Frost is returning for 2022

[Hedley Lamarr]

2 hours ago, GlobalHusker said:

This at least generates some excitement for the rest of the season. Optimism for who they’re going to bring in. And then whoever comes in see what they can do.

I just hope we get the best available and not the best with Nebraska ties. 

[The Dude]

6 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think the main point is..  option #3 is tied to #2. They really aren't seperate.

 

 

Exactly correct.   #3 explains why anyone would even consider choosing option #2.

 

Anyone who tells you different is lying. 

[GlobalHusker]

Any insiders know how strict frost is on the players? I remember hearing he got after them at the NW game and they responded well in the 2nd half. Made me wonder maybe he’s too soft on them? “Don’t be afraid to make a mistake” gets you pushed to the side at the successful school. Because the point is to not make those mistakes. Especially repeatedly. Demand excellence to attain excellence.

[NoLongerN]

10 hours ago, thatguy said:

The main issue I have with how things have gone down is, what is the plan for fixing/correcting Frosts personal deficiencies? No matter who he brings in on offense, he still needs to get better at focus, motivating players, attention to detail, clock management, decision making, and player/roster management.
 

basically, we have a plan to hopefully fix special teams, the oline, rbs, Wrs, and playcalling. Where’s the plan to help frost get better?

Absolutely!  He has to be made the water boy [as I see it].  I don't see how it is all suppose to work and look.  He's really not "above" any of his coaches that just got fired.  He's the one who has pushed what he wants ... and it has lead to mediocrity and losing.

[BigRedBuster]

9 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think the main point is..  option #3 is tied to #2. They really aren't seperate.

 

Because if you replaced the name Frost (and the history behind that name, which is option #3 essentially) with "Coach X" with the same results, nobody would vote to retain him.  But his name is Frost, he is a nice Nebraska boy, and despite the results in the field - a the guy buried this program so far into the trash heap that fans accept the worst recruiting class and what is likely the worst record in modern school history - the majority of fans are willing to retain him.

No. 
 

You claim  that Huskers fans don’t care about winning.  There is nothing in #2 that says they don’t care about winning.  
 

You also claim that older fans don’t care about winning. They just want to relive the 90s. That comment makes absolutely no sense. The 90s were our most winning teams. 
 

So, you’re saying older fans long for the glory years of the 90s, but don’t care about winning. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

 

Exactly correct.   #3 explains why anyone would even consider choosing option #2.

 

Anyone who tells you different is lying. 

What a load of BS. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

What a load of BS. 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. 

 

I don't think fans or the administration would dream of retaining this coach if his last name wasn't Frost. Why you think fans aren't attached to the idea of Scott Frost - despite the overwhelming evidence that he's a disaster based on his record and trajectory of recruiting, and words straight from the ADs mouth - rather than accepting reality that he's not a good coach is on you. 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. 

 

I don't think fans or the administration would dream of retaining this coach if his last name wasn't Frost. Why you think fans aren't attached to the idea of Scott Frost - despite the overwhelming evidence that he's a disaster based on his record and trajectory of recruiting, and words straight from the ADs mouth - rather than accepting reality that he's not a good coach is on you. 

 

 

 

You do realize that two people can have different ideas of how to get to the end result and that doesn't automatically mean their end result they desire is different, right?

 

And....you seriously think that older people who desire to get back to the 90s (our most winning decade) don't care about winning.  

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

Exactly correct.   #3 explains why anyone would even consider choosing option #2.

 

Anyone who tells you different is lying. 

Or - and hear me out here - other people simply disagree with you. But no, I'm sure all those people are just liars - not that you could be close-minded about the possibilities because - let's be honest - you're always right.

[HANC]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. 

 

I don't think fans or the administration would dream of retaining this coach if his last name wasn't Frost. Why you think fans aren't attached to the idea of Scott Frost - despite the overwhelming evidence that he's a disaster based on his record and trajectory of recruiting, and words straight from the ADs mouth - rather than accepting reality that he's not a good coach is on you. 

 

 

 

Although yo may be right on the "Frost" name, no one knows exactly what Trev's motives are.  Someone said the other day that definition on insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the same results.  They were referring to it is crazy to keep SF and get the same results next year.  I am going to flip the script and say that doing the same thing over and over should be referring to firing a coach every 4 years and starting over.  That has NOT worked here.  Maybe Trev is under the impression that a complete rebuild doesn't happen within the 3-4 yr window (without Covid, let alone with it).  Yes, Tucker is doing it at MSU, but we will see if it is substainable, because he went way off the charts with his recruiting pattern.  I would expect SF to follow suit to some extent.

 

It may be we are keeping SF to:

 

1.  Finally give someone the luxury of 5-6 years, rather than 4.....really 2, if you don't count year 1 and Covid

3. Finances.....name a coach who you have heard, voluntarily (maybe) gave up 8.5 million to stay rather than take the $$ and run.

 

I am not saying that the SF name didn't play into it, but I do strongly believe other factors came into play. 

[TGHusker]

10 minutes ago, HANC said:

Although yo may be right on the "Frost" name, no one knows exactly what Trev's motives are.  Someone said the other day that definition on insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the same results.  They were referring to it is crazy to keep SF and get the same results next year.  I am going to flip the script and say that doing the same thing over and over should be referring to firing a coach every 4 years and starting over.  That has NOT worked here.  Maybe Trev is under the impression that a complete rebuild doesn't happen within the 3-4 yr window (without Covid, let alone with it).  Yes, Tucker is doing it at MSU, but we will see if it is substainable, because he went way off the charts with his recruiting pattern.  I would expect SF to follow suit to some extent.

 

It may be we are keeping SF to:

 

1.  Finally give someone the luxury of 5-6 years, rather than 4.....really 2, if you don't count year 1 and Covid

3. Finances.....name a coach who you have heard, voluntarily (maybe) gave up 8.5 million to stay rather than take the $$ and run.

 

I am not saying that the SF name didn't play into it, but I do strongly believe other factors came into play. 

Bo was here longer than 4 years.  So  was Frank.  You are primarily talking about Riley and BC.  

[GSG]

Well, now you can LISTEN to Forde and the other guys from Yahoo talk about Frost's return:

 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1shZEX9dpgQZPD2Fb4rbwK

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm seeing two strains of Husker Fan.

 

Strain One: that's us. We not only follow Husker football, we dissect it endlessly on internet fanboards, even in the off-season. We know quite a bit about about other college football teams and other sports in general. We consider ourselves loyal to the program, and the sentiment around here leaned heavily towards firing Frost for the good of the program. Everyone wanted and expected Frost to succeed. We've developed a reasonable if debatable list of potential successors. A small segment are genuine anti-Frost trolls. 

 

Strain Two:  Proud Nebraskans who are used to Nebraska football making them proud. They continue to fill Memorial Stadium. The can name maybe 7 players on the team, but can't name the hottest prospects in the portal, Nebraska's recruiting class status, or Scott Frost's offensive scheme. They'd prefer to run the ball more like we used to when we were winning, but trust Scott to come around to his Osborne upbringing. It very much makes a difference that Scott Frost is a native son. They don't like losing, but they are most concerned with how outsiders view Nebraska, and they've circled their wagons around Scott, attacking anyone criticizing Frost as being impatient and un-Nebraskan. They blame the media for the negativity.

 

Strain Two significantly outnumbers Strain One.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, HANC said:

Although yo may be right on the "Frost" name, no one knows exactly what Trev's motives are.  Someone said the other day that definition on insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the same results.  They were referring to it is crazy to keep SF and get the same results next year.  I am going to flip the script and say that doing the same thing over and over should be referring to firing a coach every 4 years and starting over.  That has NOT worked here.  Maybe Trev is under the impression that a complete rebuild doesn't happen within the 3-4 yr window (without Covid, let alone with it).  Yes, Tucker is doing it at MSU, but we will see if it is substainable, because he went way off the charts with his recruiting pattern.  I would expect SF to follow suit to some extent.

 

It may be we are keeping SF to:

 

1.  Finally give someone the luxury of 5-6 years, rather than 4.....really 2, if you don't count year 1 and Covid

3. Finances.....name a coach who you have heard, voluntarily (maybe) gave up 8.5 million to stay rather than take the $$ and run.

 

I am not saying that the SF name didn't play into it, but I do strongly believe other factors came into play. 

This is a really good post.

 

I've seen the "we're doing the same thing and expecting different results" comments too. I don't buy them based on the secondary facts of the situation e.g. the firing of four assistants and the restructuring of Scott's contract (which not only helps with a potential buyout but also crucially gives them more money to hire assistants). What we're seeing here are two parties amicably giving and taking a little bit in order to try to make something work. And if it doesn't, they're both in a position to walk away with something of value.

 

Fans get remarkably tied up in the importance of early success for a coach. I get it. You see guys like Gene Chizik, Ed Orgeron and Mel Tucker all knock it out of the park early on. But a lot of those guys are gone 4-5 years down the road when they can't match their early success. Would anybody be surprised if Tucker is out at MSU in the next few years, either because of a new job or a performance decline? Because I wouldn't be.

 

And yeah... who Frost is certainly played into all of this. Was it a primary determining factor? Eh... perhaps not. There are a lot of other factors playing into it (the defensive success, the team's apparent toughness/athleticism, their unity, etc.) But there's a very common theme we're hearing right now from fans when they say they WANT to see Frost succeed. Would they be saying that about an outsider? I don't personally think so. I think fans would be a lot more willing to cut ties if this were not a former Husker.

[All Hail Herbie]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

This is a really good post.

 

I've seen the "we're doing the same thing and expecting different results" comments too. I don't buy them based on the secondary facts of the situation e.g. the firing of four assistants and the restructuring of Scott's contract (which not only helps with a potential buyout but also crucially gives them more money to hire assistants). What we're seeing here are two parties amicably giving and taking a little bit in order to try to make something work. And if it doesn't, they're both in a position to walk away with something of value.

 

Fans get remarkably tied up in the importance of early success for a coach. I get it. You see guys like Gene Chizik, Ed Orgeron and Mel Tucker all knock it out of the park early on. But a lot of those guys are gone 4-5 years down the road when they can't match their early success. Would anybody be surprised if Tucker is out at MSU in the next few years, either because of a new job or a performance decline? Because I wouldn't be.

 

And yeah... who Frost is certainly played into all of this. Was it a primary determining factor? Eh... perhaps not. There are a lot of other factors playing into it (the defensive success, the team's apparent toughness/athleticism, their unity, etc.) But there's a very common theme we're hearing right now from fans when they see they WANT to see Frost succeed. Would they be saying that about an outsider? I don't personally think so. I think fans would be a lot more willing to cut ties if this were not a former Husker.

I have previously outlined my thoughts on the strategic approach taken by our new AD towards this situation so I will not belabor it here.  All I can say is that he acted with a close eye on professional self-preservation.

 

As to your second point, I may be unlike the generic fan you are speaking of as I do not put much stock in early success (i.e. wins / losses).  My focus early in a coach's tenure is on fundamentals and mechanics.  If we are losing games, but are consistently executing our offensive / defensive approach without penalties, turnovers, missed assignments etc. and can do so while remaining competitive, I can see the vision.  I can then reasonably presume that with more experienced and ultimately better quality personnel that those close losses will become victories.

 

However, when you consistently demonstrate the same tactical shortcomings and errors year after year, and those errors contribute directly to losses, it is clear that either the strategy or the instruction is failing.  In other words, the light will not simply "come on" in Year 5 or 6. 

 

No hard feelings for me as I wish Coach Frost well in his next endeavor (starting December, 2022).