** Scott Frost megathread all things SF***

[alwayshusking]

4 hours ago, Sker4Ever said:

The more you step back and look at this the more it looks like it’s Scott’s job if he wants it.

 

1.) Firing Eichorst gets any hurdles to firing Riley out of the way. If this year goes as bad as it appears Bounds and Green will be justified with their decision and it’s on its way. This decision was made because of Riley and Riley alone.

 

2.) Bounds and Green are being influenced by the money behind the program, and that money has a high level of support to get Scott to Lincoln.

 

3.) Frost started the season on many up and coming coaching lists, Bounds and Green see that if they don’t act this year Nebraska may be too late to the party. His stock will only grow as they win more games, possibly end the year in a New Years 6 as the Group of 5 rep. Hence the, “We want to get started” quote in the presser.

 

4.) Not by mistake that they mentioned the mid 90’s in the presser. 

 

5.) The word compete keeps coming up. You see Scott on the sideline, that dude competes. His team follows suit.

 

The writing is on the wall, the only thing that is left is for the season to play out like most think it will. 

 

Money would think this means that the AD is Trev. I must say I am not crazy about that hire, but it seems the only plausible way we get someone who agrees to hire Frost. Unless someone like Joe Parker tells us in the search that Frost would be on the top of his list, then you hire that guy that will also hire the football coach the administration wants.

 

Hiring Frost is a safe way to go with big upside. If he fails, not too many fans will be upset because he is a Husker legend and that route is worth the try to many. I believe that not only  Scott gets Nebraska, understands the type of players it takes to win here, and the type of program it takes to win, but he is a good football coach that would be on the radar of major Power 5 jobs in the near future.

 

 

 

Yeah I agree. If the AD hire is Trev that will tell us where they intend to go with the football hire.

 

Still think they need to due their due diligence with the search firm and make sure Frost has a solid season. He doesn't need to go undefeated or anything crazy, but make sure no red flags pop up this year at UCF.

[Landlord]

The potential Frost hire I totally love.

 

 

The potential Alberts hire I...have a very hard time feeling positive about.

[grandpasknee]

 

[Enhance]

7 hours ago, unlfan said:

I'm starting to get the feeling that the Trev/Frost combo is inevitable

Those would, in combination, feel like such a low hanging fruit hires. I also agree with you - I just want an AD search (and, if it comes to it, a head coach search) that explored all available options and weighed all the strengths/weaknesses.

 

I have a hard time accepting that conducting a search in the way I described above would, in good faith, result in Trev Alberts. In my opinion, the two most critical factors for the next AD are:

 

- the proven ability to maintain and grow a successful football program and, if possible, a proven track record hiring a successful football coach

- the ability to kiss babies for the camera and shake hands

[brophog]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

 proven track record hiring a successful football coach

 

That's not really a possible task. You just won't find anyone who has hired enough football coaches to generate any kind of sample size, and the variance in results of any such hiring is so high that even if you could it would be hard to attribute conclusively to the hirer.

[Big Red Commie]

Frost gets my vote--he's getting rave reviews so far @ UCF.   Get this thing back to NEBRASKA!  Rimi as AD and whoever else has NE roots and is qualified, bring 'em 'N'.  And don't forget to RUN THE BALL!

[Mavric]

 

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, brophog said:

 

That's not really a possible task. You just won't find anyone who has hired enough football coaches to generate any kind of sample size, and the variance in results of any such hiring is so high that even if you could it would be hard to attribute conclusively to the hirer.

I disagree. There are athletic directors all over the country whom have experience a) operating football programs and/or b) hiring football coaches. You take that information and then judge their success or lack there of. Case in point, Eichorst helped sign Al Golden to a long term contract deal, a coach who was on the hot seat virtually every year he was there including the two with Eichorst.

 

But, to play Devil's Advocate against myself, let's say you're right and that it's too difficult to find and judge a coach based on football coaching hires. Trev Alberts has been an AD for going on eight years, has two years experience overseeing a football program and has never hired a football coach. For me, that outweighs his history as a 'Nebraska guy' who played there 25 years ago.

[brophog]

3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I disagree. There are athletic directors all over the country whom have experience a) operating football programs and/or b) hiring football coaches. You take that information and then judge their success or lack there of. Case in point, Eichorst helped sign Al Golden to a long term contract deal, a coach who was on the hot seat virtually every year he was there including the two with Eichorst.

 

But, to play Devil's Advocate against myself, let's say you're right and that it's too difficult to find and judge a coach based on football coaching hires. Trev Alberts has been an AD for going on eight years, has two years experience overseeing a football program and has never hired a football coach. For me, that outweighs his history as a 'Nebraska guy' who played there 25 years ago.

 

You asked for a "proven" guy. I provided the definition of that. We can all list eventual successes and failures, but to get past anecdotal status, in either direction, goes back to the definition I provided. 

 

 

[Enhance]

4 minutes ago, brophog said:

You asked for a "proven" guy. I provided the definition of that. We can all list eventual successes and failures, but to get past anecdotal status, in either direction, goes back to the definition I provided. 

I'd say you provided a subjective definition which may be the crux of my disagreement. I think you can find a proven commodity or, at least, a commodity proven enough by today's standards.

[junior4949]

13 hours ago, Nebhawk said:

Frost should be considered.  I  have posted for Frost alot on here or different thread.  He just seems to be the best fit right now.  We are down.  We are seeing what alot of programs have had for decades and it sucks.  I watch KU from afar, and wow, that football program can't find a win or buy one.  They may never have a program because they are not a football school.  We are a football school.  We have been a football school, now in a football conference.  I think we wait for too much longer to hire Frost, he will be at a different school in a power 5 spot.  Landscape of football says that.  Look out at possible spots right now.  K-State will have an opening soon.  (he coached there 1 year)

UCLA will have an opening soon.  Texas A/M will have an opening soon.  Thats just 3 jobs that might be on the job front coming in the next few weeks.   Who right now will be at the top of those lists?  Frost will be in the Top 2 of all of those jobs.  Chances are, he takes one of them if offered.  That why I think the time is now to go out and get him locked down.

 

They don't deserve to.  What they did to Mangino was almost criminal.  As far as I'm concerned, KU football should never recover. 

[Judoka]

1 hour ago, junior4949 said:

 

They don't deserve to.  What they did to Mangino was almost criminal.  As far as I'm concerned, KU football should never recover. 

Combine that with what they did to Gill and they deserve to never recover.

[brophog]

3 hours ago, Enhance said:

I'd say you provided a subjective definition which may be the crux of my disagreement. I think you can find a proven commodity or, at least, a commodity proven enough by today's standards.

 

If you used the word 'evidence', then we're in agreement. The word 'proof' is used wrongly way too often. It sets a standard that often can't be met. "Scientifically proven", for instance, can't even exist due to the nature of science . If I say something is proven to work, I'm not saying the same thing as it works more than 50% of the time. To use that phrase implies at or near 100%. 

 

Im not going to post anymore, I've made the point. I dont think it's fair to any hire to use the "proven" as a qualification because it sets an unfair expectation. Anyone we hire for the job of selecting a new head coach may not hit a home run. It may be prudent to expect that contingency. 

[brophog]

Watching the UCF-Maryland game and there is a great example of situational coaching in a scenario that comes up a lot, but is sometimes not handled that well. Late first quarter.

 

Second and 10 from the Maryland 41. 

UCF takes a shot down field, doesn't get it.

3rd and 10, the play is 4 button hooks. Easy completion, right before the sticks at the left hash mark.

4th and 1, running play wide to the right out of 10 personnel, 2x2 set. 1st down.

 

The second down play isn't that interesting but after that incompletion it's immediately obvious this is potential 4 down territory. 7 yard buttons are easy plays to make, perhaps you even break a tackle for the first down. Easy reads for the QB, tough to defend.

 

The 4th down call is great. Just hand off to a fast back, tell him to run to the sideline. Even a marginal block gets you to the corner. It's safe, it's easy, there's little risk of failure. You're not trying to overpower anyone or risking a drop, just run to daylight.

 

When you get to the opponents 40, you really should change your thinking, IMO. This is a good example on how this part of the field can be your ally.

 

[Enhance]

16 hours ago, brophog said:

 

If you used the word 'evidence', then we're in agreement. The word 'proof' is used wrongly way too often. It sets a standard that often can't be met. "Scientifically proven", for instance, can't even exist due to the nature of science . If I say something is proven to work, I'm not saying the same thing as it works more than 50% of the time. To use that phrase implies at or near 100%. 

 

Im not going to post anymore, I've made the point. I dont think it's fair to any hire to use the "proven" as a qualification because it sets an unfair expectation. Anyone we hire for the job of selecting a new head coach may not hit a home run. It may be prudent to expect that contingency. 

This is all because I used the word 'proven' instead of 'evidence'?  Seems like a silly thing to get bogged down in the weeds about when the point, ultimately, is they should be targeting a qualified candidate who knows what he/she is doing with a football program.