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

[Greatest Fan of All]

Both sides of the 'Bo' argument need to take a good, hard look at the potential outcomes of their choice. Doing nothing....or running him off.

We need to look no further than about 600 miles West of Lincoln to glean what running him off can do. Colorado is a shadow of what it was, even under Barnett. That outcome is not a definite....a known, but it is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Run him off and his replacement ends up being a step backwards.

Keep him and we're not even guaranteed a minimum 9-4 outcome every year with the sprinkling of nationally televised ass kickings in the mix. This could get worse before it gets better.

Bottom line, whichever side you're on, write a reminder on a post it note and stick it on the fridge.....so when you get your way and things don't turn out so well....you might just think about the choice and just how critical you should be of the outcome.

Frankly, that IS the road Bo has us on...the Colorado path. We are NOT like the Colorado program in any way though, good grief, their fans don't show up for games, don't travel well, and when they do show they are drunk or wasted and ready to cause trouble. The entire program seems to have no one who cares about football...they are even more apathetic than Bo's supporters. The point is, this State has been committed to having an excellent football program, Colorado could care less.

 

[hskerpwr]

There is not a whole lot of risk of keeping a 9/10 win coach. If he dips below we can fire him. Until then he has a good foundation in place to take the next step.

You might be able to argue there is opportunity cost... maybe, but unless we have a candidate lined up we can always wait for a better one too.

The problem with this line of thinking is THERE ARE ONLY THREE LOSABLE GAMES on the schedule each year for the next three years

Say but you will but we ARE NEBRASKA, the only losable games we play in the next three years are

2014
Miami
Mich St
Wisconsin

2015
Miami
Wisconsin
Michigan St

2016
Oregon
Wisconsin
Ohio St

You can say they are all losable..........given the Minnesota fiasco......but that is not nor should it ever be the standard here at NU. The question is, when will Bo start winning some of the games we are supposed to lose? Lets see what happens when we go on the road to Michigan, that is likely to be the only game we are a dog in for the remainder of this year, despite how pathetic we are

 

[redarmy]

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).

this is a well laid out post.

While you and I have our differences on how we view Bo's upside, I think you bring valid and good points with this post.

 

[huskernut]

You misuse the term... a conundrum is not the same as catch-22, which I think is what you're getting at (i.e., we fire Bo and he leaves or we keep Bo and he leaves). A catch-22 means no matter what course is taken the result is the same.

A conundrum is just a difficult/complex problem.


And you don't know that he would bolt... although based on the way he's been treated generally, I wouldn't blame him very much.

Sometimes I'm reminded of that scene in Hoosiers where all the town folk confront Dale in the barbershop... seems like that's what the message boards have replaced.

I don't agree with this at all. He's been treated quite well actually. This is really just another variant of the "Nebraskans are bad fans" argument: somehow our expectations are higher or we're less classy than fans at other top 20 programs. There's simply no evidence of that.

 

[huskernut]

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.

Blowing up the program too soon is a real risk, and there are a handful of people here and elsewhere who I agree seem to overlook it. In fact, they seem to desire the drama. Not sure why.

I agree on the off field stuff.

There is not a whole lot of risk of keeping a 9/10 win coach. If he dips below we can fire him. Until then he has a good foundation in place to take the next step.

You might be able to argue there is opportunity cost... maybe, but unless we have a candidate lined up we can always wait for a better one too.

9 wins and unrated is not a good enough long term performance level. For a given year, maybe even this year, that's fine with me. But if 9 wins is all he can ever muster, we're selling ourselves and all those who built this thing short.

Waiting for a better candidate could be a strategy, but only on the edges. Most years, there will be several viable candidates to choose from who can achieve 9 wins at Nebraska. Of course, you want to feel strongly that Bo can't take the next step up, but once he's had some time to do so, it's best to try the next guy in line. IMO, the real argument is about when he has shown that, not how you manage it once you decide he has.

 

[cm husker]

Hmmm, so why didn't you factor this into your risk calculations? Given your laugably scientific approach to this, I think you owe it to your followers to go back and update your risk assessment...that's how things work in business when new risks are identified.

By the way, not all risks are equal.

The answer to your Milestone question #1 is that Bo has little to no upside, that is evident. That is where our greatest risk lies.

Milestone #2 is a risk, but certainly one worth taking given the answer to milestone 1, the Pelini Catch-22, and that we seem to have an intelligent AD who is unlikely to make the same poor selection that FADSP would make.

Its not a scientific approach... If anything, it's more of a business approach.

Anyway, the supposed catch 22 is pure speculation. We don't know that Bo would leave if given the opportunity. I simply said I wouldn't blame him.

In any case, the catch 22 isn't necessarily a bad thing. Either Bo fails and we're in a better position to replace him than we are today, or he succeeds and we're in a better position to replace than we are today.

I disagree 100% that it is evident Bo has no upside. And there is no inherent risk in waiting a year or two and let it play out (other than opportunity cost, but that's been mitigated).

I guess there is one risk... That to the ego of fans who are now so sure he can't get it done. If he turns it around, many people will have to eat crow. And for a high %, it will be their 2nd or 3rd helping in the past decade.

I find it so interesting to read about how people were SURE X would happen (e.g., Bo would have it fixed on their determined timeline) and now are SURE he won't. Is it possible that in both cases those people shouldn't be sure?

personally, I'm not sure either, but given the lack of information, the potential improvement that Bo may make and the risk in trying to find a replacement, I'm willing to wait for more data.

Honestly, think back to '07 and how that felt. If someone had laid down Bo's current record in front of you, would you have said "that's a termination worthy record"?

if he fails next season, we can make a move then.

 

[cm husker]

Frankly, that IS the road Bo has us on...the Colorado path. We are NOT like the Colorado program in any way though, good grief, their fans don't show up for games, don't travel well, and when they do show they are drunk or wasted and ready to cause trouble. The entire program seems to have no one who cares about football...they are even more apathetic than Bo's supporters. The point is, this State has been committed to having an excellent football program, Colorado could care less.

Even in Miami's best years, their fan base was week. You overstate the importance of the fan base, IMO.

 

[huskernut]

Blowing up the program too soon is a real risk, and there are a handful of people here and elsewhere who I agree seem to overlook it. In fact, they seem to desire the drama. Not sure why.

To be clear, there are some on this board who have decided recently or even a while ago that blowing up the program is necessary because they think it is worth that cost. They're not the ones who I think like the drama and I'm fine with them. They've reached a different judgement than I have, but they're not ignorant or a slave to their emotions.

 

[BigRedTrucker]

Frankly, that IS the road Bo has us on...the Colorado path. We are NOT like the Colorado program in any way though, good grief, their fans don't show up for games, don't travel well, and when they do show they are drunk or wasted and ready to cause trouble. The entire program seems to have no one who cares about football...they are even more apathetic than Bo's supporters. The point is, this State has been committed to having an excellent football program, Colorado could care less.

Colorado is also in the position they are in because after firing and buying out the remainder of his contract the only person they could afford was a former player who took the position for next to nothing... DONU is not in this position so the Colorado path is not a good example IMO.

 

[CrabHusker]

Frankly, that IS the road Bo has us on...the Colorado path. We are NOT like the Colorado program in any way though, good grief, their fans don't show up for games, don't travel well, and when they do show they are drunk or wasted and ready to cause trouble. The entire program seems to have no one who cares about football...they are even more apathetic than Bo's supporters. The point is, this State has been committed to having an excellent football program, Colorado could care less.

Couldn't disagree more. We're not a power any more, but were not losing to UC Santa Barbara either. I don't care about their fans, I'm speaking strictly to the product on the field. Fans bring money to the program and little else.....except in their own minds.

 

[Trojan Husker]

Couldn't disagree more. We're not a power any more, but were not losing to UC Santa Barbara either. I don't care about their fans, I'm speaking strictly to the product on the field. Fans bring money to the program and little else.....except in their own minds.

But there are a select few fans who are also boosters. They have some say, and if they're unhappy, then Bo is in trouble. Remember Mike Jacobson's comments?

“If he wants to get off the clock, he's going to have to eliminate the blowouts and he's going to have to get us into a top-10 finish and competing for a national championship,” said longtime booster Mike Jacobson, a bank president from North Platte who in 2012 spent $2.5 million to lease a Memorial Stadium suite for 25 years.

That is from an AP article that previewed the Huskers for this season. And more...

One thing for sure is that the people who are invested in the program financially and emotionally are not lowering their expectations.
“Frankly,” Jacobson said, “if Nebraska doesn't make it to the Big Ten championship, that could be a real problem for Bo.”

Oh boy, here's a great quote from Bo...

“They're going to be playing good football when we kick it off,” Pelini said. “You guys are the ones who are concerned about the defense, not me. We'll be just fine.”

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130809/HUSKERS/130819945

 

[cm husker]

As I recall, Jacobson backed off those comments fairly quickly.

It's also unclear if he was speaking for himself or about what he thought would appease the masses.

Oh well, I guess we'll find out.

 

[Trojan Husker]

As I recall, Jacobson backed off those comments fairly quickly.

It's also unclear if he was speaking for himself or about what he thought would appease the masses.

Oh well, I guess we'll find out.

This is very true. He could be the only booster who felt that way at the time.

But if more boosters are feeling this way at the end of the year (similar to the many posters on this board who have lost their faith in Bo, myself included), then more pressure will be put on Eichorst to make a change.

 

[CrabHusker]

But there are a select few fans who are also boosters. They have some say, and if they're unhappy, then Bo is in trouble. Remember Mike Jacobson's comments?

Like I said. Money. He gets bent out of shape about going 8-5 and watching NU play in the Humanitarian Bowl, he'll have something to say about it. Still doesn't mean the AD makes the right choice.