[Husker] Another One Bites the Dust? Gilmore Gone?

[JEN_SENS]

Great point about who the coaches are. As you stated these men were content 
to be assistants. They had no aspiration to be head coaches or to go to the 
NFL. Even Gill wavered about whether he wanted to be a head coach or not 
because of the demands away from his family.

The thing that was unique about Nebraska was Osborne and especially his 
personal values. He was content with what he had and so a lot of the "spiff 
money" (apparel contracts, coaches shows etc) went to the assistants so they 
were compensated well.

When Callahan hired his staff most made no bones about the fact that their 
desire was to have a program of their own. Cosgrove, Norvell and Blake all 
stated that they felt this job offered them a chance to get a head job.

As far as Iowa and assistants is concerned,  again, who the head coach is 
matters. Look at who Hayden Fry lost, not because he was a jerk, but because 
he was a developer of coaches and encouraged his staff to improve 
themselves. The Hayden Fry coaching tree is one of the legends of modern 
college football. (Ferenz, Alvarez, McCarney, Snyder, Stoops and on and on). 
Two different ways of coaching. Both succeeded but we prefer Tom's version 
because he was our guy. However, it is highly probable future generations 
will not speak with reverence about the Tom Osborne coaching tree.

I believe it is impossible to replicate the "Nebraska way" without either TO 
or his clone at the head of the organization.

Gerald


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Knox, Chuck" <CGKnox at pella.com>
To: "todd strong" <strongtodd at msn.com>; <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Husker] Another One Bites the Dust? Gilmore Gone?


So I don't think coaching staff stability is necessarily a thing of the 
past.  So much of the "loyalty" comes from who the coaches are.