Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Barfknechtl: Ok to fire a 9 win coach

[Husker Country Doc]

I'm at the point where I'm ok with keeping Pelini, but I'm also ok with firing him.

I seriously think he came to Lincoln with a three-year plan. He got commitments from the assistants to stay through that time period. No assts left. He played in two CCG's, and almost won them both. I think he thought he would be moving on, after that point. Recruiting dropped off three years ago, and we are reaping that, now.

That is pure speculation on my part, supported only by the fact that no assistants left during the first three seasons, and that BP peaked at that point.

 

[skerz5times]

How can you say we are not close to 08. We have played the worst schedule in recent memory and still have lost twice. Our defense is awful. I think anyone who thinks we are way better then 08 has been watching different football then I have.

 

[cm husker]

Well, you for one. You started a whole thread, the premise of which was to argue that the chances of finding a coach who can do better than Pelini are not just slim, they are overwhelmingly slim.

This is why these threads go back and forth and back and forth. People either don't articulate their point or or others don't read/understand it. Let me try again.

1. I think we can do better than our current level of performance.

2. I think we should do better than our current level of performance.

3. I don't think we get to our preferred level of performance quicker by firing Pelini than by giving him another year or two to prove, one way or the other, whether he's capable of making the leap. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that he makes the jump to our preferred level of success than we hire a new coach who comes in and reaches that level in his first 5 years.

4. I see a lot of potential downside in making a change. CFB is replete with examples of teams firing a coach only to have the decision look like it was bad or ineffectual. Bad and ineffectual aren't worth the turmoil that a 3rd coaching change in 10 years would wrought on the program.

5. Therefore, despite not being overjoyed with our current performance, I think the prudent move is to retain Bo for at least another year (i.e., through 2014) for a whole number of reasons. We can always go another route then.

Honestly, re: the 9 win floor, I still believe you can't fire a coach who wins 9 games year after year. There has to be some floor in order to avoid the "I didn't FEEL good about the program" subjectivity causing us to adopt a revolving door philosophy in the head coach's office. That's still not the same as me being happy or satisfied with every 9 win season.

 

[hskrncibolo]

A question for you then. Are you saying that you don't think be can or should strive for better than what Bo has produced? Are you stating that you have been perfectly happy with 9 wins and a blowout loss or two in marquee games? Are you fine that it keeps on happening or do you see progress that many of us are failing to notice? I agree that the state of the program is better than Callahan but that certainly can't be the bar we are going to use.

Bo is paying for recruiting mistakes 3 years ago when recruiting DL , which includes brother Carl whiffing. I am willing to let Bo continue at this point. We Bo loses the team , it will be time to hire a new HC, this is not happening.

 

[cm husker]

Ok, I call total BS on the bold. History doesn't agree with you, you are a history type guy, right? That is what you are using to base your claims NU would do worse getting rid of BO, correct?

On this topic, history is TODAY. Not the 80s, not the 90s, not even the early 2000s.

TODAY, Nebraska has top 25 (but not super elite) facilities, makes a lot of money and spends it on football (but so do at least 25 other teams), has TV exposure (but so do just about all other teams), has an ardent fan base (that's fairly immaterial, see Miami and USC, but so do a lot of other programs), and the list goes on.

I'd even argue that from a historical perspective, NU never had very many built in advantages. Our success were the result of some great coaches who overachieved in their environment.

I can't think of a "hot name" coach who would elect Nebraska over most peer schools in the south or in california.

 

[bilsker]

3. I don't think we get to our preferred level of performance quicker by firing Pelini than by giving him another year or two to prove, one way or the other, whether he's capable of making the leap. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that he makes the jump to our preferred level of success than we hire a new coach who comes in and reaches that level in his first 5 years.

I'm going to jump out on a limb here and suggest that if NU gave pelini 2 more years and we got the same crap we are getting now, but racking up 8 or 9 wins against chumps, you'd STILL be on the "Save Bo!" war path.

 

[hskrncibolo]

On this topic, history is TODAY. Not the 80s, not the 90s, not even the early 2000s.

TODAY, Nebraska has top 25 (but not super elite) facilities, makes a lot of money and spends it on football (but so do at least 25 other teams), has TV exposure (but so do just about all other teams), has an ardent fan base (that's fairly immaterial, see Miami and USC, but so do a lot of other programs), and the list goes on.

I'd even argue that from a historical perspective, NU never had very many built in advantages. Our success were the result of some great coaches who overachieved in their environment.

I can't think of a "hot name" coach who would elect Nebraska over most peer schools in the south or in california.

Actually your incorrect.

 

[cthusker]

Not sure how much football IQ you have, we are NOT close to '08. If Bo ends up losing 7 games you may see a change, this isnt going to happen.

I'll ignore the smart mouth stuff ok!! We were 9-4 in 08 and it's VERY doubtful we'll do so this year! So perhaps your point is we might well be WORSE then 08? Yea that's extremely possible............

At least we did manage a bowl win in 08... We're 0-3 at the moment so assuming we make a bowl appearance perhaps we can get to 8 wins......

 

[skerz5times]

Or maybe that is just a matter of perspective and cm will tell you that you lack perspective.

 

[bilsker]

I'll ignore the smart mouth stuff ok!! We were 9-4 in 08 and it's VERY doubtful we'll do so this year! So perhaps your point is we might well be WORSE then 08? Yea that's extremely possible............

At least we did manage a bowl win in 08... We're 0-3 at the moment so assuming we make a bowl appearance perhaps we can get to 8 wins......

The '08 team would curb stomp this team.

 

[cm husker]

I'm going to jump out on a limb here and suggest that if NU gave pelini 2 more years and we got the same crap we are getting now, but racking up 8 or 9 wins against chumps, you'd STILL be on the "Save Bo!" war path.

I'd run the same analysis as I'm running today:

1. Are the results meeting a level of expectation?

2. Is a replacement available who can do better?

If the answer to those questions is "no" and "yes", respectively, I'd be all for a change. Just like I am today.

But no one has suggested the name of a real legit viable (however you want to frame it) coach that could be hired today and would be likely to produce better results (by likely, I mean has a history that demonstrates they probably would ... not just a history that they haven't failed in the past).

Even the sports writers who are cited as saying it's ok to fire Bo haven't included a recommendation for who would actually replace him.

 

[cm husker]

The '08 team would curb stomp this team.

That '08 (through '10) offense was at least as bad as this defense is bad.

 

[DBP]

This is why these threads go back and forth and back and forth. People either don't articulate their point or or others don't read/understand it. Let me try again.

1. I think we can do better than our current level of performance.

2. I think we should do better than our current level of performance.

3. I don't think we get to our preferred level of performance quicker by firing Pelini than by giving him another year or two to prove, one way or the other, whether he's capable of making the leap. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that he makes the jump to our preferred level of success than we hire a new coach who comes in and reaches that level in his first 5 years.

4. I see a lot of potential downside in making a change. CFB is replete with examples of teams firing a coach only to have the decision look like it was bad or ineffectual. Bad and ineffectual aren't worth the turmoil that a 3rd coaching change in 10 years would wrought on the program.

5. Therefore, despite not being overjoyed with our current performance, I think the prudent move is to retain Bo for at least another year (i.e., through 2014) for a whole number of reasons. We can always go another route then.

Honestly, re: the 9 win floor, I still believe you can't fire a coach who wins 9 games year after year. There has to be some floor in order to avoid the "I didn't FEEL good about the program" subjectivity causing us to adopt a revolving door philosophy in the head coach's office. That's still not the same as me being happy or satisfied with every 9 win season.

My issue with point #3 is that he is in the middle of year #6. Maybe the biggest problem here is that we shouldn't have hired someone who had to learn to be a head coach while we all watched. Frank and Bo both fit this scenario. I think there is alot to be gained by a coach learning to be a head coach in the MAC or MWC or wherever and then adjusting to the bigger job when they get it. I don't know what the right answer is here. I do know that I want NU to be more successful and consistent than they are and whoever that head coach is will be fine with me. I support NU 100% but it is very hard for me to believe in Pelini at this point.

 

[cthusker]

On this topic, history is TODAY. Not the 80s, not the 90s, not even the early 2000s.

TODAY, Nebraska has top 25 (but not super elite) facilities, makes a lot of money and spends it on football (but so do at least 25 other teams), has TV exposure (but so do just about all other teams), has an ardent fan base (that's fairly immaterial, see Miami and USC, but so do a lot of other programs), and the list goes on..
I'd even argue that from a historical perspective, NU never had very many built in advantages. Our success were the result of some great coaches who overachieved in their environment.

I can't think of a "hot name" coach who would elect Nebraska over most peer schools in the south or in california.

Do you think OU is a great destination? If so why? Certainly isn't for the beautiful countryside. Perhaps it's the TEXASS castaways picked up by OU? I could name many places that aren't any better or perhaps worse then Lincoln what have some very good programs. Nope we are not CA or TEXASS but many coaches do not want to coach in those places either. Simply because SP couldn't find his you know what in closet or TO wasn't going to spend 3 or 4 million doesn't mean we can't find a high profile, proven HC for Nebraska. That's a defeatist attitude right out of the box. There are plenty of name brand coaches that would certainly consider Lincoln if the price is right............

 

[internet tg]

On this topic, history is TODAY. Not the 80s, not the 90s, not even the early 2000s.

TODAY, Nebraska has top 25 (but not super elite) facilities, makes a lot of money and spends it on football (but so do at least 25 other teams), has TV exposure (but so do just about all other teams), has an ardent fan base (that's fairly immaterial, see Miami and USC, but so do a lot of other programs), and the list goes on.

I'd even argue that from a historical perspective, NU never had very many built in advantages. Our success were the result of some great coaches who overachieved in their environment.

I can't think of a "hot name" coach who would elect Nebraska over most peer schools in the south or in california.

Interesting point on the overachieving coaches.

I think its fair to say that Bo is definitely not an overachiever. So should we continue to look for another overachiever, or settle in beside the schools who also share our disadvantages, like Iowa and Kansas(can't think of many more that share our location/weather disadvantages)? Because if we stop looking for that overachiever, all of the advantages you listed will slowly go away and then we're really screwed.

If someone thinks Bo can be that overachiever I'd love to hear why.