• 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.

Is honesty not acceptable?

CornhuskerinWI

Red Shirt
To my surprise, this is one of the few posts of yours I don't agree with. I don't hire Mike Leach to come in and dumb down his offense because we don't have the perfect receivers. I don't hire Kyle Wittingham and have him run a softer version of his defense. We hired Frost not only for his name and history, but because he's what many consider an extremely good offensive mind who creates huge challenges for defenses. If he starts trying to be Ferentz, who is going to end up winning that battle?
Exactly. Scotty gotta be Scotty. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

Captkenny

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
HA, in my opinion yes, but that’s only 1 of many reasons why I’m not making those decisions.
I would argue that the lower paid coach has the duty of a good worth ethic same as the higher paid coach. The difference is the school paying the higher amo
-Mo Washington...as you've acknowledged
-Cam Jurgens, early leap and while he was Mr. High Snap
-AM for at least part of the year...no exclusions
-Noa....far more PT/drops but still trotted out- others? not much PT
-Wandale...Mills should've been been the primary RB...SF got WR hurt

It's really not a big deal though (except maybe MW), all coaches have their favorites and non-favorites, for a variety of reasons. To not acknowledge it is just silly. The best players at every position are not always on the field, contrary to popular mythology.
I think you missed the assignment. You can’t just name players and claim they were given preferential treatment. You have to identify their alternate and provide the evidence to support that other person was better then the player SF chose to play.

The “best” player is a subjective call. Not many on this board attend practices and have the talent evaluation experience to second guess SF’s choices. They simply look at the failure of the offense to move the ball and assume the staff is too stupid to realize their best players are stuck on the bench.

Sometimes it happens. Eric Crouch was in that position for a few games. But I’m not convinced yet that SF is playing his inferior players out of favoritism or stupidity.
 

Captkenny

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
Speaking for myself, but I would have like to see LM play even if he isn’t better or the results may have suffered. That guy is a competitor and would have done everything in his power to try and get the W. I am not sure AM’s head is in that same place. I would rather lose with a B level guy giving 100% than an A level guy giving 75%. Not that I think LM is a grade below AM.
I think I would have done the same, at least a few series to see if he could get it done.
 

Captkenny

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
If he's the HC of Nebraska football, a much, much, much, much, much lower standard....no standard at all.
I think the standard should be just as high for both the high paid coach and the lower paid. The difference between the two is not how much effort needs to be put in, but the market in which they work.
 

Greatest Fan of All

The Legend
10 Year Member
I think you missed the assignment. You can’t just name players and claim they were given preferential treatment. You have to identify their alternate and provide the evidence to support that other person was better then the player SF chose to play.

The “best” player is a subjective call. Not many on this board attend practices and have the talent evaluation experience to second guess SF’s choices. They simply look at the failure of the offense to move the ball and assume the staff is too stupid to realize their best players are stuck on the bench.

Sometimes it happens. Eric Crouch was in that position for a few games. But I’m not convinced yet that SF is playing his inferior players out of favoritism or stupidity.
Ah, you want o play a game where only your opinion matters. LOL, you'll be very lonely...but heck, you've built in a phony argument that you've declared always makes you right, so keep playing with yourself.
 
Last edited:

Greatest Fan of All

The Legend
10 Year Member
I think the standard should be just as high for both the high paid coach and the lower paid. The difference between the two is not how much effort needs to be put in, but the market in which they work.
You really like making up rules, don't you? I think greater effort is expected from one holding a job that is paid considerably more. Sure, there is the occasional guy that goes way above and beyond for peanuts...but anyone with a job making $5 million must be going above and beyond at all times...not performing at the level of an average JUCO coach. NOTE: No, before some silly guy says it, I am not saying that SF is performing at the level of a JUCO coach.
 
Last edited:

LarstheRed

Travel Squad
5 Year Member
You really like making up rules, don't you? I think greater effort is expected from one holding a job that is paid considerably more. Sure, there is the occasional guy that goes way above and beyond for peanuts...but anyone with a job making $5 million must be going above and beyond at all times...not performing at the level of an average JUCO coach. NOTE: No, before some silly guy says it, I am not saying that SF is performing at the level of a JUCO coach.
The effort should be the same. The results are expected to be better. Higher salary should equate to strong track record, a successful group of assistants, relationships that add more talent to the staff, a status that can attract quality players. Higher salary doesn’t mean a 70 hour work week, as opposed to a 50 hour one for lower paid.
 

Captkenny

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
Ah, you want o play a game where only your opinion matters. LOL, you'll be very lonely...but heck, you've built in a phony argument that you've declared always makes you right, so keep playing with yourself.
Yeah. I didn’t figure you could meet the challenge. AM might be the best QB or not. But none of us are in a position to truly know. MW may have benefited from favorable treatment or not. Again, most of us don’t have the inside track to know the truth.

As far as my opinion being the only one that matters, far from it. I was suggesting that people may be getting too invested in their own opinions without recognizing its 95% speculation, relying on things they know nothing about.
 

Captkenny

Junior Varsity
10 Year Member
You really like making up rules, don't you? I think greater effort is expected from one holding a job that is paid considerably more. Sure, there is the occasional guy that goes way above and beyond for peanuts...but anyone with a job making $5 million must be going above and beyond at all times...not performing at the level of an average JUCO coach. NOTE: No, before some silly guy says it, I am not saying that SF is performing at the level of a JUCO coach.
I didn’t think I was making a controversial rule or making a rule at all. All I said was if you get hired as a head coach, whether it’s at a small school with a low salary, or a big school with a huge salary, you should have a good work ethic.

But you’ve raised my consciousness. I may have to rethink my assumptions. Maybe lower paid coaches shouldn’t be expected to work as hard to turn their programs into successful ones.
 

Bigger Ed

Red Shirt
2 Year Member
The effort should be the same. The results are expected to be better. Higher salary should equate to strong track record, a successful group of assistants, relationships that add more talent to the staff, a status that can attract quality players. Higher salary doesn’t mean a 70 hour work week, as opposed to a 50 hour one for lower paid.
How do you suppose the $100K coach establishes a strong track record, nutures a successful group of assistants, garners relationships with talented staff, acquires the status to attract quality recruits? He works like a $5M coach. You can't shoehorn maximum effort into a minimum work week.
 
Last edited:
I

inthedeed

Guest
judging by all conference team selections we need of more talent. conference recognition aside for instance where does our right tackle or left guard or inside linebacker, ect rank in relation to other big ten players. we mostly just need more and better. more and better will fix alot
 

huskermike

Cyber Traveler
10 Year Member
The underlined is spot on. The best Husker example that comes to mind is how HCTO handled Frazier and Bollinger. Brooke had limited opportunity to be the starter of a college football team but a stand up opportunity to play in the NFL. If Coach Osborn doesn't sell the opportunity beyond college to Bollinger then we may have had different results in the 90's.
Ahh, don't you mean Berringer & Osborne? :Smile:
 

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
LOL we live in the era of individualized sports coaching. If we need to, I’d expect the staff to offer individualized X and Os tutoring.

Heck - we might want to buy everybody on the roster their very own tackling robot.
Except for the QB's, they are not allowed to get third party coaching.



C
 
Top