DC Candidates?

kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
And what programs are having a lot of success by firing their coach every 4-6 years?

 
knapplc said:
kchusker_chris said:
Frank went from 7 wins to 10 and lost his job after hiring one of the best DCs in the game. If Bo wins 9 in 13', he will have gone from 8 to 9 wins, never doing anything to really improve his staff/results.

If I was running an 80 million a year business (which Bo kind of does)...I wouldn't be hiring entry/junior level staff into executive positions (which is what JP/Beck are).
Click to expand...
But firing Frank in 2003 was the biggest business blunder this corporation has made in the last 40 years. We want to repeat that mistake? Yikes.

To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
He also just got us into the highest paying non-BCS bowl game for a Big 10 team. I think it is the #2 highest paid non BCS bowl (I think the cotton bowl moved ahead in payouts last year)

 
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from. I don't know how you'd quantify the percentage of return we're getting from Bo. If it's improvement in production, from the previous regime, it's quite high. Something like 17%.

 
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
And what programs are having a lot of success by firing their coach every 4-6 years?
Click to expand...
Nebraska under Pelini.

 
AwJeez_NotThisShitAgain_.jpg
 
Blackshirt96 said:
I agree Frank had better stats, but I also don't think he should have been fired in '03. Can you show me a coach with better stats that was let go for performance? I'm sure I can show you many coaches that received a raise for lessor performances.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because they were at lesser programs? (Iowa)

Mark Richt just saved his job this year w/ a 10 win season. 8-9 wins and he was gone. Not many would argue w/ that. He has an overall record of 106-37 (74.1%).

Les Miles has been rumored to be on the chopping block numerous times...especially after the 9 win, 2009 season. He was 51-15 (77.2%) prior to that with an MNC.

Mack Brown had far more rumors flying around regarding his status as head coach after last year than Bo does. He was 133-34 (79.6%) at the time.

There are many more like this. These conversations are not unique to Nebraska. Ask Tommy Tubberville 85-40 (68%). He had won at least 9 games a season the prior 4 years including a MNC (sorta). 1 disapointing year was all it took. And that's in the SEC where competition is far more dominant that the Big12/B1G. The standard is not unrealistic.

None of those guys above actually got fired (Richt would have), but they all had a lot more accomplishments that Bo would have in my hypothetical scenario. I view Bo's 13' very much like Richt's 11'.

 
knapplc said:
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from. I don't know how you'd quantify the percentage of return we're getting from Bo. If it's improvement in production, from the previous regime, it's quite high. Something like 17%.
Click to expand...
Depends on when you invested I guess. I didn't buy in during those lows...I was already invested at a much higher price point so I'm just now getting back within my original investment. :)

 
kchusker_chris said:
Blackshirt96 said:
I agree Frank had better stats, but I also don't think he should have been fired in '03. Can you show me a coach with better stats that was let go for performance? I'm sure I can show you many coaches that received a raise for lessor performances.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because they were at lesser programs? (Iowa)

Mark Richt just saved his job this year w/ a 10 win season. 8-9 wins and he was gone. Not many would argue w/ that. He has an overall record of 106-37 (74.1%).

Les Miles has been rumored to be on the chopping block numerous times...especially after the 9 win, 2009 season. He was 51-15 (77.2%) prior to that with an MNC.

Mack Brown had far more rumors flying around regarding his status as head coach after last year than Bo does. He was 133-34 (79.6%) at the time.

There are many more like this. These conversations are not unique to Nebraska. Ask Tommy Tubberville 85-40 (68%). He had won at least 9 games a season the prior 4 years including a MNC (sorta). 1 disapointing year was all it took. And that's in the SEC where competition is far more dominant that the Big12/B1G. The standard is not unrealistic.

None of those guys above actually got fired (Richt would have), but they all had a lot more accomplishments that Bo would have in my hypothetical scenario. I view Bo's 13' very much like Richt's 11'.
Click to expand...
Mack Brown didn't make a Bowl game still there, Tommy Tuberville 5-7 no bowl game got fired, Mark Richt 8-5 '09 & 6-7 '10.

Bo has never had a lossing season, All three of them have. Bo has never had less then 9 wins all four of the listed have. By the way, anyone who believes Les miles was on the choping block for a 8-5 season should have there head checked. He won a NC the year before.

 
Blackshirt96 said:
Mavric said:
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
And what programs are having a lot of success by firing their coach every 4-6 years?
Click to expand...
Nebraska under Pelini.
Click to expand...
I was defining "success" the way kchusker (and others) do - winning national championships. Apparently anything less than that is grounds for dismissal.

 
Mavric said:
I was defining "success" the way kchusker (and others) do - winning national championships. Apparently anything less than that is grounds for dismissal.
Click to expand...
I dont' need an MNC. An appearance in the B1G championship would be nice though...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
kchusker_chris said:
knapplc said:
To carry the business analogy further, Bo is still turning a profit. This program continues to make money, so why fire the CEO? Not a wise business move.
Click to expand...
Because a 1-2% return on investment will never get you to the top. (especially an investment that should be able to return more) A status quo objective gets you ho-hum returns. Sure, we might never lose 5 games in a season (some people seem content enough never winning a championship so long as they know that)...but after 6 years of ho-hum results, especially in the environment Bo has been able to be a coach in (down north, 13' schedule)...people are going to start wanting his return to take advantage of that and beat the benchmark.

For the record, this is all hypothetical based on a 13' season which is very far away. But I do think Bo should be preparing to take advantage of it...and if it turns out the way it's shaping up to be and he doesn't? Well, 4 losses against a bunch of 7-5 teams is gonna sting a little.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from. I don't know how you'd quantify the percentage of return we're getting from Bo. If it's improvement in production, from the previous regime, it's quite high. Something like 17%.
Click to expand...
Depends on when you invested I guess. I didn't buy in during those lows...I was already invested at a much higher price point so I'm just now getting back within my original investment. :)
Click to expand...
Did you buy in the mid 90's, because nobodys value has ever been hire before or since.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top