• 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 .

Cost and opportunity cost

The Nth Degree said:
Many great points in this thread.

As far as the OP goes, spot on perspective. In business, the most successful leaders are committed to the success of the organization, and the organization’s mission. And while their workforce are their most valuable asset, that also means that they must make difficult decisions when individuals are failing to meet/exceed expectations.

For those individuals that you value for reasons other than performance and you’ve tried “everything” to help them in their current position, sometimes the best you can do is reassign them to a role that’s better suited for them… or part ways.

Our Huskers have been a very interesting (albeit frustrating) study in Leadership and Culture.

I agree that Alberts has difficult decisions to make. I’m thinking that TA may feel that Frost needs a chance to meet/exceed specific goals/expectations that he sets for him. Especially if he feels that Frost did not have the appropriate systems/structures in place under Moos. I recall TA making comments to this effect.

So, from the C-Suite perspective I think that Trev uses his first year (or less) to assess and establish baseline measures for his expectations of Frost. Than he’ll assess Frost’s ability to meet/exceed those expectations now that Frost has the systems/structures and guidance/support from the AD that Alberts feels was needed.

After all that, we’ll see the results/improvements… whether those improvements are with or without Frost as head coach remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
This seems fair and probably accurate on how it will go down. We are all pissed and of course want heads to roll. Trev is the only person in a position to know what Frost is really doing. I will trust whatever Trev decides.
 

djlhuskerfan said:
Four years in and we still are young. That in itself speaks to the staff not developing players properly especially on offensive line.
Click to expand...
And yet, our more experienced OT (Benhart) is replaced by a younger OT (Prochazka) who seemed to perform better in his short time playing before injury. So, the causality between being young and our performance can only be taken so far, IMO.
 
The Nth Degree said:
Many great points in this thread.

As far as the OP goes, spot on perspective. In business, the most successful leaders are committed to the success of the organization, and the organization’s mission. And while their workforce are their most valuable asset, that also means that they must make difficult decisions when individuals are failing to meet/exceed expectations.

For those individuals that you value for reasons other than performance and you’ve tried “everything” to help them in their current position, sometimes the best you can do is reassign them to a role that’s better suited for them… or part ways.

Our Huskers have been a very interesting (albeit frustrating) study in Leadership and Culture.

I agree that Alberts has difficult decisions to make. I’m thinking that TA may feel that Frost needs a chance to meet/exceed specific goals/expectations that he sets for him. Especially if he feels that Frost did not have the appropriate systems/structures in place under Moos. I recall TA making comments to this effect.

So, from the C-Suite perspective I think that Trev uses his first year (or less) to assess and establish baseline measures for his expectations of Frost. Than he’ll assess Frost’s ability to meet/exceed those expectations now that Frost has the systems/structures and guidance/support from the AD that Alberts feels was needed.

After all that, we’ll see the results/improvements… whether those improvements are with or without Frost as head coach remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. Also Trev comes from a culture where his HC gave people another chance, and that's why I think we see HCSF return with some benchmarks to define what progress/decline look like from Trev's perspective and then if we see the same next year...then we move on...do I think we'll see the same, nothing tells me anything different. Frost has to change and hold people accountable other than spouting the same drivel each press conference. Continued mistakes should result in coaches/players being reevaluated...if there are no repercussions for continued fumbles, missed blocks, penalties and other failures to execute the game plan, then we'll continue to see what we've continued to see...less than mediocrity

I really want Scott to succeed, but he's going to have to realize the need to change. it's something all leaders have to assess, themselves...I have had to do it and it can be painful to realize the issue might be the person in the mirror, but not accepting that, will result in him being removed either this/next year
 



WestTexasHusker said:
Too many times, we as humans count "cost" without considering "opportunity cost". I had to replace a long-time manager for me recently, who has been very loyal to our company. The problem is, the store that this manager is at is in decline and has been for about three years. I could chalk it up to COVID, but the remainder of our stores have outpaced the growth of this store significantly.

So do I leave the manager in place because (s)he is a good person and a long time employee, knowing that it is costing the rest of the team, our customers, and our bottom line? I figure it's costing me $75K a year to look the other way on this, just in pure dollars.

So here we are in year 4 of Scott Frost. Everyone knows the record. And everyone knows Scott is a good guy and Nebraska legend. The cost of getting rid of him is $20 million. And the idea of firing him is most distasteful. And there is the chance - 50/50 perhaps, that his successor will have the same record after 4 years.

But do you continue on down this path because it "might" work out, his successor "might" be just as bad, and we have to come up with 20 large? On the other hand, what is the opportunity cost by not attempting to better the program with a change? What about season tickets, merchandise sales, prime time TV, declining recruiting?

These are weighty decisions for Trev Alberts. I just wish Scott could have beaten Illinois and Minny to toss him a dog bone. If I am Trev, I am thinking "Come on, man, I mean I get you losing to top 20 programs, but can you lend me a hand here with the lessor opponents? Help me help you!?"
Click to expand...

How much was the buyout for the manager you had to let go? Was it "20 large" or was it real money? Were you able to fund the buyout with someone else's money, or did you have to pull it from your own pockets? Just wondering. ;)
 
Captkenny said:
How much was the buyout for the manager you had to let go? Was it "20 large" or was it real money? Were you able to fund the buyout with someone else's money, or did you have to pull it from your own pockets? Just wondering. ;)
Click to expand...

Never said there wasn’t a cost to firing frost. Re-read the post.
 
WestTexasHusker said:
Too many times, we as humans count "cost" without considering "opportunity cost". I had to replace a long-time manager for me recently, who has been very loyal to our company. The problem is, the store that this manager is at is in decline and has been for about three years. I could chalk it up to COVID, but the remainder of our stores have outpaced the growth of this store significantly.

So do I leave the manager in place because (s)he is a good person and a long time employee, knowing that it is costing the rest of the team, our customers, and our bottom line? I figure it's costing me $75K a year to look the other way on this, just in pure dollars.

So here we are in year 4 of Scott Frost. Everyone knows the record. And everyone knows Scott is a good guy and Nebraska legend. The cost of getting rid of him is $20 million. And the idea of firing him is most distasteful. And there is the chance - 50/50 perhaps, that his successor will have the same record after 4 years.

But do you continue on down this path because it "might" work out, his successor "might" be just as bad, and we have to come up with 20 large? On the other hand, what is the opportunity cost by not attempting to better the program with a change? What about season tickets, merchandise sales, prime time TV, declining recruiting?

These are weighty decisions for Trev Alberts. I just wish Scott could have beaten Illinois and Minny to toss him a dog bone. If I am Trev, I am thinking "Come on, man, I mean I get you losing to top 20 programs, but can you lend me a hand here with the lessor opponents? Help me help you!?"
Click to expand...
Or you put your employee on development plan to get them back on track?

I think Scott needs to be corrected and trained but has the tools to be a good coach for us- he’s just not going to get there by trying to love our way to wins or staying loyal to Certain players to the detriment of the team. Most all great coaches make changes and don’t hesitate to do so - Tua for Hurts, Williams for Rattler - Ryan Day taking play call duties away from his DC after 3 games - Scott is loyal to a fault to his coaches and players and the best coaches make changes when necessary- quickly

this quote was from Dabo Swinney today on ESPN , "but I do know some of the greatest coaches we've ever had weren't good early or maybe the consistency wasn't there. It's a tough business."

Frost will figure it out - he needs guidance and help quick or he’ll end up figuring it out at a different school years from now but he has to change ASAP or he’s gone.
 
Dotsee said:
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. Also Trev comes from a culture where his HC gave people another chance, and that's why I think we see HCSF return with some benchmarks to define what progress/decline look like from Trev's perspective and then if we see the same next year...then we move on...do I think we'll see the same, nothing tells me anything different. Frost has to change and hold people accountable other than spouting the same drivel each press conference. Continued mistakes should result in coaches/players being reevaluated...if there are no repercussions for continued fumbles, missed blocks, penalties and other failures to execute the game plan, then we'll continue to see what we've continued to see...less than mediocrity

I really want Scott to succeed, but he's going to have to realize the need to change. it's something all leaders have to assess, themselves...I have had to do it and it can be painful to realize the issue might be the person in the mirror, but not accepting that, will result in him being removed either this/next year
Click to expand...
Again, what about recruiting?
 




Husker In Oklahoma said:
Again, what about recruiting?
Click to expand...
And what about revenue? And keeping boosters (and other fans of less impressive means) happy? I don’t think it’s as easy as giving a favorite son that ol’ Nebraska second chance, since it has such wide-ranging impact. I almost feel sorry for Trev for having to step into this situation totally not of his own making. We’ll see what he’s made of soon enough, I guess…
 
Let me get this straight. So we have a 5 million a year 6th year head coach that needs to be taught how to be a head coach? How to get things done? How to evaulate staffing and players? How to recruit the players he needs to win. So exactly WTH are we exactly getting for spending a hell of a lot of money?
 
Why haven't colleges gotten smart and starting paying these HC's in a way to make them put some skin in the game. For example, pay 1 million a year and a certain amount extra to win a game. The more games you win, the more you get paid. Add bonuses for graduation rates, academic all-americans, etc. Program doesn't make a bowl game, rules violation, etc. there are consequences. It seems insane that Frost would be owed so much money for being a failure.

Yet these are Colleges where the brightest minds are supposed to be.......
 
BigRedFox said:
Why haven't colleges gotten smart and starting paying these HC's in a way to make them put some skin in the game. For example, pay 1 million a year and a certain amount extra to win a game. The more games you win, the more you get paid. Add bonuses for graduation rates, academic all-americans, etc. Program doesn't make a bowl game, rules violation, etc. there are consequences. It seems insane that Frost would be owed so much money for being a failure.

Yet these are Colleges where the brightest minds are supposed to be.......
Click to expand...
I have wondered the same for a long time. I guess demand for good coaching is so strong it prohibits the more sensible compensation model you are suggesting. Free market.
 



AlaskaCorn said:
I have wondered the same for a long time. I guess demand for good coaching is so strong it prohibits the more sensible compensation model you are suggesting. Free market.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but in reality there are only a handful of coaches that can command the wages all of these coaches are making. It really has gotten out of hand. The coach at Kearney State is making peanuts compared to Frost, but probably wouldn't have any worse of a record at Nebraska this season.
 
HCSF And AM Have one common theme when interviewed about the losses they say we just have to fix the little things no they are a huge things and the only little things we need to fix is to get rid of both of them on a positive note the OP’s Original post is one of the most insightful posts that I’ve read in this forum including my own ha ha
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top