What Trev Alberts had to say about Frost and staff a year ago

[XCHusker]

Someone else responded in this exact same manner and I answered it. Guessing you didn't read the entire thread. Winning comes from stability, not vice versa. We haven't been able to win consistently for many years and the common denominator in those years is a constant change in leadership. I'd rather stick with a guy who might be losing right now, but has rhe football IQ to figure it out with time, rather than keep firing guys every 3 years. How's that worked out for us so far? We've tried that formula for the last 20 years. Maybe let's just give Scott the next 20 years and see what happens. Can't get any worse. Stability breeds winning. They go hand in hand. They are mutually inclusive of each other. I'm a head coach, so I bring a tad bit of knowledge in that area to the table.

That's always easy to say looking back. At the time, a lot of fans were on board. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm a head coach myself so I also bring knowledge to the table. My teams have won two state titles in the last three years but if I started putting out a piss poor losing product I wouldn't get 5 years much less 20 and that's at the high school level. Come on man, be realistic. So by that rationale we should have kept Riley or Callahan around for 20 years no matter what the record because "stability." Frost may turn out to be the right guy for this job (fingers crossed) but nobody in the world of big time college football will (or should) get to keep their job with 4 or 5 straight losing seasons.

 

[solesrfr]

Someone else responded in this exact same manner and I answered it. Guessing you didn't read the entire thread. Winning comes from stability, not vice versa. We haven't been able to win consistently for many years and the common denominator in those years is a constant change in leadership. I'd rather stick with a guy who might be losing right now, but has rhe football IQ to figure it out with time, rather than keep firing guys every 3 years. How's that worked out for us so far? We've tried that formula for the last 20 years. Maybe let's just give Scott the next 20 years and see what happens. Can't get any worse. Stability breeds winning. They go hand in hand. They are mutually inclusive of each other. I'm a head coach, so I bring a tad bit of knowledge in that area to the table.

That's always easy to say looking back. At the time, a lot of fans were on board. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Every three years? One coach got fired after three. Maybe you are confusing NU with another program.

But hey, if SF posts up 15 losing seasons in a row give him 5 more because the stability will help him figure it out.



C

 

[NY Husker]

I'm a head coach myself so I also bring knowledge to the table. My teams have won two state titles in the last three years but if I started putting out a piss poor losing product I wouldn't get 5 years much less 20 and that's at the high school level. Come on man, be realistic. So by that rationale we should have kept Riley or Callahan around for 20 years no matter what the record because "stability." Frost may turn out to be the right guy for this job (fingers crossed) but nobody in the world of big time college football will (or should) get to keep their job with 4 or 5 straight losing seasons.

Ugh, oh boy. You completely missed the point. Thanks for your bio though.

 

[NY Husker]

Every three years? One coach got fired after three. Maybe you are confusing NU with another program.

But hey, if SF posts up 15 losing seasons in a row give him 5 more because the stability will help him figure it out.



C

I said 3 and I probably should have said 3-5. I never said anything about 15 or 5. I was speaking to the general theme of stability. Sheesh. Talk about picking apart smaller details in lieu of the more larger theme. I'm fast beginning to realize the posters around here who just want to constantly attack people's posts. I've never understood that keyboard warrior mentality, but whatever. Lol I have bigger fish to fry. Take care bud.

 

[solesrfr]

I said 3 and I probably should have said 3-5. I never said anything about 15 or 5. I was speaking to the general theme of stability. Sheesh. Talk about picking apart smaller details in lieu of the more larger theme. I'm fast beginning to realize the posters around here who just want to constantly attack people's posts. I've never understood that keyboard warrior mentality, but whatever. Lol I have bigger fish to fry. Take care bud.

Okay, changing the parameters adds one more coach. I agree that BC and MR, both of whom had winning seasons should have gotten more time. Bo and Frank got more than 5.

And sorry, I thought you said 20 years. 15 plus 5 is 20.

For the record, not attacking. I just disagree with the idea that NU has been a coaching carousel and that you ride a losing pony to the detriment of the program. Of course the last is irrelevant since NU shocks the world this year.


C

 

[NY Husker]

Okay, changing the parameters adds one more coach. I agree that BC and MR, both of whom had winning seasons should have gotten more time. Bo and Frank got more than 5.

And sorry, I thought you said 20 years. 15 plus 5 is 20.

For the record, not attacking. I just disagree with the idea that NU has been a coaching carousel and that you ride a losing pony to the detriment of the program. Of course the last is irrelevant since NU shocks the world this year.


C

Not a coaching carousel? We are on our 5th coach now during the last 20 years. That's an average of 1 every 4 years. I'd say that qualifies as a carousel. Byrne was AD when Solich became coach, then Pederson, Osborne, Eichorst, Rimington for interim, Moos, and now Trev. Again, 6 or 7 in 20 years or so.

I also never said you ride a losing coach for 20 years. I never used the word "losing" to describe Frost over the next 20 years. You did. I said I'd rather give a guy 20 years who might be losing RIGHT NOW. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that, but it seemed to make sense to me in rereading what I wrote. Your assumption was that he would keep losing for the next 20. I said "stability breeds winning" and over 20 years, a guy of Frost's caliber would figure it out. So let's say he ends up winning 7, 8, 9, 10 or more games every year from year 5-20, with no national titles. I'd rather keep keep that guy and the wins and the stability, and let him figure it out eventually, like TO did in year 23, than to fire him and repeat the process again, setting us back again, and more than likely developing a stretch of losing seasons again. Stability!

 

[Frosty1980]

Not a coaching carousel? We are on our 5th coach now during the last 20 years. That's an average of 1 every 4 years. I'd say that qualifies as a carousel. Byrne was AD when Solich became coach, then Pederson, Osborne, Eichorst, Rimington for interim, Moos, and now Trev. Again, 6 or 7 in 20 years or so.

I also never said you ride a losing coach for 20 years. I never used the word "losing" to describe Frost over the next 20 years. You did. I said I'd rather give a guy 20 years who might be losing RIGHT NOW. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that, but it seemed to make sense to me in rereading what I wrote. Your assumption was that he would keep losing for the next 20. I said "stability breeds winning" and over 20 years, a guy of Frost's caliber would figure it out. So let's say he ends up winning 7, 8, 9, 10 or more games every year from year 5-20, with no national titles. I'd rather keep keep that guy and the wins and the stability, and let him figure it out eventually, like TO did in year 23, than to fire him and repeat the process again, setting us back again, and more than likely developing a stretch of losing seasons again. Stability!

I agree stability brings success. I don’t think it’s been that long. Granted Pelini didn’t win at the level some of us hoped but for seven years he had a consistent winning program. We’re really only talking about the last six years when we reference a losing culture. I do think Frost gets this turned around. I think Frost is a really smart coach. I also believe the damage Riley did can’t be understated. Our offensive and defensive lines have completely been rebuilt with a totally different kind of player. This will be the season that pays off! GBR!!!!

 

[NeroFakesThePitch]

BC and MR, both of whom had winning seasons should have gotten more time.

Ok, C.

 

[Frosty1980]

Okay, changing the parameters adds one more coach. I agree that BC and MR, both of whom had winning seasons should have gotten more time. Bo and Frank got more than 5.

And sorry, I thought you said 20 years. 15 plus 5 is 20.

For the record, not attacking. I just disagree with the idea that NU has been a coaching carousel and that you ride a losing pony to the detriment of the program. Of course the last is irrelevant since NU shocks the world this year.


C

What the heck you been drinking???

 

[NY Husker]

Ok, C.

View attachment 68230

Riley got 3 more seasons here than he should have. Dude should have never even been able to sniff this job, much less actually get it.

 

[Cannon Fodder Husker]

Someone else responded in this exact same manner and I answered it. Guessing you didn't read the entire thread. Winning comes from stability, not vice versa. We haven't been able to win consistently for many years and the common denominator in those years is a constant change in leadership. I'd rather stick with a guy who might be losing right now, but has rhe football IQ to figure it out with time, rather than keep firing guys every 3 years. How's that worked out for us so far? We've tried that formula for the last 20 years. Maybe let's just give Scott the next 20 years and see what happens. Can't get any worse. Stability breeds winning. They go hand in hand. They are mutually inclusive of each other. I'm a head coach, so I bring a tad bit of knowledge in that area to the table.

That's always easy to say looking back. At the time, a lot of fans were on board. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I'm a big fan of giving Frost adequate time, because I do think stability is important, once you have the right guy in charge. I would say stability can help support winning, but winning comes from doing things fundamentally sound, a relevant vision of success, and the detailed planning, support and action plan to make the vision a reality. Sure, giving coaches time helps give them room to figure things out, but if a coach isn't on the right path generally time isn't going to fix it. All of our recent coaches were deficient in some of these areas, which subsequently led to their failure and termination, thus the "coaching carousel". Higher head coach salaries don't help the matter, either. You aren't going to pay a guy $3-5 million and let him languish forever while he is trying to figure things out. The proven fact is that a head coach in college football has a limited time window to turn a program around when he takes over. He will generally be able to recruit ok the first 3 or 4 years while selling his vision to recruits, but after that results must come, or the recruiting suffers and starts the coach/program on a downward trend that in many cases the coach can't correct. Even Frost will not get forever to rebuild Husker football, nor should he. It will be evident in the next couple years whether or not he has the ability to turn the program around. I hope he starts showing progress this year, because if he gets it figured out it's highly likely he will be here for 20 years, and we WILL get the stability that we seek.

 

[NY Husker]

I'm a big fan of giving Frost adequate time, because I do think stability is important, once you have the right guy in charge. I would say stability can help support winning, but winning comes from doing things fundamentally sound, a relevant vision of success, and the detailed planning, support and action plan to make the vision a reality. Sure, giving coaches time helps give them room to figure things out, but if a coach isn't on the right path generally time isn't going to fix it. All of our recent coaches were deficient in some of these areas, which subsequently led to their failure and termination, thus the "coaching carousel". Higher head coach salaries don't help the matter, either. You aren't going to pay a guy $3-5 million and let him languish forever while he is trying to figure things out. The proven fact is that a head coach in college football has a limited time window to turn a program around when he takes over. He will generally be able to recruit ok the first 3 or 4 years while selling his vision to recruits, but after that results must come, or the recruiting suffers and starts the coach/program on a downward trend that in many cases the coach can't correct. Even Frost will not get forever to rebuild Husker football, nor should he. It will be evident in the next couple years whether or not he has the ability to turn the program around. I hope he starts showing progress this year, because if he gets it figured out it's highly likely he will be here for 20 years, and we WILL get the stability that we seek.

I don't disagree with any of that and stated nothing to the contrary. It's only been 3 years since the start of maybe the most elaborate rebuild in the history of college football, so I don't really understand why people are already clamoring for his job.

 

[Cannon Fodder Husker]

I don't disagree with any of that and stated nothing to the contrary. It's only been 3 years since the start of maybe the most elaborate rebuild in the history of college football, so I don't really understand why people are already clamoring for his job.

I really don't think many want Frost fired right now, they just want to see progress. I think if he shows some positive momentum, and evidence of improvement on the field, people will be willing to give him quite a bit of time, and he will still be able to recruit well enough to avoid the downward spiral in talent. I've always said that Frost should get at least 5 years, no matter what. If Frost shows progress in year 4 and 5, then I'm in favor of giving him more time. If Frost CAN show progress, IMO a long term investment in him will pay off, because I don't think there is another coach we could have hired that will stay around for a decade or two because of his love for the program and the State....And for the record, I think Bill Snyder's build/rebuild of KSU was a lot tougher than what Frost is facing, but that discussion is for another time......

 

[NY Husker]

I really don't think many want Frost fired right now, they just want to see progress. I think if he shows some positive momentum, and evidence of improvement on the field, people will be willing to give him quite a bit of time, and he will still be able to recruit well enough to avoid the downward spiral in talent. I've always said that Frost should get at least 5 years, no matter what. If Frost shows progress in year 4 and 5, then I'm in favor of giving him more time. If Frost CAN show progress, IMO a long term investment in him will pay off, because I don't think there is another coach we could have hired that will stay around for a decade or two because of his love for the program and the State....And for the record, I think Bill Snyder's build/rebuild of KSU was a lot tougher than what Frost is facing, but that discussion is for another time......

Snyder's was a build, not a rebuild. That's the difference. The rest of your post I completely agree with, so I don't think we have any opposing views on this matter.

 

[solesrfr]

Not a coaching carousel? We are on our 5th coach now during the last 20 years. That's an average of 1 every 4 years. I'd say that qualifies as a carousel. Byrne was AD when Solich became coach, then Pederson, Osborne, Eichorst, Rimington for interim, Moos, and now Trev. Again, 6 or 7 in 20 years or so.

I also never said you ride a losing coach for 20 years. I never used the word "losing" to describe Frost over the next 20 years. You did. I said I'd rather give a guy 20 years who might be losing RIGHT NOW. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that, but it seemed to make sense to me in rereading what I wrote. Your assumption was that he would keep losing for the next 20. I said "stability breeds winning" and over 20 years, a guy of Frost's caliber would figure it out. So let's say he ends up winning 7, 8, 9, 10 or more games every year from year 5-20, with no national titles. I'd rather keep keep that guy and the wins and the stability, and let him figure it out eventually, like TO did in year 23, than to fire him and repeat the process again, setting us back again, and more than likely developing a stretch of losing seasons again. Stability!

If he is winning sure keep him for the long haul. Two more losing seasons and it may be time to look elsewhere.


C