nebraska is no longer interested in championship level coaching. We are content with mediocrity. Hubris and fairy tale thinking has caused all of this. The notion that we are somehow "different" from other programs is nonsense. We don't have any special powers and we don't make coaches or players. We compete in the exact same football world as everyone else. The last 18 years has proven that. It's long past time to stop the hubris and fairy tale thinking. We should expect the highest performance from our coaches. No more excuses. No more fairy tales. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 It's fair to say the outcome of many of our games in 2015 came down to a single play or series at the end of the game. It's also fair to say that in no way should most of those games have been allowed to come to that. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 It's fair to say the outcome of many of our games in 2015 came down to a single play or series at the end of the game. It's also fair to say that in no way should most of those games have been allowed to come to that. Your second sentence makes your first sentence incorrect. Much appreciate yours and Mavric's comments on this thread. Quote Link to comment
Hunter94 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 It's fair to say the outcome of many of our games in 2015 came down to a single play or series at the end of the game. It's also fair to say that in no way should most of those games have been allowed to come to that. Your second sentence makes your first sentence incorrect. Much appreciate yours and Mavric's comments on this thread. kinda like the chicken/egg theory? Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. cm husker I respect your football knowledge but unfortunately you have fallen into the exact same fairy tale - make believe syndrome as too many Nebraska fans have done over the last 18 years. Anyone wanting to have a football program that achieves at the highest level would want to study the program that has achieved the greatest success. I am a Nebraska fan but in all due respect Alabama sets the highest standard for winning championships. Their coaching hiring decisions and recruiting program set the high bar. Alabama has won 11 national championships since 1958. That's reality, not make believe - fairy tale. Any program and their athletic directors and decision makers wanting to compete at a championship level would want to have the Wikipedia page of Alabama coaches since 1958 sitting in front of them on their desk at all times. 11 national championships speaks for itself. How do they do what they do? Your misinterpretation of what they do as "fire and forget" is nonsense and you have totally missed the obvious. You believe in rewarding coaches with longevity? Alabama sets the standard: Bear Bryant (who won them 6 national championships) coached at Alabama for 25 years. Gene Stallings (national championship in 92) coached at Alabama for 7 years. Nick Saban (4 national championships) has coached at Alabama for 10 years and running. Alabama supports it's championship coaches with longevity, period. It's what they do with their underperforming coaches that is different from Nebraska. For 18 years Nebraska has been blindly and dumbly offered longevity to coaches who just simply did not deserve that. Hanging on to underperforming coaches too long is absurd. The later part of their tenures has resulted in great harm to the program. It's killed our standing in the football world and harmed our recruiting badly. Why? Because we have said to the football world and young players that Nebraska is no longer interested in championship level coaching. We are content with mediocrity. Hubris and fairy tale thinking has caused all of this. The notion that we are somehow "different" from other programs is nonsense. We don't have any special powers and we don't make coaches or players. We compete in the exact same football world as everyone else. The last 18 years has proven that. It's long past time to stop the hubris and fairy tale thinking. We should expect the highest performance from our coaches. No more excuses. No more fairy tales. Did Alabama fire coaches because of no championship or because they posted affirmatively poor records? Additionally, Alabama didn't fire a number of the coaches who came and went after Bryant. When Riley is finished, Nebraska needs to hire a good young coach and cultivate him. Fire and forget doesn't work. Alabama is an outlier, and they have far more resources/advantages than Nebraska. I agree we need to deal in reality, but we have a much different understanding of the lessons to be drawn from that reality. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. cm This is in reply to both of your posts. Since 1958 Alabama has fired: Bill Curry = .722 winning percentage Ray Perkins = .677 winning percentage Dennis Franchione = .680 winning percentage It didn't hurt them any. That's because they believe in themselves. They sent a message to the football world that they wanted coaches of the highest (championship) level not mediocre level coaches. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. cm husker I respect your football knowledge but unfortunately you have fallen into the exact same fairy tale - make believe syndrome as too many Nebraska fans have done over the last 18 years. Anyone wanting to have a football program that achieves at the highest level would want to study the program that has achieved the greatest success. I am a Nebraska fan but in all due respect Alabama sets the highest standard for winning championships. Their coaching hiring decisions and recruiting program set the high bar. Alabama has won 11 national championships since 1958. That's reality, not make believe - fairy tale. Any program and their athletic directors and decision makers wanting to compete at a championship level would want to have the Wikipedia page of Alabama coaches since 1958 sitting in front of them on their desk at all times. 11 national championships speaks for itself. How do they do what they do? Your misinterpretation of what they do as "fire and forget" is nonsense and you have totally missed the obvious. You believe in rewarding coaches with longevity? Alabama sets the standard: Bear Bryant (who won them 6 national championships) coached at Alabama for 25 years. Gene Stallings (national championship in 92) coached at Alabama for 7 years. Nick Saban (4 national championships) has coached at Alabama for 10 years and running. Alabama supports it's championship coaches with longevity, period. It's what they do with their underperforming coaches that is different from Nebraska. For 18 years Nebraska has been blindly and dumbly offered longevity to coaches who just simply did not deserve that. Hanging on to underperforming coaches too long is absurd. The later part of their tenures has resulted in great harm to the program. It's killed our standing in the football world and harmed our recruiting badly. Why? Because we have said to the football world and young players that Nebraska is no longer interested in championship level coaching. We are content with mediocrity. Hubris and fairy tale thinking has caused all of this. The notion that we are somehow "different" from other programs is nonsense. We don't have any special powers and we don't make coaches or players. We compete in the exact same football world as everyone else. The last 18 years has proven that. It's long past time to stop the hubris and fairy tale thinking. We should expect the highest performance from our coaches. No more excuses. No more fairy tales. Did Alabama fire coaches because of no championship or because they posted affirmatively poor records? Additionally, Alabama didn't fire a number of the coaches who came and went after Bryant. When Riley is finished, Nebraska needs to hire a good young coach and cultivate him. Fire and forget doesn't work. Alabama is an outlier, and they have far more resources/advantages than Nebraska. I agree we need to deal in reality, but we have a much different understanding of the lessons to be drawn from that reality. No Alabama is not an outlier... they are the gold standard. Alabama is not "fire and forget"... they are a relentless program determined to win championships... period. And when they find a championship level coach, they hang on to them. You have completely misinterpreted what they do. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 The pissing contests need to stop. A lot of people like to say that the last play - or a play near the end of the game - won or lost the game. This is true in the sense that nothing that happened after that particular play could have changed the outcome. However, it is equally true that different outcomes of other plays earlier in the game had at least as much effect (if not more) on the outcome of the game as that last play did. Much of the focus gets put on the last play because that's the last chance. But no one play is the sole determinant of who wins our loses. It only may have the final say in who wins or loses. So both sides are "correct." It just depends on your frame of reference and what you want to focus on. 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. cm This is in reply to both of your posts. Since 1958 Alabama has fired: Bill Curry = .722 winning percentage Ray Perkins = .677 winning percentage Dennis Franchione = .680 winning percentage It didn't hurt them any. That's because they believe in themselves. They sent a message to the football world that they wanted coaches of the highest (championship) level not mediocre level coaches. Bill Curry wasn't fired. He decided to bail on Alabama. After posting a 10-1 record, they tried to screw him with a contract so he left. Perkins wasn't fired either. He took a job offer to the NFL. Franchione was absolutely not fired. In fact, he turned down a 10 year contract worth $15m in order to take a job at Texas AM. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. cm This is in reply to both of your posts. Since 1958 Alabama has fired: Bill Curry = .722 winning percentage Ray Perkins = .677 winning percentage Dennis Franchione = .680 winning percentage It didn't hurt them any. That's because they believe in themselves. They sent a message to the football world that they wanted coaches of the highest (championship) level not mediocre level coaches. Bill Curry wasn't fired. He decided to bail on Alabama. After posting a 10-1 record, they tried to screw him with a contract so he left. Perkins wasn't fired either. He took a job offer to the NFL. Franchione was absolutely not fired. In fact, he turned down a 10 year contract worth $15m in order to take a job at Texas AM. LOL... face saving. Alabama knew full well what they had and didn't have with those coaches. They knew those were not championship level coaches Dennis Franchione "moved on" to TAM and his record there was 32W-28L (19-21 in conference) Bill Curry "bailed" and went to Kentucky and his record there was 25W-56L (14-40 in conference) Perkins "took" a job in the NFL... nuff said. Football is a big boys game. Not all is as it seems when coaches are fired. Another lesson Nebraska could learn. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. cm This is in reply to both of your posts. Since 1958 Alabama has fired: Bill Curry = .722 winning percentage Ray Perkins = .677 winning percentage Dennis Franchione = .680 winning percentage It didn't hurt them any. That's because they believe in themselves. They sent a message to the football world that they wanted coaches of the highest (championship) level not mediocre level coaches. Bill Curry wasn't fired. He decided to bail on Alabama. After posting a 10-1 record, they tried to screw him with a contract so he left. Perkins wasn't fired either. He took a job offer to the NFL. Franchione was absolutely not fired. In fact, he turned down a 10 year contract worth $15m in order to take a job at Texas AM. LOL... face saving. Alabama knew full well what they had and didn't have with those coaches. They knew those were not championship level coaches Dennis Franchione "moved on" to TAM and his record there was 32W-28L (19-21 in conference) Bill Curry "bailed" and went to Kentucky and his record there was 25W-56L (14-40 in conference) Perkins "took" a job in the NFL... nuff said. Football is a big boys game. Not all is as it seems when coaches are fired. Another lesson Nebraska could learn. Offering a coach a $15 million contract in the early 00s is a face saving maneuver? No. And to be more clear, after Perkins finished #9 in the country, he quit Alabama to become a HEAD COACH in the NFL. It's ok to admit you had your facts/history wrong. You can still stick to your premise, which is that NU should fire and forget its way to a championship coach. I just prefer to employ the "Osborne Method" (or more aptly titled, the "Devaney Method") for finding and developing a champion. Nebraska had two great coaches who could have become even better if given a chance. Nebraska isn't Alabama. Already "elite" coaches aren't going to ever line up to coach here, because they'll have much better chances elsewhere. We need to build our own. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 If Riley win six or seven games this year to meet at the trend. And that's a problem. If he wins 6 this year, he'll probably be brought back for the following year, but if he wins 6 that year too, I'd say he's probably gone. Eichorst might be gone in that situation as well. Those two are tied together at the hip. Which leads right back to the argument of how long to keep an underperforming coach. Nebraska made a name for themselves by keeping coaches for a long time and so many Nebraska fans believe that keeping coaches for a long time has some sort of magic to it. It doesn't. Keeping Solich and Pelini past 3-4 years was a mistake with both. The damage they did to the program in the last years of their tenure here did great harm to the program. We just kept them both too long. Alabama on the other hand never keeps a coach that does not win them a national championship... pronto. The longest they have kept a coach that did not win them a national championship since around 1960 was 4 years. During that time they won something like 12 national championships. They demand national championship level coaches. Produce a national championship for us or you're gone. For the last 18 years Nebraska has had the attitude of "don't worry" if you don't perform we'll keep you anyway. By doing that they take the pressure off of the coaches to win and they send a message loud and clear that Nebraska no longer expects national championship level coaches. That cant go on any longer. We need to send a message loud and clear that we expect our coaches to perform at the highest level or the're gone. If we are not willing to send that message then we might as well tell the whole world that we no longer are dedicated to championship level coaches and a championship level program. For every Alabama, there are a dozen programs that try the "fire and forget" method to absolutely no avail. Nebraska should not try to follow the USC/Alabama model. if we are hanging around the 7-8 win area after yr 3 which model should we try? Or just say screw it, I guess that is who we are. 7-8 wins is probably the low end and would be justifiable to make a change. But if we fire a third .700+ coach, we are a joke. cm This is in reply to both of your posts. Since 1958 Alabama has fired: Bill Curry = .722 winning percentage Ray Perkins = .677 winning percentage Dennis Franchione = .680 winning percentage It didn't hurt them any. That's because they believe in themselves. They sent a message to the football world that they wanted coaches of the highest (championship) level not mediocre level coaches. Bill Curry wasn't fired. He decided to bail on Alabama. After posting a 10-1 record, they tried to screw him with a contract so he left. Perkins wasn't fired either. He took a job offer to the NFL. Franchione was absolutely not fired. In fact, he turned down a 10 year contract worth $15m in order to take a job at Texas AM. LOL... face saving. Alabama knew full well what they had and didn't have with those coaches. They knew those were not championship level coaches Dennis Franchione "moved on" to TAM and his record there was 32W-28L (19-21 in conference) Bill Curry "bailed" and went to Kentucky and his record there was 25W-56L (14-40 in conference) Perkins "took" a job in the NFL... nuff said. Football is a big boys game. Not all is as it seems when coaches are fired. Another lesson Nebraska could learn. Offering a coach a $15 million contract in the early 00s is a face saving maneuver? No. And to be more clear, after Perkins finished #9 in the country, he quit Alabama to become a HEAD COACH in the NFL. It's ok to admit you had your facts/history wrong. You can still stick to your premise, which is that NU should fire and forget its way to a championship coach. I just prefer to employ the "Osborne Method" (or more aptly titled, the "Devaney Method") for finding and developing a champion. Nebraska had two great coaches who could have become even better if given a chance. Nebraska isn't Alabama. Already "elite" coaches aren't going to ever line up to coach here, because they'll have much better chances elsewhere. We need to build our own. I don't have any facts or history wrong. It's all there on Wikipedia. You don't suppose Nick Saban has been offered head coaching jobs in the NFL since he's been at Alabama? When Alabama finds a championship coach they keep him. If they don't see a coach as a championship coach they find a way not to retain them. And the longest period of time they have kept an underperforming coach since 1958 is 4 years. They have had 11 national championships during that period. Great coaches are very... very... rare. At any one time there are maybe one or two. Sometimes none. Alabama has a relentless pursuit of great coaches. Nebraska does not. The last 18 years proves you wrong. And here you are wanting that to continue? Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 So, you're still contending Alabama fired those coaches? 18 years doesn't prove me wrong. We fired two good coaches at year 6 and year 7. That was a mistake. In both instances. I think if we give either of them 3 years more, which they earned in my opinion, NU would have racked up at least a number of top 10 finishes. I don't want Nebraska to be Alabama. Ever. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I really can't believe your offering this serious strategy. We'd kill the host long before we found one of those handful of elite coaches. I wouldn't even call Saban one for most of his career. He's also a product of circumstance. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.