Rhule Positivity & is the Solich Curse Broken?

[JeffKinney87]

2 hours ago, Scofrosghost said:

I think the reason myself and a lot of fans just threw their hands up with the Bo years was this; Nebraska was like the 3rd grader that would go around the play ground beating the crap out of the second graders, but every-time another 3rd grader came around we’d get punched back in the nose and crumble into a fetal position and just lay there. 9 wins don’t mean much when it’s against the little guys

 

Now we are the second grader.

[runningblind]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

But see, this isn't true either. If you're going by rankings at the time, he beat #17 OSU and then #7 Missouri, or if you're going by end of season rankings he beat #10 OSU and then #18 Mizzou. That was the strongest two weeks his program ever had, but factually not as you described it.

 

 

 

 

Also not true. We beat 2011 and 2012 MSU - 2011 wa ranked #9/#10 (at the time/end of season) and 2012 was unranked and finished unranked. Then we lost to them in 2013 and 2014 when they were ranked. 

 

After 7 years of results 2010 Mizzou and Okie State and 2011 Michigan State are the only three games he ever had where we played really good football against a really good team and won.

 

@teachercd

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

But see, this isn't true either. If you're going by rankings at the time, he beat #17 OSU and then #7 Missouri, or if you're going by end of season rankings he beat #10 OSU and then #18 Mizzou. That was the strongest two weeks his program ever had, but factually not as you described it.

 

 

 

 

Also not true. We beat 2011 and 2012 MSU - 2011 wa ranked #9/#10 (at the time/end of season) and 2012 was unranked and finished unranked. Then we lost to them in 2013 and 2014 when they were ranked. 

 

After 7 years of results 2010 Mizzou and Okie State and 2011 Michigan State are the only three games he ever had where we played really good football against a really good team and won.

Dang it!  I was close though!

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

Around the time of Bo's firing I heard :

"Of the 2,053 men who have ever coached major college football, 107 – about 5 percent – had winning percentages of .706 or better through five seasons.

Of those 107 coaches, 43 are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Sixty-two worked before World War II. And eight – much less than 1 percent – won nine games in each of their first five seasons as a head coach.

Of those eight, only one inherited a team with a losing record.  His name is Bo Pelini."

https://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/tegler-pelini-s-record-stands-out-among-coaches-despite-fans-calling-for-his-firing/article_9fea7a20-5d75-11e3-9072-0019bb30f31a.html

 

I learned this off of Huskerboard (and my own echo chamber)

 

Those are pretty impressive stats for a 55 year old coach that no team wants. 

[JeffKinney87]

16 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Those are pretty impressive stats for a 55 year old coach that no team wants. 

Sick Burn.

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

 

Regarding the bolded, that is obviously not true.  Find me an article (not a blog post or board post, but an article from a Nebraska newspaper), that was critical of the Frost Hiring, Bo Pelini firing, Mike Riley hire, or even the Matt Rhule hire, shortly after they occurred.  All I could find was a couple of articles from the UNL campus newspaper.  

 

Huh?  Was somebody claiming the media harshed on the Frost, Riley, and Matt Rhule hirings? Like most good sports, they promoted optimism and gave them a chance. The Pelini firing, iirc, was treated more like a sad story for everybody. 

 

But every story during this time revolved around the decline of Husker football and speculation about the coach who would -- or wouldn't -- bring them back. The local media did not point fingers as specifically or angrily as our social media friends (they need to protect their access) but yeah, they talked about 20 years of misfires, mistakes, nasty rumors and traces of hope because that remains the story. The story of how much we continue to pay coaches we fired was certainly a story.

 

People are obviously split on Solich. I'm of both minds, myself. Osborne deserves all our respect, but he made a strong endorsement of the Steve Pedersen hire, and some say he meddled a bit. His biggest critics are few.  

 

Do you have in mind a particular excuse someone in the local media invented? 

[JeffKinney87]

10 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Huh?  Was somebody claiming the media harshed on the Frost, Riley, and Matt Rhule hirings? Like most good sports, they promoted optimism and gave them a chance. The Pelini firing, iirc, was treated more like a sad story for everybody. 

 

But every story during this time revolved around the decline of Husker football and speculation about the coach who would -- or wouldn't -- bring them back. The local media did not point fingers as specifically or angrily as our social media friends (they need to protect their access) but yeah, they talked about 20 years of misfires, mistakes, nasty rumors and traces of hope because that remains the story. The story of how much we continue to pay coaches we fired was certainly a story.

 

People are obviously split on Solich. I'm of both minds, myself. Osborne deserves all our respect, but he made a strong endorsement of the Steve Pedersen hire, and some say he meddled a bit. His biggest critics are few.  

 

Do you have in mind a particular excuse someone in the local media invented? 

 I will try to state my case one further time, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.  

 

In my view, sports writers are simply a mouthpiece for the current athletic administration (as you state, they have to protect their access), they are going to print whatever gets them clicks/eyeballs and at the same time jives with what the administrators want to hear, or will allow.  You stated before that sportswriters "covered all the bases" when looking at our NU football program, I guess one of those bases doesn't include taking a critical eye to multiple .500 record coaching hires?  How can they be both well rounded, and at the same time "promoting optimism" (I read, parroting the administration in our Athletic department), with not a single article written critical of any of those hires when they occurred? 

 

Regarding the bold, all I heard from local sportswriters in the lead up to the Pelini firing was that his "sideline behavior", and interactions with the media were leading to his downfall, and that 9 wins wasn't enough.  After he was fired, all we heard about was the leaked audio from his "private" meeting with the players, and the fact that he "poisoned the well" by turning his players against the current administration, couldn't recruit, etc.  These in my mind are excuses for his firing.  These pieces were written because they supported the view that Eichorst made the right decision firing Pelini and hiring Riley.  I cannot find any articles expressing skepticism for firing Pelini at major newspapers in Nebraska.  Blog posts and message boards certainly were in an uproar.  So why didn't they cover their bases as well?  

 

There was no "sad story for everybody" interpretation in my view, but of course, that was just my reading of the situation.    

 

Finally, I have no problem of the media taking a critical eye at Bo Pelini, Frank Solich, and Tom Osborne, but they should also be critical of Matt Rhule, Mike Riley, Eichorst, etc.  Not 5-10 years after the fact, but while these events are occurring.  See this article as a prime example for what happens when a .500 coach starts off 0-2 at Nebraska: https://huskerextra.com/news/football/nebraska-football-embracing-patience-belief-in-matt-rhules-methodical-rebuild/article_8683ff7a-50a9-11ee-89c2-7362ca042e03.html.    

 

Since the sportswriters and ADs don't take a critical eye against the athletic department, I am back to one of the small points in my original post, which is, the NU fanbase needs to start being a lot more skeptical of what they hear from our incompetent ADs and sportswriters.  

 

[Enhance]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with believing Nebraska sportswriters should be more critical of the program, coaches and decisions made by the Athletic Department as they're happening. That sounds like a reasonable/fair opinion to me and I have felt that way at times, too. Most of the time, the local media frames its narratives around hope and healthy skepticism, but I don't necessarily find anything inherently wrong with that, either.

Like, something we may have read back in 2015 was "Riley is a career .500 coach, but he's a great guy known for his development so we'll see what happens!" Not "Riley's an average coach and Shawn Eichorst is a f***in moron." I think a lot of people felt the latter but didn't want to be the one carrying that banner publicly. The local media has long been a bit soft on the program because it's convenient and conducive to their careers, but that's not exclusive to Nebraska. You'll find that in a local news coverage across the country.

As for the Pelini stuff leading up to and after his firing, I didn't have much of a problem with the coverage then or now, but that's because I agreed with a lot of it. He was a petulant child on the sidelines. He treated local media like crap pretty regularly. He kept the fans at a distance. His defenses in the last couple years of his tenure were as bad as Kevin Cosgrove's against good offenses (the guy whose defenses he was hired to fix). His teams had stagnated as being above average at a program that expects/expected conference championship contention. So, some people may look at that and see excuses, others will see valid reasons. All just perspective.

[JeffKinney87]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with believing Nebraska sportswriters should be more critical of the program, coaches and decisions made by the Athletic Department as they're happening. That sounds like a reasonable/fair opinion to me and I have felt that way at times, too. Most of the time, the local media frames its narratives around hope and healthy skepticism, but I don't necessarily find anything inherently wrong with that, either.

Like, something we may have read back in 2015 was "Riley is a career .500 coach, but he's a great guy known for his development so we'll see what happens!" Not "Riley's an average coach and Shawn Eichorst is a f***in moron." I think a lot of people felt the latter but didn't want to be the one carrying that banner publicly. The local media has long been a bit soft on the program because it's convenient and conducive to their careers, but that's not exclusive to Nebraska. You'll find that in a local news coverage across the country.

As for the Pelini stuff leading up to and after his firing, I didn't have much of a problem with the coverage then or now, but that's because I agreed with a lot of it. He was a petulant child on the sidelines. He treated local media like crap pretty regularly. He kept the fans at a distance. His defenses in the last couple years of his tenure were as bad as Kevin Cosgrove's against good offenses (the guy whose defenses he was hired to fix). His teams had stagnated as being above average at a program that expects/expected conference championship contention. So, some people may look at that and see excuses, others will see valid reasons. All just perspective.

 

I can respect that opinion. I certainly agree with the bolded.

 

I tend to think the local media exaggerated his sideline demeanor and treatment of the themselves to sell controversy.  I think it is fair to say he kept the fans at a distance.

 

They also tended to downplay his positive coaching results, involvement with Team Jack, and his family persona and the clean program he ran.  

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

Around the time of Bo's firing I heard :

"Of the 2,053 men who have ever coached major college football, 107 – about 5 percent – had winning percentages of .706 or better through five seasons.

Of those 107 coaches, 43 are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Sixty-two worked before World War II. And eight – much less than 1 percent – won nine games in each of their first five seasons as a head coach.

Of those eight, only one inherited a team with a losing record.  His name is Bo Pelini."

https://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/tegler-pelini-s-record-stands-out-among-coaches-despite-fans-calling-for-his-firing/article_9fea7a20-5d75-11e3-9072-0019bb30f31a.html

 

I learned this off of Huskerboard (and my own echo chamber)

Enlightening article.  One could argue that he did indeed inherit a losing team but he also inherited a team with talent as BC was a good recruiter.  One of the points against Bo was that he wasn't a good recruiter.   Regardless, I'd love to see 9 wins again. In today's environment and in the Big 10 of 2024 and beyond, 9 wins will be a big accomplishment.  The hubris of the fan base along with the arrogance of the AD at the time chased off a winning coach and we fell into the abyss. 

   

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, JeffKinney87 said:

You stated before that sportswriters "covered all the bases" when looking at our NU football program, I guess one of those bases doesn't include taking a critical eye to multiple .500 record coaching hires?  How can they be both well rounded, and at the same time "promoting optimism" (I read, parroting the administration in our Athletic department), with not a single article written critical of any of those hires when they occurred? 

 

Regarding the bold, all I heard from local sportswriters in the lead up to the Pelini firing was that his "sideline behavior", and interactions with the media were leading to his downfall, and that 9 wins wasn't enough.  After he was fired, all we heard about was the leaked audio from his "private" meeting with the players, and the fact that he "poisoned the well" by turning his players against the current administration, couldn't recruit, etc.  These in my mind are excuses for his firing.  These pieces were written because they supported the view that Eichorst made the right decision firing Pelini and hiring Riley.  I cannot find any articles expressing skepticism for firing Pelini at major newspapers in Nebraska.  Blog posts and message boards certainly were in an uproar.  So why didn't they cover their bases as well?  

 

There was no "sad story for everybody" interpretation in my view, but of course, that was just my reading of the situation.    

 

Finally, I have no problem of the media taking a critical eye at Bo Pelini, Frank Solich, and Tom Osborne, but they should also be critical of Matt Rhule, Mike Riley, Eichorst, etc.  Not 5-10 years after the fact, but while these events are occurring.  See this article as a prime example for what happens when a .500 coach starts off 0-2 at Nebraska: https://huskerextra.com/news/football/nebraska-football-embracing-patience-belief-in-matt-rhules-methodical-rebuild/article_8683ff7a-50a9-11ee-89c2-7362ca042e03.html.    

 

Since the sportswriters and ADs don't take a critical eye against the athletic department, I am back to one of the small points in my original post, which is, the NU fanbase needs to start being a lot more skeptical of what they hear from our incompetent ADs and sportswriters.  

 

 

Someone help me out here. There's one faction of HuskerBoard — along with a lot of average fans — who think the Husker beat writers have long been too negative about Nebraska. And Jeff Kinney thinks they haven't been critical enough, including Day One skepticism about every coaching hire. 

 

I don't read these guys daily. Does the Nebraska sports media not express skepticism or report discord when things actually start going bad? Given how much space they have to fill every day, isn't it a mix of good news and hopeful speculation and the obviously flawed product on the field? Did any of them make excuses for Mike Riley or Scott Frost's firing beyond the obvious? 

 

Or is this just another Eichorst and Bo thing? I'm not sure why you put "sideline behavior" and "poison the well" in quotes. They're pretty accurate. That first leaked tape of Bo was quarantined for two years, and appears to have gone from an internal employee straight to Deadspin.  Bo's final speech to the team wasn't leaked by the media, it was someone else in attendance. The latter was pretty ugly and self-centered. It's hard to imagine these kinda rants were rare for Bo, and it's easy to imagine someone wanting others to know what working with the man was really like. How did the reporting align with the fans? Pretty even split as I recall. Even the people who didn't want Pelini fired were expecting improvement over his 9 wins, national irrelevance, and poor behavior. It was a simpler time. 

 

You seem to mistake "excuses" for "reasons" Bo was fired. The man was 100% responsible for his own actions. Not the media. Not Shawn Eichorst. It's why Bo is where he is today. Eichorst, too. 

 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Someone help me out here. There's one faction of HuskerBoard — along with a lot of average fans — who think the Husker beat writers have long been too negative about Nebraska. And Jeff Kinney thinks they haven't been critical enough, including Day One skepticism about every coaching hire. 

 

I don't read these guys daily. Does the Nebraska sports media not express skepticism or report discord when things actually start going bad? Given how much space they have to fill every day, isn't it a mix of good news and hopeful speculation and the obviously flawed product on the field? Did any of them make excuses for Mike Riley or Scott Frost's firing beyond the obvious? 

 

Or is this just another Eichorst and Bo thing? I'm not sure why you put "sideline behavior" and "poison the well" in quotes. They're pretty accurate. That first leaked tape of Bo was quarantined for two years, and appears to have gone from an internal employee straight to Deadspin.  Bo's final speech to the team wasn't leaked by the media, it was someone else in attendance. The latter was pretty ugly and self-centered. It's hard to imagine these kinda rants were rare for Bo, and it's easy to imagine someone wanting others to know what working with the man was really like. How did the reporting align with the fans? Pretty even split as I recall. Even the people who didn't want Pelini fired were expecting improvement over his 9 wins, national irrelevance, and poor behavior. It was a simpler time. 

 

You seem to mistake "excuses" for "reasons" Bo was fired. The man was 100% responsible for his own actions. Not the media. Not Shawn Eichorst. It's why Bo is where he is today. Eichorst, too. 

 

 

 

 

I have zero desire to read constant negativity about the Huskers.  If all they did was be negative and talk about how horrible everything is around the program, I would have zero desire to read anything they write.  Sure, there are times to be honest.  Dirk has caught a lot of crap over the years about being negative.  But, he also has written some of the best articles on the Huskers in recent years.

 

This isn't like we are trying to solve world peace and end hunger around the world.  We are fans of a sports program where we want to have fun following them.  When a new coach is hired....no reason why everything needs to be negative right from the start.  Be optimistic and see what happens.

[Guy Chamberlin]

48 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I have zero desire to read constant negativity about the Huskers.  If all they did was be negative and talk about how horrible everything is around the program, I would have zero desire to read anything they write.  Sure, there are times to be honest.  Dirk has caught a lot of crap over the years about being negative.  But, he also has written some of the best articles on the Huskers in recent years.

 

This isn't like we are trying to solve world peace and end hunger around the world.  We are fans of a sports program where we want to have fun following them.  When a new coach is hired....no reason why everything needs to be negative right from the start.  Be optimistic and see what happens.

 

Fair enough, and I agree. I just read your last couple posts as suggesting that the local media was unduly harsh on Bo Pelini and not critical enough of everyone else. 

[Enhance]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I don't read these guys daily. Does the Nebraska sports media not express skepticism or report discord when things actually start going bad? Given how much space they have to fill every day, isn't it a mix of good news and hopeful speculation and the obviously flawed product on the field? Did any of them make excuses for Mike Riley or Scott Frost's firing beyond the obvious? 

I think they do, but I think Jeff's point is he thinks the reporting tends to follow whatever prominent narrative is being pushed by the athletic department and fans, and that they should be more vocally critical of red flags sooner. There's been a natural regression line with this with the last five Husker coaches: everything starts out relatively positive with a healthy skepticism of the red flags, but then by the end of a coach's tenure, the narrative becomes a lot more focused on the red flags and whatever angle is in favor of the general mood of the support base.

Personally, I view this as a very normal progression. Having worked in various parts of the media industry for more than a decade now, the media is often a reflection of its readers/viewers. For example, people didn't want to repeatedly hear about how Mike Riley was a career .500 coach with no real clear upside. Most people aren't going to read that after firing a 9-win coach. People wanted to find reason to hope, and hope sells.
 

Quote

You seem to mistake "excuses" for "reasons" Bo was fired. The man was 100% responsible for his own actions. Not the media. Not Shawn Eichorst. 

It's why Bo is where he is today. Eichorst, too.

This is a great point. I think one man's excuses are another man's reason. As I mentioned earlier, it's all about perspective. Like when that first audio file from Bo got leaked. Some fans thought whomever released it was a "snake," other fans were grateful that they found out Bo really thought behind closed doors. 

Similarly, I look at all the reasons presented for why Bo got fired, and I find them quite valid. Some people still don't.

[Guy Chamberlin]

This looks like a good place to ask about career .500 coaches. 

 

If your

2-10 season is followed by a

6-6 season

9-4 season

11-2 season

10-3 season

7-6 season

2-10 season

 

You'd be called a career .500 coach.

But you might have been to five bowl games, grabbed a couple conference or divisional championships and Top Ten ratings.

So .500 doesn't mean mediocrity as much as it means coaches who've gone through the cycle. Not just Rhule and Riley, but a lot of coaches on the short lists every year.

 

Would you take that six season ride?