Who should our next HC be?

[Huskerfollower4life]

15 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Chicagoans don’t really care about Illinois football. The best players from Chicago are more likely to go to Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, or Iowa over Illinois. Illinois is an afterthought in the state of Illinois (when it comes to football). 

Times are changing just like Kansas football sucking generation after generation.

[Nebhawk]

Illinois has sucked at football for along time.  That why Chicago kids chose to leave the state.  When you start winning some games, you get some of those players to stay and play for the in-state team.  I am not saying that they will get all of those kids, but if they get 4 or 5 difference makers, its all they need.  Again, I like Brett as a coach, I think he is tough and gets his kids to play above what they should.  I don't think he leaves that job for us  right now.  If he leaves for any other BIg 10 job, its going to be Iowa, his alma mater.

[HuskerJax]

1 hour ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Times are changing just like Kansas football sucking generation after generation.

No, they aren’t. Kansas will always be a bball school. Mangino was successful for a couple years too, did it change the focus? They won’t invest in football. N

[Husker816]

3 hours ago, Nebhawk said:

Why would Bielema come here with Chicago in the back yard for recruiting?  Brett is from Illinois, just went to Iowa as a player.  I think he is home. 

I don't know who is a viable coaching option at this point.  I truly don't think that Urbs is in the conversation at this point, but he is the homerun hire.  I don't think that Kiffin is a real option, and don't know if he is any better than some others.  He had chances at USC and at Tennessee and never really lit the world on fire.  Rhule could be a choice, but I am sure he is getting money now from a fired contract and might not want back into the college game right away.   Rhule is the only other coach that I would consider over Mickey at this point.  I think he can build a roster with all positions covered. 

Man I know Nebraska has fallen since the 90s but can we please stop wondering why guys would leave s#!t programs like Illinois or Kansas? Nebraska is a much better job for any number of reasons 

[Hayseed]

I'd try to get Aranda if anyone.

[Packerhuskerfan]

We need to wipe this thing clean with a blank slate pretty much.  If Mickey is the head coach, he probably keeps half the staff.  The only coach they should keep is Mickey if he wants to stay on as the WR coach/recruiter.  I don't think Nebraska can get to 6 total wins which I think is the magical number to have a shot at being the head coach. So far, Nebraska has just beat 2 Big Ten teams that will finish near the bottom. The defense is still pretty bad along with the offensive line.  We are just the Trey Palmer show on offense.  Grant can't seem to break any big runs lately and Thompson rarely takes off and runs when there is opportunities despite being good enough.  Defenses know they can just go for the sack.  The defense looked just as bad as the first few games last night.

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

14 hours ago, Mavric said:

Recruiting success follows on-field success.  Not the other way around.

 

Yeah...sooooo...I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of...disagree with you here, Mav.

 

That's not true at all. See Tennessee, see Georgia, see Alabama, and on and on and on. It literally is the other way around. You HAVE to have the players first. Then you can start to have success on the field.

 

Sure, nice little programs can be built purely on player development, but not elite programs. And sure, elite recruiting doesn't necessarily equal great results on the field. But by and large, you have to figure out a way to get the talent first and hope your coaches can develop to be successful. 

 

 

[mwj98]

No Urban Meyer!! 

[TGHusker]

11 hours ago, Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents said:

I am in total agreement with you. Would you say he is too ingrained at OSU to consider coming here?

Maybe. Good chance they name the field after him if he stays. He’s flirted wt other jobs but he’s always came home. If he wants to get out of OU’s shadow then maybe he might consider a change. But wt OU and Texas  leaving, OSU will be in the driver’s seat in the Big12 in my opinion or at least on even footing with BU KSU. And TCU

[TGHusker]

10 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

 

from what I was told he now has an AD he likes and OSU is his alma mater so...

Another reason he probably won’t leave— He was a pretty good QB for the Cowboys in the 1980’s. Sure didn’t hurt to have Barry Sanders on your team too

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

29 minutes ago, Red Silk Smoking Jacket said:

 

Yeah...sooooo...I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of...disagree with you here, Mav.

 

That's not true at all. See Tennessee, see Georgia, see Alabama, and on and on and on. It literally is the other way around. You HAVE to have the players first. Then you can start to have success on the field.

 

Sure, nice little programs can be built purely on player development, but not elite programs. And sure, elite recruiting doesn't necessarily equal great results on the field. But by and large, you have to figure out a way to get the talent first and hope your coaches can develop to be successful. 

 

 

All of those examples were successful in year 2 and without relying on recruits they brought in. Also only Saban was able to come in and really bump up recruiting. Georgia was already a top 10 recruiting team and Tennessee under Huepel is doing well this year but his first class was even lower than what they had been getting at Tennessee.

 

I dont think starting an argument with how recruiting works vs Mavric is the best idea but feel free to start that if you want lol

[Stone Cold]

You know, Belima is doing alot better in Year 3 than expected.  You think mickey could have the same turnaround.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

9 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

It's not my fault that you don't really have any basis for your arguments, just bold statements.

 

Still not answering the questions?

 

I've always backed up my claims with data/statistics/evidence, or past history. You just choose to say it's irrelevant or meaningless to suit your purpose. As far as your questions, the only one who comes to mind is Hugh Freeze at Ole Miss, although we know now that he did it illegally. But again, you're missing the point. If we don't get a big name like Meyer or Deion - and we're not - we need someone who will be capable of recruiting top classes. Not overnight, but in the years that follow. Guys like Klieman, Campbell, and Leipold have not shown that they're capable of doing that. Yeah I know people say it's harder to recruit to their current spots, but moving to Lincoln isn't suddenly going to make any of them a better recruiter, despite our resources. 

 

As far as the other question you asked, I'm just trying to show you that you're not always right. Many, MANY times over the past decade I've made statements that turned out to be true, yet at the time I was told how wrong and pessimistic I was being. The Chinander thing is an example. Yet not one single time have I ever seen you admit that you were wrong. Instead you twist things or you say "I don't recall that/that wasn't me" and that I'm just trying to get a pat on the back, etc. That's why debating with you is pointless. 

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

50 minutes ago, PasstheDamnBallGuy said:

All of those examples were successful in year 2 and without relying on recruits they brought in. Also only Saban was able to come in and really bump up recruiting. Georgia was already a top 10 recruiting team and Tennessee under Huepel is doing well this year but his first class was even lower than what they had been getting at Tennessee.

 

I dont think starting an argument with how recruiting works vs Mavric is the best idea but feel free to start that if you want lol

 

When someone says you have to win to be able to recruit, not the other way around, there's an argument. Period.

 

Maybe @Maverick didn't really mean what he said, but that's just factually incorrect on all levels. Sure, you can win and then build your recruiting. And just because you have good recruiting, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be successful. But to say you have to win first to get recruits is just wrong.

 

Urban, Deion, Petersen and maybe a couple others, would bring in top tier recruiting classes instantly, despite NU sucking for over a decade. Hell, Frost was able to get us top-25 recruiting classes pretty steadily despite us sucking. And he's no Urban, Deion, or Petersen when it comes to that. Not even close.

 

Now, if we're eliminating those guys (not sure why we would), then you can pivot to an argument for guys like Rhule, Leipold, etc who can hope to improve recruiting by building a winning program, i.e. get a guy where "recruiting success follows on-field success."

[ColoradoHusk]

32 minutes ago, Stone Cold said:

You know, Belima is doing alot better in Year 3 than expected.  You think mickey could have the same turnaround.

Year 2 for Beilema. Which makes it even more impressive. My concern with Mickey is that he hasn’t led a successful program before. Beilema had a lot of success at Wisconsin and experience of coaching in the SEC, as well.