Staff Changes

[Wistrom Disciple]

Sorry, but this does happen often.  Pelini used to meet with Osborn all the time after the season ended to discuss how things were going on the team and if there should be any changes.  This is not saying that the AD makes the final decisions, but the AD is the boss of the football coach and has a right to discuss the staff with the head coach, just as any 2nd line leader or boss in America will discuss personnel with their first line leaders.  Moos also is the one that would have to secure funds if Frost would want a new assistant that will cost more than what we currently have.  Frost just doesn't do that on his own.  

Yes, Pelini would meet with his boss after the season. However TO did not force change onto the staff, nor make demands of coaching personnel selections. 

The way you're envisioning corporate America and the program are the same which is the wrong approach. Moos is charged with overseeing the whole athletic department but his involvement is and should be limited to being a sounding board for Frost and each coach/sport. If Frost were to come in and requests X dollars in order to go hire a different coach, yes he could meet with Moos and request that funding. It should never be the other way around (Moos bringing X dollars to Frost telling him he's going to get XYZ coach). Eichorst's decision for Riley to hire Bob Diaco is exactly why the Top-Down approach does not work in college football. 

 

[krc1995]

Sorry, but this does happen often.  Pelini used to meet with Osborn all the time after the season ended to discuss how things were going on the team and if there should be any changes.  This is not saying that the AD makes the final decisions, but the AD is the boss of the football coach and has a right to discuss the staff with the head coach, just as any 2nd line leader or boss in America will discuss personnel with their first line leaders.  Moos also is the one that would have to secure funds if Frost would want a new assistant that will cost more than what we currently have.  Frost just doesn't do that on his own.  

Why are you sorry? 
 

The AD is the boss of all coaches. Obviously he meets with HIS coaches to debrief. You specifically referred to evaluating assistant coaches. Can they discuss other things?  I hope he lets Frost evaluate his own coaches and initiate changes. And I bet he does. 
 

remember Steve Pederson? Remember the insistence for Frank to fire and hire new coaches? Fired the next year., even though some good moves were made. 

 

[Huskers93-97]

Yes, Pelini would meet with his boss after the season. However TO did not force change onto the staff, nor make demands of coaching personnel selections. 

The way you're envisioning corporate America and the program are the same which is the wrong approach. Moos is charged with overseeing the whole athletic department but his involvement is and should be limited to being a sounding board for Frost and each coach/sport. If Frost were to come in and requests X dollars in order to go hire a different coach, yes he could meet with Moos and request that funding. It should never be the other way around (Moos bringing X dollars to Frost telling him he's going to get XYZ coach). Eichorst's decision for Riley to hire Bob Diaco is exactly why the Top-Down approach does not work in college football. 

One Exception. Say after year 5 we have not progressed as a program and Frost is being stubborn to stick with the assistants he has now. At that point it is on Moos to make sure the program gets in the right direction. If that is firing Frost or telling Frost he needs to evaluate his staff. There should always be checks and balances. At this point in Frost's career he is not Nick Saban. No one is questioning Sabans decisions because he is a proven winner and shows he will swap assistants to do what is best to win the most games at Alabama. Frost has not proven any of those things so he is not above being questioned.

 

[Mavric]

I wonder if dawson doesnt take over coaching ST in the future with input from rutledge.

I've seen HOL guys speculating on this for several weeks.  I believe Dawson has experience with it and would be a natural way to go to get an on-field guy more involved.

And i wonder if having a full spring and fall where they could put more emphasis into ST during practices will help. I also wonder if two guys working together for the first time didnt lead to some miscommunication at times. 

One would think it would have to help.  It just seems like they've been in scramble mode since they got here - trying to install a completely new system, doing a major roster overhaul, trying to get new guys up to speed and then losing most of an entire off-season to COVID.  Hopefully things are more settled now and there can be more time spent on the details of all three phases.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Yes, Pelini would meet with his boss after the season. However TO did not force change onto the staff, nor make demands of coaching personnel selections. 

The way you're envisioning corporate America and the program are the same which is the wrong approach. Moos is charged with overseeing the whole athletic department but his involvement is and should be limited to being a sounding board for Frost and each coach/sport. If Frost were to come in and requests X dollars in order to go hire a different coach, yes he could meet with Moos and request that funding. It should never be the other way around (Moos bringing X dollars to Frost telling him he's going to get XYZ coach). Eichorst's decision for Riley to hire Bob Diaco is exactly why the Top-Down approach does not work in college football. 

If you look at my original statement on this topic, here is what I said:  

Frost should be sitting down with Moos after every season and doing an evaluation on every single assistant and asking a simple question: 

Does this assistant coach give Nebraska the best chance of winning a conference championship? 

This is saying that Frost is the one that should be initiating dialogue with Moos regarding his personnel and answering the question in bold.  I never once said that Moos needs to be making assistant selections.  However, Moos is on point for the overall success of the athletic department which includes the football team and he has a right to ask probing questions of Frost or any other head coach.  The question in bold should be a standard question asked and considered at the end of any sports season.  

 

[Wistrom Disciple]

One Exception. Say after year 5 we have not progressed as a program and Frost is being stubborn to stick with the assistants he has now. At that point it is on Moos to make sure the program gets in the right direction. If that is firing Frost or telling Frost he needs to evaluate his staff. There should always be checks and balances. At this point in Frost's career he is not Nick Saban. No one is questioning Sabans decisions because he is a proven winner and shows he will swap assistants to do what is best to win the most games at Alabama. Frost has not proven any of those things so he is not above being questioned.

Agreed, but we're not at year 5 yet and the AD shouldn't be deciding which assistants a coach hires or fires unless there is a legal or moral issue with said coach (check and balance). 

If you look at my original statement on this topic, here is what I said:  

Frost should be sitting down with Moos after every season and doing an evaluation on every single assistant and asking a simple question: 

Does this assistant coach give Nebraska the best chance of winning a conference championship? 

This is saying that Frost is the one that should be initiating dialogue with Moos regarding his personnel and answering the question in bold.  I never once said that Moos needs to be making assistant selections.  However, Moos is on point for the overall success of the athletic department which includes the football team and he has a right to ask probing questions of Frost or any other head coach.  The question in bold should be a standard question asked and considered at the end of any sports season.  

Your implication is that Frost must justify every assistant with the AD each year and that the AD would be a good evaluator of position specific coaches. I do think Moos is knowledgeable and likely does offer advice from time to time but I would be very surprised if that advice has to do with staff personnel. 

I don't see the AD-coach relationship as a traditional business structure with Moos being as hands on in the staffing decisions but instead answering for the totality of the program. That totality of the program is on Frost and Moos to defend/discuss but the coach must be the one choosing staff or else forced marriages rarely work in athletics. Think of it this way, if Moos were to retire tomorrow and in stepped Garrett Klassy (Senior Deputy AD) or Pat Logsdon (Deputy AD - Senior Woman Administrator), do you think either of those two should make suggestions on who Frost should fire or hire? 

Edit: Frost can have the bolded discussion internally and seek advice if he feels the need but I don't view that advice receiving as a requirement.

 

[Huskers93-97]

Agreed, but we're not at year 5 yet and the AD shouldn't be deciding which assistants a coach hires or fires unless there is a legal or moral issue with said coach (check and balance). 

Which I agree we are not at a point that Moos should be mandating anything. But it doesn't mean he can't have a conversation with Frost about all his assistants and say something like "lets look at each assistant and talk through their value-value would be inclusive of recruiting and coaching(are they bringing in talent then when the talent gets here is the talent getting better physically and mentally do they understand their position and what is being asked of them) if said assistant recruits well but is not developing the kids so they can actually contribute to W's then maybe we should look at their overall value to the program. 

Moos should be able to say. Look, at this point it is your decision what you do for hiring and firing assistants. But if we continue down the road we are on with the same results for another year or 2. People are going to be calling for your head and mine. So lets make sure we have the right people on staff to get us to the end result we need. 

There is zero excuses to not make this work. Frost essentially get everything he wants from Moos and Moos and Nebraska Brass are willing to spend whatever it takes to get this right.

 

[Wistrom Disciple]

Which I agree we are not at a point that Moos should be mandating anything. But it doesn't mean he can't have a conversation with Frost about all his assistants and say something like "lets look at each assistant and talk through their value-value would be inclusive of recruiting and coaching(are they bringing in talent then when the talent gets here is the talent getting better physically and mentally do they understand their position and what is being asked of them) if said assistant recruits well but is not developing the kids so they can actually contribute to W's then maybe we should look at their overall value to the program. 

Moos should be able to say. Look, at this point it is your decision what you do for hiring and firing assistants. But if we continue down the road we are on with the same results for another year or 2. People are going to be calling for your head and mine. So lets make sure we have the right people on staff to get us to the end result we need. 

There is zero excuses to not make this work. Frost essentially get everything he wants from Moos and Moos and Nebraska Brass are willing to spend whatever it takes to get this right.

Yes, Frost and Moos should discuss the program at large but I don't believe the AD should be getting involved with position specific coaching decisions.

Would you expect the AD to tell Hoiberg that Doc Sadler isn't getting it done on the defensive end of the court? Or that our pitching coach isn't showing results and Will Bolt needs to evaluate replacing the pitching coach? 

You're thinking too corporate and it's that mentality that resulted in us getting Bob Diaco for a year. 

 

[Huskers93-97]

Yes, Frost and Moos should discuss the program at large but I don't believe the AD should be getting involved with position specific coaching decisions.

Would you expect the AD to tell Hoiberg that Doc Sadler isn't getting it done on the defensive end of the court? Or that our pitching coach isn't showing results and Will Bolt needs to evaluate replacing the pitching coach? 

You're thinking too corporate and it's that mentality that resulted in us getting Bob Diaco for a year. 

I don't see anything wrong with Moos questioning Frost. It might cause Frost to self reflect and look at something from a different light. Accountability is what keeps many things on the right track. Blindly letting someone do things however they wish with no checks and balances usually doesn't go well. 

If we were trending up and everything was going well. Sure- there is no reason for anyone to ask any questions. But after 3 years of very little success- sorry but failure brings doubt and questions from people who SHOULD hold you accountable to make sure you know what your doing. 

Frost is getting $5 Million per year and other coaches around the country with similiar records as Scott after 3 years are getting fired and historically have gotten fired. So yes I think they should have an open discussion.

EDIT: To be clear I am not saying Moos tells Frost what to do. But perhaps he could say something like. I don't see progress with what Verduzco is doing. What am I missing that you see? 

 

[Wistrom Disciple]

I don't see anything wrong with Moos questioning Frost. It might cause Frost to self reflect and look at something from a different light. Accountability is what keeps many things on the right track. Blindly letting someone do things however they wish with no checks and balances usually doesn't go well. 

If we were trending up and everything was going well. Sure- there is no reason for anyone to ask any questions. But after 3 years of very little success- sorry but failure brings doubt and questions from people who SHOULD hold you accountable to make sure you know what your doing. 

Frost is getting $5 Million per year and other coaches around the country with similiar records as Scott after 3 years are getting fired and historically have gotten fired. So yes I think they should have an open discussion.

If you don't think Frost is already self reflecting and overanalyzing everything in the program, then I think you're underestimating him. 

I am not implying that Frost should not have to have a review of his program or be held accountable when appropriate, I am simply disagreeing with your logic that the AD is the right person to decide whether (for example) Barrett Ruud is the right guy to coach our linebackers. If Moos were replaced by a different AD, say one without previously playing college football, would you trust that person to evaluate whether the cornerbacks and safeties have developed well enough to compete for a Big Ten title? I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't trust that AD's position-specific critiquing but instead suggest that the AD evaluates the program as a whole to which Frost must discuss and defend if pressed. 

 

[Canadian Fan]

If you don't think Frost is already self reflecting and overanalyzing everything in the program, then I think you're underestimating him. 

I am not implying that Frost should not have to have a review of his program or be held accountable when appropriate, I am simply disagreeing with your logic that the AD is the right person to decide whether (for example) Barrett Ruud is the right guy to coach our linebackers. If Moos were replaced by a different AD, say one without previously playing college football, would you trust that person to evaluate whether the cornerbacks and safeties have developed well enough to compete for a Big Ten title? I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't trust that AD's position-specific critiquing but instead suggest that the AD evaluates the program as a whole to which Frost must discuss and defend if pressed. 

Self-reflection on its own is not enough.  

The direction of the self-reflection is of critical importance....

It is a very different thing to ask oneself:  "It appears I've been trying to put a square peg into a round hole. How can modify my peg so it fits the hole that exists and I get the outcome I'm looking for?", as opposed to "I don't understand why my square peg won't fit.  My square peg is the greatest thing ever created! What is wrong with that damned hole that my perfect peg will not fit, so I can get the outcome I'm looking for?"

 

[Wistrom Disciple]

Self-reflection on its own is not enough.  

The direction of the self-reflection is of critical importance....

It is a very different thing to ask oneself:  "It appears I've been trying to put a square peg into a round hole. How can modify my peg so it fits the hole that exists and I get the outcome I'm looking for?", as opposed to "I don't understand why my square peg won't fit.  My square peg is the greatest thing ever created! What is wrong with that damned hole that my perfect peg will not fit, so I can get the outcome I'm looking for?"

Thank you for your contribution?  :dunno

 

[lo country]

In a nutshell.  Frost and Co need to design and game plan a system around the talent and personnel they have.  Not what they want.  Execute it at a level that they can succeed, not at one they wish they could.  The swing pass comes to mind

@Mavrichad mentioned how Bama, OSU, Clemson and Notre Dame do their ST staffing.  Very similar to ours, but with very different results.  Their talent and coaching staff is better than ours at present.  (A lot more experience) Chin stated this season that he has the depth to roll DL in like Bama and others (I only remember Bama).  Same strategy, but again different results.  Although IMHO, it worked as our D improved aross key metrics.  

I think we have yet, at least offensively, to drill what we are good at.  What our calling card is.  Until we stop the penalties, miscues, coaching mistakes, get more than one RB and an actual receiver not named Wan'dale, it will be hard to ID what actually works as there are so many areas that the issues could start from.....

 

[HuskerNation1]

Agreed, but we're not at year 5 yet and the AD shouldn't be deciding which assistants a coach hires or fires unless there is a legal or moral issue with said coach (check and balance). 

Your implication is that Frost must justify every assistant with the AD each year and that the AD would be a good evaluator of position specific coaches. I do think Moos is knowledgeable and likely does offer advice from time to time but I would be very surprised if that advice has to do with staff personnel. 

I don't see the AD-coach relationship as a traditional business structure with Moos being as hands on in the staffing decisions but instead answering for the totality of the program. That totality of the program is on Frost and Moos to defend/discuss but the coach must be the one choosing staff or else forced marriages rarely work in athletics. Think of it this way, if Moos were to retire tomorrow and in stepped Garrett Klassy (Senior Deputy AD) or Pat Logsdon (Deputy AD - Senior Woman Administrator), do you think either of those two should make suggestions on who Frost should fire or hire? 

Edit: Frost can have the bolded discussion internally and seek advice if he feels the need but I don't view that advice receiving as a requirement.

You are inferring this implication.  Frost himself must have an honest internal self-assessment with his staff, his schemes, everything, every single year.  It's part of continuous learning and a strive for excellence.  He should feel obligated to tell his boss how his program will become better.  Again, I never once said Moos should be picking the staff. You chose to make that assumption. 

As for the role of a first and second line leadership relationship, sure there are some differences across various organizations, but there are many more similarities.  What do you think Moos is accountable for related to the football program?  Does he have a reason to be concerned with how things are progressing?  If the football team does not meet the goals for the season, how should Moos address that?  I believe the coach/AD relationship and engagement should be more than just the hiring/firing phase.  There should be continuous discussion back and forth before/after the season.

 

[Canadian Fan]

Thank you for your contribution?  :dunno

Was I unclear about the difference?

Analogy one is pointing the proverbial thumb and the self-reflection questions everything without bias.  
 

Analogy two starts with the assumption that it is external forces causing the failures, and the self-reflection is therefore limited in that context only. 
 

Not sure if you’ve ever read “From Good to Great” but one of the big takeaways is you should never be too specific about exactly where you’re going, and pigeon-holing the people you bring in into very specific roles to reach that narrow objective.  The world changes and your ideas might not be as perfect as you believe as you are one individual with your own biases (often created by limited experiences).  On the contrary, find the right people with strong but varied backgrounds, get them on the bus, and then coalesce their views to set a new direction together. 
 

The two approaches are diametrically opposed and picking one over the other very much defines how you solve problems and challenges.