• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Coaching Changes: A Conversation About Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harms_Way_06

Harms_Way_06

Recruit
5 Year Member
I've read about 25 threads on this forum since the UCLA game, and the discussions have been excellent. The thing is though, if we strip away everything in these threads and really get to what is being discussed, its all RISK.

If you think we should keep Bo, you have understand there is a risk inherent in that. It might not be intutive, the same way always folding in Hold'em is risky, but make no mistake that there is risk.

Its very obvious to everyone that firing Bo is a risk. It could ignite any number of problems from a never-ending coaching carousel to an even more divided fan-base. So the question is then, which has less risk, or, again in poker terms, which play has higher value: Firing Pelini now or Keeping him on?

If we keep on phasing this discussion through the lens of risk and value, as opposed to more vague terms, I think we can really get to the meat and potatoes of what we are talking about.

I stand on the fire Bo side of things, and its taken me until the UCLA game to budge from a strong stance of "Bo can get it done." The Minnesota game moved me from a position of wait and see to "I've seen enough." Something I fear the people who want to keep Bo are missing is that there is risk, no matter how you wanna cut it, in keeping Bo.
 

True dat. Risk after all is most usefully defined as uncertainty of outcome. As long as there is uncertainty, whether you are long Bo or short Bo, you have risk.
 
huskernut said:
True dat. Risk after all is most usefully defined as uncertainty of outcome. As long as there is uncertainty, whether you are long Bo or short Bo, you have risk.
Click to expand...
Either way, you need to hedge Bo, and that means a staff guy ready to go.

Bring in Frost.
 
IMO, Bo is all risk. If he stays and keeps fielding the Pilsbury Bofense, he gets fired. If he wins anything of significance, he'll move on and will have chumped us for his training wheels.
 



Yep, the way I look at it, the College Football landscape is a high stakes place to game. Guess what happens if don't play the game (or roll the dice) or whatever, in a high stakes game? You lose. Standing pat with BP seems way way riskier to me than making a play at a better coach.
 
I have been thinking in similar terms. Same goes for sticking with TM v. a back-up or any other scenario of "to do or not to do". There is inherent risk in doing something or nothing. But, yes, I think the riskier proposition at this point is continuing on with the same HC and hoping for different outcomes.
 




BakNthday said:
I have been thinking in similar terms. Same goes for sticking with TM v. a back-up or any other scenario of "to do or not to do". There is inherent risk in doing something or nothing. But, yes, I think the riskier proposition at this point is continuing on with the same HC and hoping for different outcomes.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is what frustrates me about the folks who want to keep Bo. There seems to be this idea that we have nothing to lose by giving him another year. I don't see it that way. I guess I have to remind myself that I was Pro-Bo until this year, and I though people who wanted him gone were silly. The big thing this year is that our schedule is so insanely pathetic, and we are STILL in trouble!
 
The risks are real, as history has shown. One year lost recruiting class, a 5-7 season.

$ 1.8 million per year buyout, actually not a risk, thats a certainty.


Risk of waiting are real as well, always want to make a move at the first sign of downward progress. Thats a basic business principle.
'Course the debate is what defines downward progress, as W-L is a poor measure.
 
Lot's of good discussion, but meantime the koollllaiders have brought in reinforcements and are assembling for a last stand in the Alabo as we speak. Lol, these guys will do anything for the Bomeister. Their goal is simply to deflect any real discussion of what should be done with Bo. They are expert tacticians having honed their skills defending Solich from real AND imaginary attacks for over 10 years. Don't worry though, they most likely will be gone in a few short weeks...
 
Last edited:
Greatest Fan of All said:
Lot's of good discussion, but meantime the koollllaiders have brought in reinforcements and are assembling for a last stand in the Alabo as we speak. Lol, these guys will do anything for the Bomeister. There goal is simply to deflect any real discussion of what should be done with Bo. They are expert tacticians having honed their skills defending Solich from real AND imaginary attacks for over 10 years. Don't worry though, they most likely will be gone in a few short weeks...
Click to expand...

GFOA: Im asking you right and here and now, unless we either A) Win a National Championship next year, or B) Win out this year, including a B1G championship AND a Rose Bowl win, remind me of the dialogue happening this week (and beyond) if I ever make a Pro-Bo post again. Seriously, I don't wanna have a moment of non-rational weakness.
 



I've been trying to frame this discussion in terms of risk since I came back on the board, but this thread hasn't been nuanced enough in it's calculation.

This is not simply a single question of "how risky is it to keep Bo."

It's really a multi-step evaluation, with risk associated at certain milestones along the way.

Milestone 1:

Question: Does Bo have any upside potential or is this as good as it gets?

Answer 1: If you believe Bo has upside potential, you have to ask whether that potential is (a) great enough to meet the standards you as a Husker fan has, and (b) whether he will actually meet it.

Personally, I think, based on his overall performance so far and his background, he has all the hallmarks/pedigree of a coach who can perform at the highest level. Therefore, I think he has the potential to be an even more successful coach. I'd put the risk that he won't make that jump as fairly low.

Then I ask, will his potential level of success be acceptable to me as a Husker fan - and the answer is yes, if he continues to win 9 to 10 games a season and makes the jump into winning conference championships every few seasons, then he will have met my on the field requirements.

My Conclusion: As I believe he is a relatively low risk coach (or worst case, we don't know for sure yet), I'd like to retain him UNLESS we can find an even lower risk replacement that has higher upside potential. I have yet to see that, so I'm standing pat at "Keep Bo".

Answer 2: If you believe this is as good as he gets, and assuming it's not good enough for you as a Husker fan, you can move to Milestone 2

Milestone 2

Question: Is there a lower risk coach available to replace Bo?

Answer 1: No -- then don't replace him, even if he's not ideal (remember, waiting a year or two for another candidate to emerge is always an option)

Answer 2: Yes -- This answer leads to another question of risk. Will that available coach come to Nebraska?

Personally, I haven't seen a name forwarded that is of a person who is lower risk either in terms of guaranteed improvement or guaranteed willingness to take the job. In fact, based on the evidence we've discussed (e.g., very few examples of firing a 70% coach and improving the program's position) and past coaching search experiences, I think it's highly likely we would AT BEST move laterally. A lateral move would be inherently risky because there are two bad outcomes versus one good one. Bad, we decline or stay the same. Good - we improve on the 70%/quality of w/l record Bo has posted in his first 6 years.

If a person truly believes that's fairly easy to find an improvement over what Bo has done so far, then I guess you should advocate making a change now.

My Conclusion:
Weighing the risks associated with each milestone decision, I think it's low risk to moderately risky to keep Bo and see what he can do in the next year or two, but highly risky to assume we can find a better replacement coach in today's circumstances.

Therefore, I think it's fairly clear we should not fire Bo, barring some epic meltdown (i.e., a 2-4 or worse finish).
 
Last edited:
Even assuming that keeping Bo is high risk and finding a better replacement is high risk, I'd elect to keep Bo, because I'm wary of blowing up the program for a third time in a decade.

Plus, I really like the way he's run the program off the field, so that edges me to his side in a tie situation.
 

cm husker said:
Personally, I think, based on his overall performance so far and his background, he has all the hallmarks/pedigree of a coach who can perform at the highest level. Therefore, I think he has the potential to be an even more successful coach. I'd put the risk that he won't make that jump as fairly low.
Click to expand...
Even if you're right, he would bolt. Remember the Bo Pelini Conundrum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top