[Husker] Character

[Andrew Smith]

Bob Beach wrote:

>>>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>>
>>>On 2/26/2005 at 1:51 PM Andrew Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>You claim that "the reason he was here for 25 years is because he won
>>>football games and not because he was a great man" is equally extreme and
>>>false.  Had he not been viewed as an honorable man, it is quite likely
>>>that he would have been ousted as coach some time prior to 1993.
>>>      
>>>
>It is not extreme and false.  It is the truth.  I don't necessarily believe winning is the only reason but it is the over riding reason.  We, obviously, we will never know but I find it very difficult to believe TO, or any coach in an upper level college program, would last 25 years just because they have character.  They are going to have to win as well.  I am not sure where you get the last comment Osborne would have been ousted had he not been an honorable man.  TO never won less than nine games and he went to a bowl game every year.  He would have had to have terrible character to the point of breaking the law or NCAA regulations to get fired with a record like that, especially with Devaney as AD.
>
I would not expect a coach to last 25 years based on character alone 
either and I have seen no postings to the list claiming so.
I said it was "quite likely" that TO would have been ousted.  I'm not 
certain that it would have occurred, but there were periods when a large 
number of people felt that TO did not have the ability to win the big 
games and never would.  TO clearly felt this dissatisfaction to the 
point that he seriously considered coaching elsewhere.  If, on top of 
"failing to win the big games", TO was not viewed by Nebraskans as 
bringing honor to them through his ethics and was just another 
win-at-all-costs coach, but one who failed to win it all, the 
dissatisfaction with TO would have clearly been worse and, IMHO, TO 
probably would have either been asked to move on or would have done so 
on his own.

>>>My position is that both his image as a man of honor and his winning
>>>record were factors.  You are the one taking the absurd position that his
>>>good character had so significance.
>>>      
>>>
>
>     I have never said his character was of no significance.  I think character is wonderful and I appreciate and respect TO for having character.
>
I'm glad you hear you say it.  Some of your previous comments such 
"steroids were used while TO was the coach. Either he honestly didn't 
know or he let it go on. It has to be one or the other" seemed to me to 
suggest otherwise.

>  As you said, both components, winning and character, contributed to his long run.  But, I in no way believe it was 50/50.  I have asked this question several times, if TO was every bit the man he is and was while he was coaching and could only win 2-3  games a year and never went to a bowl game do you believe he would have lasted 25 years?  I don't.  I am not trying to minimize character.  I am only trying to make the point winning is the name of the game.  I am not saying I am happy about that but it is the way it is.  History is strewn with the remains of coaches which were fired that had high moral fiber but couldn't win.  If a coach is a winner AND has high integrity it is icing on the cake.
>
>
>Bob Beach
>The more one knows the more one realizes how much there is one doesn't know.        
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>husker site list
>husker at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>  
>