Erstad gone

Danny Bateman said:

Probably a little of both.

Moos has done a fantastic job but he's also gotten somewhat lucky in terms of timing on his two previous hires. Our two consensus favorite candidates for each position just happened to have worked their way up the coaching ladder in their respective sports AND in Hoiberg's case, been available (imagine if the Bulls run had worked out?) when we had openings to fill.

For example, before we hired Riley, I heard talk of just throwing whatever money it took to lure a top tier coach - i.e., a Saban or luring Jim Tressel out of retirement. Even our ideas about the right coach to fill an opening can get unrealistic.

It sucks because memories of the past and a couple decades of mostly irrelevance warps Husker fan's perception of where we are now and what's actually possible here.

Click to expand...

BuT wHo wOuld We EveR gEt to Coach HeRe, No oNe wAnts To CoMe to NebrAskA.  

That's all I have heard before Riley, before Fred, before this now, before the other moves in other sports.  You know what makes coaches want to come here, clear cut expectations, support, and big fat checks.  Also knowing the risk of what they are doing.  I don't care if we fire a coach after 3 years of terrible performance, what are you going to do, be worse?  

Landlord said:

The Erstad/Miles comparison works because both had a very generous amount of time to meet pretty fair expectations and didn't. Erstad had more success than Miles on paper, but there's a good argument that how much ability it took to achieve it was comparable because the competition in baseball (in conference) is dramatically lower than it is in basketball. Also, both seem to be good guys who love Lincoln and ran programs that were easy to respect and follow.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just semantics, and I don't mean to belabor the point, but if we're going to qualify coaches by 'did they meet expectations or not,' then we're basically saying there are only two ways to evaluate a coach. That seems incredibly unjust. I don't think it's that black and white to just put them in pools of 'did they meet expectations' or 'did they not meet expectations.' It feels myopic. I'm glad you acknowledged his greater success on paper, but the discussion is still being framed in such a way like it doesn't matter.

And maybe this is just me getting hung up on the suggestion he "wasn't a very good coach." 'Very good' is a subjective term that can mean any number of things, but saying someone with Erstad's accomplishments "wasn't a very good coach" or was "no better" than Miles feels wrong. I would position that Erstad was a very good coach, but that doesn't necessarily mean he did the best job he could have, or that he accomplished what he needed to.

It feels equally relevant to remind everyone too that Erstad was in pretty good standing with Moos, and this was discussed prior to the regionals. Miles was not. There are some fairly poignant reasons as to why this would all be the case, which again, in my opinion, makes the comparison feel lazy.

[No message]

Glad to see Silva get a job back on the west coast

[No message]