Ulty
Active member
I don't have a strong preference for anyone in particular, but in terms of results as a coach, I don't see a huge difference between Rhule, Aranda, or Bill O'Brien.
Aranda took over Baylor from Rhule, and in his first year went 2-7 with a team that had been 11-3 the year before. Aranda had been hired very late (late January), and it turned out to be the Covid year. But the very next year, Aranda took Baylor to their best season in school history.
Prior to that Rhule took over from Jim Grobe who had gone 7-6 in an interim year, and went 1-11 in his first year. That was during a pretty horrific scandal at Baylor, but the dropoff in the first season is at least comparable to what Aranda did a couple years later. Two years later, Rhule's results at Baylor were impressive, but it took him two years to recover, compared to Aranda taking one year. Rhule was also pulling the school out of a much larger dumpster fire. Someone mentioned way back on page f*ck-all that Aranda was not as good as Rhule because of Aranda's dip in his first year. But I have a hard time seeing either one of them as being substantially better than the other.
Bill O'Brien also kept a school afloat during scandal, similar to Rhule. But Penn State's scandal was even worse (they should have gotten the death penalty, in my opinion). In his two seasons there, he had winning records, without suffering the staggering dip that Rhule did when he took over. O'Brien also had a much better record than Rhule as an NFL coach (not that necessarily means anything compared to college coaching).
I don't know that any of these guys are the answer at Nebraska, but their coaching results don't seem all that different. I just find it odd that some people are so vehemently opposed to one of them or so strongly in favor of another.
Aranda took over Baylor from Rhule, and in his first year went 2-7 with a team that had been 11-3 the year before. Aranda had been hired very late (late January), and it turned out to be the Covid year. But the very next year, Aranda took Baylor to their best season in school history.
Prior to that Rhule took over from Jim Grobe who had gone 7-6 in an interim year, and went 1-11 in his first year. That was during a pretty horrific scandal at Baylor, but the dropoff in the first season is at least comparable to what Aranda did a couple years later. Two years later, Rhule's results at Baylor were impressive, but it took him two years to recover, compared to Aranda taking one year. Rhule was also pulling the school out of a much larger dumpster fire. Someone mentioned way back on page f*ck-all that Aranda was not as good as Rhule because of Aranda's dip in his first year. But I have a hard time seeing either one of them as being substantially better than the other.
Bill O'Brien also kept a school afloat during scandal, similar to Rhule. But Penn State's scandal was even worse (they should have gotten the death penalty, in my opinion). In his two seasons there, he had winning records, without suffering the staggering dip that Rhule did when he took over. O'Brien also had a much better record than Rhule as an NFL coach (not that necessarily means anything compared to college coaching).
I don't know that any of these guys are the answer at Nebraska, but their coaching results don't seem all that different. I just find it odd that some people are so vehemently opposed to one of them or so strongly in favor of another.
