[Husker] Question

[Andrew Smith]

I think there is a reasonable explanation for BC's worse winning 
percentage (and highly ranked recruiting classes) other than 
incompetence (and recruiting brilliance), namely the significant change 
from a run-oriented, non-NFL style offense to a pass-oriented NFL style 
offense.
Such a significant change was bound to make winning more difficult.  I 
don't think it can be reasonably argued that FS, TO, or BD had to deal 
with such a significant offensive change.
On the positive side, I expected and believe that this dramatic change 
made recruiting much easier in the short term. Almost every top recruit 
who fit the new offense knew they were much more likely to see playing 
time earlier than if they joined a team which already had a full roster 
of players who fit the new NFL style offense. I would have been 
extremely surprised and disappointed if Calahan did not have excellent 
recruiting classes his first few years.

A fair judge of BC's coaching and recruiting will require at least a  
few more years.

Andy

Duane Feldman wrote:

>Wow, I have heard these levels of frustration, but am surprised to hear you express it so strongly.
>
>I keep hearing from people that Solich left the football program in disarray and that is why BC started slowly,  "But now he has the program headed in the right direction."
>
>Since we are continually winning more than the previous year, we are indeed "headed in the right direction."  BUT . . .
>
>For perspective, in the last 45 years, BC is 22-15 (59% winning rate). You have to add Devaney's two 6-4 years AND Solich's 7-7 year (combined rate 56%) to get a three year period that is worse than the last three years.  ANY OTHER combination of three years from BD, TO and FS are better than the last three years.  Forget combination, no other year is worse than 9-3-1
>
>For a different perspective, of the six worst football seasons in the past 45 years, BC has three of them.  
>
>Only one year in the last 42 non-BC seasons has more losses than BC's "best" season (presumably last season -- either that or we are not headed in the right direction).
>
>A still different perspective, Devaney turned Jennings from 3-5 to 9-2 in one year.  When he retracted to consecutive 6-4 years, he rebounded to a 9-2 season in the following year.  Solich slipped from 10-2 to 7-7 and returned to 9-3 the next season (10-3 if you count Pelini's bowl win).  The biggest "turnaround" so far in the last 50 years has been going from 10-3 to 5-6 in one year.  Going from 5-6 to 9-5 in two years isn't as dramatic.
>
>Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating a coaching change -- for the same reason I felt Solich should have been given a chance to prove he could "turn it around."  Let's not make the same mistake twice.
>
>You know, I was really excited when SP was named as Byrne's replacement.  Now I shudder at the recollection.  The above comparison is a small part of the bigger picture.  (Conversely, Sadler may prove out eventually).
>
>Duane Feldman
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Gary Fead gwfead at cox.net
>
>
>We've hired a football coach who is 22-15 after three years (I know Devaney, Osborne and Solich had a better record than this), so that's not better.
>_______________________________________________
>husker site list
>husker at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>
>  
>