• 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.

DiNardo on Scott Frost

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3570
  • Start date

Hu5k3r

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
It's healthy to constantly look into the driving force of success and failure in your work. Rejection of self introspection is self capitulation.
agreed, but it's not our work. well, at least it's not mine.
 

FBsWithNoNecks

Recruit
2 Year Member
If you watched the post game presser on Saturday night Frost talked about this. About coaching with no fear of failure. How him and the coaches need to not just preach it but do it so the players also live it. That is why he stayed aggressive with the ball and 40 seconds left before half. Basically saying they coached the second half of the game in Boulder to not lose. Where he preaches coaching to win
 

Huskerthom

All Legend
5 Year Member
If you watched the post game presser on Saturday night Frost talked about this. About coaching with no fear of failure. How him and the coaches need to not just preach it but do it so the players also live it. That is why he stayed aggressive with the ball and 40 seconds left before half. Basically saying they coached the second half of the game in Boulder to not lose. Where he preaches coaching to win
I picked up on that. It seemed the way he said it that some of the coaches talked to him about it after the CO game.
 
Came across this tweet today. Not a fan of DiNardo and I'm not really sure what he's referring to here because he doesn't really explain in detail. Kind of left up to the listener to translate on their own. Just thought it was interesting.

First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
Wow, you got a little more out of his blurb than I did. I do get what you are saying though. I coached HS football for 20 years all as an assistant and most of it as a 9th grade assistant. I never really wanted to move up because I knew the time commitment and wasn't willing to give that time. Coaching 9th grade allowed me to still do the thing I loved and not have my whole weekend consumed with prep for the next game. I didn't want to break down film and be working on a game plan all day Sunday. We played on Thursday night and if Norfolk wasn't home on Friday I didn't even go to the varsity game.

Football is a time consuming thing for coaches, I can't even imagine how much time a college coach puts into every thing. Being super successful at anything requires a huge time commitment and requires an obsessiveness I just don't possess. But, like you said does anyone really care how many games you won or how much money you made on your death bed. Especially if it came at the expense of family and other loved ones.
 

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
MABC, when you use the term Faustian, I'm assuming you're referring to Gerry Faust, right?
 

The Nth Degree

Scout Team
10 Year Member
... What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football...
Great post/perspective MABC! Personally I think your interpretation of DiNardo's comments is spot on.

While I truly believe that Scott Frost is the right guy to get Nebraska football back to some level of relevancy, I also believe that Scott maintaining his core values (while pursing the level of winning of Husker lore) will be a tremendous stretch/growth opportunity for him.

It will be a very interesting and fun journey (in leadership, culture, and work/life balance) to watch and learn from.
 

AzHusker

All Big 10
10 Year Member
First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
So much good information in this post MABC. I've never known anything about Saban, his father, etc., so looked him up. There's a bunch more to these guys than meets the eye, it seems.

 

FBsWithNoNecks

Recruit
2 Year Member
First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
It's crazy because I think about something Frost said about night games in one of the press conferences this week. He hates them because he likes to play early, go home and spend time with family and get some rest. I think he said "guess I'll sleep later". Cant imagine Belichick..Saban..Jimmie Johnson saying that. I also think it's a good trait.
 
So much good information in this post MABC. I've never known anything about Saban, his father, etc., so looked him up. There's a bunch more to these guys than meets the eye, it seems.

If you're interested enough to post that article, you'd find this biography of Saban fascinating. He's a gifted but tortured soul. After reading the book I actually root for him to win NCs because he's got so much hollow emptiness to fill.


[Edit: I just noticed that the book I linked above is in the picture of the Saban memorabilia that was in the article. Also, fwiw, the article focuses solely on Nick, Sr.'s positive side. You can guess it by looking for it in there, but it doesn't come out and mention that he was a demanding perfectionist who was obsessively relentless with everything Nick, Jr., ever did ... and he wasn't very big on praise and encouragement. Reading that book helped me to not understand a lot more about who Nick Saban is, but why it's okay to be a football coach and to settle for not being like him. I truly pity the guy, even though all he does is win and make millions of dollars. He's a walking, talking empty bag of success who will forever feel hollow on the inside unless he has a spiritual rebirth.]
 
Last edited:

Elwood von Kiowa

Grad Assistant
5 Year Member
Great post/perspective MABC! Personally I think your interpretation of DiNardo's comments is spot on.

While I truly believe that Scott Frost is the right guy to get Nebraska football back to some level of relevancy, I also believe that Scott maintaining his core values (while pursing the level of winning of Husker lore) will be a tremendous stretch/growth opportunity for him.

It will be a very interesting and fun journey (in leadership, culture, and work/life balance) to watch and learn from.
And, I think that may have been the biggest part of his struggle in whether or not to take the Nebraska job. So much easier to maintain work-life balance at UCF, where the demands from the fan base, culture, etc are so much lower.
 

Elwood von Kiowa

Grad Assistant
5 Year Member
First of all, this is an excellent thread topic in my opinion because I wouldn't have seen this otherwise, it's very interesting, and it's something that hasn't been discussed much in a positive way on HM (as far as I've seen, anyway). Thanks for posting it.

Unlike others, apparently, I do value DiNardo's opinion. I'm not as much interested in his analysis of the X's and O's of coaching football, but he's incredibly knowledgeable about the life and the mindset of coaching football. What's probably the most impressive thing about him is that he freely admits when he has been wrong, and he will change his opinion when confronted with new facts that conflict with his old opinion(s). Most commentators won't do that because pride issues tend to lead to them digging in. His record as a head football coach only tells us how successful he was at winning as a head coach at those schools at those times; that tells us very little about whether or not he understands an infinite number of other things about football. His talking about core values and the mindset and focus of being a coach is probably his greatest strength as an analyst. It would be unwise to discard what he's saying here.

With that said, I'm not sure that he's specifically looking at one area or coach in mind as far as what he's saying. It's easy for even the most ignorant football fan to look at the 4th quarter meltdown in Boulder and see that that sort of thing shouldn't have happened. To his credit, DiNardo didn't dive into the details and start pointing fingers, assigning blame, suggesting changes, etc. He's looking at the big picture, and he's saying that Scott Frost is the type of coach who should be and will be a winner, but there are some things that aren't right, yet, and the Colorado game will force him to look everywhere and at everything to address any potential weakness.

Is it possible to be a consistent championship level college football coach without having a hellish personal life and OCD tendencies that make you borderline psychopathic? It's a sincere question. I like to read the biographies of successful coaches, including coaches at every level of football. What I see is that most of the coaches who have been praised for their most dominating teams were OCD @$$holes who had little else in their lives of merit outside of winning football games. According to rumors, Jimmy Johnson's marriage was already on the ropes going into his first Super Bowl, and he didn't like the distraction of it, so he told his wife to hit the road because he had to be fully focused on coaching football. He won the game, but he lost at life. It's a Faustian pact that many coaches are willing to make, and if they're good enough coaches, it pays off eventually with wins ... but it costs in the relationships with your families and all of those around you who you supposedly love. I'm sure that it's borderline treasonous to bring him up as anything more than a horrible human being, but this is exactly what Bill McCartney was pointing at when he retired from coaching at Colorado to spend more time with his family. His daughter had had two pregnancies with his football players, which is a Freudian level example of a football coach's daughter's attempt to gain her father's attention. He also said that he looked into his wife's face and saw the years of pain that he had inflicted on her, and he wanted to stop and give back to her before it was too late. His wife died a few years back, and now McCartney's own death is not too far away, so I hope that he got what he sought while reconciling with her. Tom Osborne retired in '97, and it was mainly attributed to health problems, but he repeatedly, continually made mention in interviews to how Nancy had had to raise their children on her own because he was always working, and he didn't want to miss out on family life anymore.

Who is considered the best coach in the NFL now, possibly ever? Bill Belichick is as OCD as they come, and he'll never stay married unless his wife understands that she comes second, and she has to be okay with that. I don't care how fanatical you are about football, if you can't grasp that winning football games is little comfort on your death bed when/if you're looking into the eyes of those you should have loved, there's something missing in your soul, and you need to address it.

Nick Saban is possibly more OCD than Bill Belichick. From the outside and from those who are closest to him, he and his wife have a strong, happy marriage ... yet he's a tortured soul. His father was a world-class @$$hole, and it has affected every area of Saban's life. He's the most successful coach in college football history, but everybody who writes about him and knows him--and that's especially true of those who've known him since childhood--says that he'll never live up to the standards necessary for his long-dead father's approval because Saban and reality both point to the fact that even "perfection" probably wouldn't have met the necessary standards to win his father's approval. The one thing more harsh than a demanding tyrannical father is a dead demanding, tyrannical father who can't take back the horrible things that were said and done.


Why am I rambling about all of this in a thread about DiNardo's comments about Scott Frost? Because the conundrum of what is sacrificed to be a championship level football coach is often what it is that makes life meaningful; DiNardo knows that. When he referred, repeatedly, to Frost's "core values"--how many times did he use that phrase, and how many times did he immediately follow up the mention with saying how they shouldn't change?--he was talking about how Frost and his staff believe that faith and family must come before football. They're all united in that belief, and it oozes out of them in almost any context when you're having conversations with them about how important football is in comparison to every other area of life. What DiNardo knows, but didn't say, is that Nebraska probably would have won the Colorado game if Frost and his staff were more obsessive about the details--and that means more time spent on football, which necessarily means less time spent with family--but that that compromise would go against Frost and staff's core values, which is family before football.

Not all successful football coaches are @$$holes, and that's true at every level, but it's ridiculous to say the opposite: that there isn't a strong correlation. What about successful coaches who are NOT @$$holes? Well, there aren't a lot, to start with, and they tended to thrive in special and unique circumstances. We'll never see another Tom Osborne. Tony Dungy had a guy named "Peyton Manning" at QB, and that smoothed over a few things. Mack Brown had all of the resources of the entire state of Texas at his disposal, and he was adept at hiring excellent assistants to do the heavy lifting for him. (This is a frequent pattern, by the way.) Bud Grant had one of the best D-lines in history in an era when there wasn't free agency. Tom Landry had roughly the same advantages of Dungy and Grant, combined. Bobby Bowden had the most ambitious and talented assistants, and he was often able to put family first because they didn't, plus he had more talent than almost anyone else; Mack Brown followed the Bobby Bowden Plan. Then there's those who burned out.

Dick Vermeil is one of a kind, and he had everything necessary to win at the highest level ... but his heart couldn't sustain it. He would occasionally be overcome with the realization that he had made compromises, and it tore him apart on the inside. He was famous for crying frequently and publicly. He twice retired from coaching while at the pinnacle of his success, only to decide to come back again later after he'd nourished his body, health, and soul back to good condition, yet missed the call of coaching football. It's not as dramatic as Vermeil, but I think that Pete Carroll struggles with the same issue of making compromises and finding a healthy balance. I have had the good fortune of befriending Brian Hansen through South Dakota FCA, and I once asked him who were his former coaches who had most cared about his players and tried to do the right thing by them; he said that it was Pete Carroll, without question, and when you look at the names and numbers of coaches that Hansen had, that's a significant statement. Carroll was out of coaching for some time before taking the USC job, where--like Brown at Texas--he had a level of support and resources that made success sustainable without having to go to the ruthless levels of others, plus he could follow the Bobby Bowden Plan of hiring top-flight assistants who did the heavy lifting when he wanted to go home.


Where does Scott Frost fit into all of this? I think that that is the question that DiNardo is asking, and I think that he's as curious as the rest of us to see what the answer is. I think that Frost has a lot of similarities to Dabo Swinney, and that's a good thing, but Clemson has more talent nearby than Nebraska could even fantasize to have. Also, Dabo is also following the Bobby Bowden Plan, and it's not part of the Scott Frost Plan to have assistants who work harder than you do, especially when it's to their own detriment. How does a guy like Frost cover all of the things necessary, along with his staff, in order to win at the highest level, but do so without compromising the things in life that we carry with us into eternity? That's what DiNardo is talking about, in my opinion. I'm intrigued to find out.

Personally, I'd rather be "successful" in life in terms of my marriage and as a father than I'd prefer to be "successful" as defined by winning a lot of football games.... For what it's worth, I think that it's fair to say that both my family and my coaching record reflect this.
Can we make this post a sticky?
 
Top