Athletic Department under review

[Red Dead Redemption]

Maybe leave the personal bits out of the posts and just talk about the topic. That'd be swell.

Why don't you blame Harvey for hiring Osborne, since Osborne has made all those bad decisions that resulted in poor program performance?

I don't think Knapp is blaming anyone.

He just needs help connecting the dots. It's clear to him that 2 of the last 3 coaches fired were hired by Osborne in the first place. And those hires ended up being severely detrimental to the football program, in the eyes of some. Thus he should not be allowed to make those kinds of decisions ever again.

 

[TheSker]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

What are you going to do when the man dies? At some point we have to move on from this idea that only Osborne can keep things together here at Nebraska. Reality is that eventually everyone dies.

There has been as much time spent by some pushing Osborne out of the way the past decade as there has been embracing the wisdom he has in relation to Husker football. There didn't used to be such divisiveness with groups such as the regents until recent history.

We know how Callahan felt about Osborne......we know the tension between Perlman and Osborne can be cut with a knife. Mike Riley couldn't even take basic advice from the man and "run the ball".

 

[cm husker]

And, of course, we can’t forget that Eichorst was selected by Perlman in a process that did not include Eichorst’s predecessor, Tom Osborne, a sore subject in a lot of parts of the state.

OWH

I laugh at the stupidity in bold. Unless Osborne is an employee/contractor of the University in some capacity then he should have ZERO say in what happens there. None. If Osborne wants to have a say in the Univeristy's dealings then maybe he should apply and get hired for an actual job there.

Tom Osborne was the Athletic Director of the University when this happened. Harvey didn't consult with TO regarding a replacement, while TO was still employed by the University.
I've also heard from a few different places that Harvey was looking for a replacement before Tom even said he was going to retire, which triggered the abrupt announcement/press conference that nobody saw coming.

Why did Perlman need to consult with Osborne regarding Osborne's replacement? Remember, the last time Osborne recommended an athletic director we got Steve Pederson.

Maybe because Harvey started contacting people before Tom had even said he was going to retire. Maybe because Harvey did it all on his own and didn't loop in the regents? Maybe because a desperate Harvey asked Tom to come save his butt after he F'd up the Pederson/Callahan boondoggle and cost the university millions by giving Bill and Steve extensions and raises 6 months before they were both fired.

Or maybe it's just because he's TOM OSBORNE and giving him a heads up that you're looking for his replacement while he's still employed is just a good idea?

I mean, consulting a conference rival who can't keep his head coaches is OK (Alvarez), but the guy who gave 40 years of his life to the program? Nah.

Why do the Regents need to be involved in something the Chancellor is supposed to be able to do? If this is a requirement, then fine but if its not then why is this a big deal? If it wasn't a requirement then I see this as Perlman simply doing his job.

In regards to the bolded part, in all fairness I wouldn't be happy if that happened to me. That said, rumors that Perlman and Osborne don't get along have surfaced from time to time. When you don't get along with your boss, you are the one who generally loses.

My issue with needing Osborne's approval for anything to do with the Athletic Department and/or football program is that Osborne is not employed by the University in any manner that I am aware of. Anyone who isn't being employed by the University should have zero say in what goes on there. If you want his input, hire him either as an employee or a consultant. Otherwise just let the man go fishing. And as Knapp pointed out, Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

Because the Chancellor is a flipping moron when it comes to sports. And he should have been leveraging people like Osborne and the Regents.

Perlman should have had handcuffs put on him after the Pederson extension debacle. Speaking of, remember when he "administered a survey within the AD and everything was fine" right before extending Pedey? Oh yeah, it wasn't anonymous, but why would that matter when the issue was that Pedey saw any challenge to his authority or "vision" as disloyalty (same exact allegations came up at Pitt, too).

Also pretty sure that no one said that Osborne should have an "approval right" but rather that he should have been part of the discussion and evaluation.

I find it pretty gross how people are now dragging Osborne and his reputation through the mud to defend the likes of Perlman and Pederson.

 

[cm husker]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

What are you going to do when the man dies? At some point we have to move on from this idea that only Osborne can keep things together here at Nebraska. Reality is that eventually everyone dies.

So... cut him out before we have to because he'll be gone eventually? Interesting.

Wonder if Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would feel about a similar approach.

 

[cm husker]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

This is the best point. It's nuanced, so it will fly over some heads, but it gets at the heart of the flaw in defending Perlman by attacking Osborne. By the employed logic, because Osborne didn't hire two immediately evident HOF coaches, he's a bad decision maker with respect to NU football, but when Perlman makes mistake after mistake after mistake (with some evidence that they've been escalating), he's "just doing his job as the boss man."

That logic doesn't pass the laugh test because it obviously employs two standards of evaluation to the same situation, and with any luck the new President and the Regents will start setting things straight in the AD.

For the record, if a new AD is named, I don't want him to come in and just immediately clean house. That would be equally bad. We just need someone who has some understanding of athletics and an unbiased eye getting involved.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

This is the best point. It's nuanced, so it will fly over some heads, but it gets at the heart of the flaw in defending Perlman by attacking Osborne. By the employed logic, because Osborne didn't hire two immediately evident HOF coaches, he's a bad decision maker with respect to NU football, but when Perlman makes mistake after mistake after mistake (with some evidence that they've been escalating), he's "just doing his job as the boss man."

That logic doesn't pass the laugh test because it obviously employs two standards of evaluation to the same situation, and with any luck the new President and the Regents will start setting things straight in the AD.

For the record, if a new AD is named, I don't want him to come in and just immediately clean house. That would be equally bad. We just need someone who has some understanding of athletics and an unbiased eye getting involved.

This.

When some people justify the firings of Solich and Pelini, they usually also point out that it was Osborne that hired them in the first place, as though to point out he hires people that are detrimental to the program, thus Osborne's decisions are detrimental to the football program.

By that same logic, two recent AD's (Pederson and Osborne) were detrimental to the program, and they were both hired by Harvey. And now Harvey has made a third AD hire in Eichorst. We're doomed according to the Osborne/Solich/Pelini associative/commutative and hindsight properties.

 

[dvdcrr]

What intrigues me is where would be today if Turner Gill had been given the reigns instead of Frank.

 

[Enhance]

I see we're forty fathoms deep in the Tom-Osborne-is-infallible dogma again.

Tom Osborne hand-picked Frank Solich to replace him.

Tom Osborne made several questionable moral decisions while head coach at Nebraska that we know about publicly.

Tom Osborne hired Bo Pelini.

Tom Osborne was a good head football coach, and reached legendary status in his final four years. Those four years on top of college football seem to cloud people's understanding of the man. He was not perfect. He was not cut out for every job, and there are differing opinions on his tenure as Athletic Director.

Let's not make the man something he wasn't. Tom would be the first to agree with that.

So you're one of those "it's all Osborne's fault" people, huh?
Why stop there? Why not blame Bill Byrne or James Moeser for the hiring of Solich as HC?

I suppose you're also one of those, "I knew Solich/Pelini was a terrible hire from the day it was announced!", huh?

Why not blame Devaney since he's the numbskull who brought that idiot Osborne into the program in the first place to poison it with his delusions of grandeur?

You're reading far too much into what was an honest, reasonable statement. Why do you take offense to someone fairly and accurately mentioning the not-so-rosy parts of TO's involvement with the university? There was very little bias or subjectivity in his post.

 

[cm husker]

I see we're forty fathoms deep in the Tom-Osborne-is-infallible dogma again.

Tom Osborne hand-picked Frank Solich to replace him.

Tom Osborne made several questionable moral decisions while head coach at Nebraska that we know about publicly.

Tom Osborne hired Bo Pelini.

Tom Osborne was a good head football coach, and reached legendary status in his final four years. Those four years on top of college football seem to cloud people's understanding of the man. He was not perfect. He was not cut out for every job, and there are differing opinions on his tenure as Athletic Director.

Let's not make the man something he wasn't. Tom would be the first to agree with that.

So you're one of those "it's all Osborne's fault" people, huh?
Why stop there? Why not blame Bill Byrne or James Moeser for the hiring of Solich as HC?

I suppose you're also one of those, "I knew Solich/Pelini was a terrible hire from the day it was announced!", huh?

Why not blame Devaney since he's the numbskull who brought that idiot Osborne into the program in the first place to poison it with his delusions of grandeur?

You're reading far too much into what was an honest, reasonable statement. Why do you take offense to someone fairly and accurately mentioning the not-so-rosy parts of TO's involvement with the university? There was very little bias or subjectivity in his post.

Because it's so blatantly inconsistent with the pro-Perlman, Eichorst and previously pro-Pederson comments from those same posters. It's just a bit frustrating to see that level of hypocrisy, especially when it's employed to justify cutting TO out of decisions in deference to Perlman, the scourge of Husker athletics.

 

[Mierin]

I see a giant flaw in the argument than Perlman's a bad chancellor because he's bad at picking A.D.'s because they're bad at picking football coaches.

Chancellors do a lot more than just pick A.D.'s. In fact athletics is a pretty minor part of the job.

A.D.'s do a lot more than just pick football coaches. Take a look at our facilities. Osborne was pretty damn good in a lot of ways.

Football coaches basically have 3 jobs:

1. Win

2. Don't make the University look bad

3. Keep graduation rates/GPAs of football players high

So if you think Solich/Pelini weren't great, you can make the claim that Osborne isn't great at picking coaches. But you can't make the claim that Perlman is bad at picking A.D.'s until you look at a bunch of other things that A.D's do and make an argument about how well the A.D. did at those things.

 

[cm husker]

Who said he's a bad chancellor? Personally, I said he's been awful at one aspect of that job and he should have been cut out of making decisions on that front.

And though I respect the logic of your post, of course that is not how NU atheletics operate.

 

[Elf]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

What are you going to do when the man dies? At some point we have to move on from this idea that only Osborne can keep things together here at Nebraska. Reality is that eventually everyone dies.

So... cut him out before we have to because he'll be gone eventually? Interesting.

Wonder if Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would feel about a similar approach.

I'm not surprised you are intentionally being disingenuous.

 

[Elf]

And, of course, we can’t forget that Eichorst was selected by Perlman in a process that did not include Eichorst’s predecessor, Tom Osborne, a sore subject in a lot of parts of the state.

OWH

I laugh at the stupidity in bold. Unless Osborne is an employee/contractor of the University in some capacity then he should have ZERO say in what happens there. None. If Osborne wants to have a say in the Univeristy's dealings then maybe he should apply and get hired for an actual job there.

Tom Osborne was the Athletic Director of the University when this happened. Harvey didn't consult with TO regarding a replacement, while TO was still employed by the University.
I've also heard from a few different places that Harvey was looking for a replacement before Tom even said he was going to retire, which triggered the abrupt announcement/press conference that nobody saw coming.

Why did Perlman need to consult with Osborne regarding Osborne's replacement? Remember, the last time Osborne recommended an athletic director we got Steve Pederson.

Maybe because Harvey started contacting people before Tom had even said he was going to retire. Maybe because Harvey did it all on his own and didn't loop in the regents? Maybe because a desperate Harvey asked Tom to come save his butt after he F'd up the Pederson/Callahan boondoggle and cost the university millions by giving Bill and Steve extensions and raises 6 months before they were both fired.

Or maybe it's just because he's TOM OSBORNE and giving him a heads up that you're looking for his replacement while he's still employed is just a good idea?

I mean, consulting a conference rival who can't keep his head coaches is OK (Alvarez), but the guy who gave 40 years of his life to the program? Nah.

Why do the Regents need to be involved in something the Chancellor is supposed to be able to do? If this is a requirement, then fine but if its not then why is this a big deal? If it wasn't a requirement then I see this as Perlman simply doing his job.

In regards to the bolded part, in all fairness I wouldn't be happy if that happened to me. That said, rumors that Perlman and Osborne don't get along have surfaced from time to time. When you don't get along with your boss, you are the one who generally loses.

My issue with needing Osborne's approval for anything to do with the Athletic Department and/or football program is that Osborne is not employed by the University in any manner that I am aware of. Anyone who isn't being employed by the University should have zero say in what goes on there. If you want his input, hire him either as an employee or a consultant. Otherwise just let the man go fishing. And as Knapp pointed out, Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

Because the Chancellor is a flipping moron when it comes to sports. And he should have been leveraging people like Osborne and the Regents.

Perlman should have had handcuffs put on him after the Pederson extension debacle. Speaking of, remember when he "administered a survey within the AD and everything was fine" right before extending Pedey? Oh yeah, it wasn't anonymous, but why would that matter when the issue was that Pedey saw any challenge to his authority or "vision" as disloyalty (same exact allegations came up at Pitt, too).

Also pretty sure that no one said that Osborne should have an "approval right" but rather that he should have been part of the discussion and evaluation.

I find it pretty gross how people are now dragging Osborne and his reputation through the mud to defend the likes of Perlman and Pederson.

Honestly, I find it pretty gross that you leave out Osborne's involvement in the Pedersen hire.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Osborne is hardly infallible and Osborne himself would be the first to tell you that.

It's not about "infallibility". It's that the worst time our football program has seen in decades has been when Osborne was not involved, or was sidestepped.

What are you going to do when the man dies? At some point we have to move on from this idea that only Osborne can keep things together here at Nebraska. Reality is that eventually everyone dies.

So... cut him out before we have to because he'll be gone eventually? Interesting.

Wonder if Berkshire Hathaway shareholders would feel about a similar approach.

I'm not surprised you are intentionally being indigenous.

Is CM is an introduced species?

 

[grandpasknee]

How appropriate that Knappic would reference the Titanic. The Silverstone group (having had personal experience with their "expert" consulting) is a very bad apple in my opinion. Even if there were no issues uncovered, I feel Silverstone would create some. They don't make a lot of money from just doing an evaluation. They make money by kindly offering to re-mediate the problems they fabricate, um, er..find. All for the sum of everything you hold dear. Their advice is suspect at best, again in my opinion, and it amounts to re-arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking.

Yes, I am opinionated about Silverstone, and it is based upon experience. It is possible they are a great group and I had a singular bad experience. It is also possible that Mao's great leap forward might have been successful...if only those millions hadn't starved.

Bottom line is...take what ever report comes out of Silverstone with a grain of salt.

(have only received one mild warning on here....am a bit concerned this will result in something similar, but it is my opinion)