[Husker] How bad is it?

[Scott Lawson]

I'll need names and proper spellings of all those who are saying "I told you so", as I am printing up certificates of congratulations now in my basement. I was going to do trophies but I ran out of funds after ordering the pay per view yesterday.

Scott in NY

Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com> wrote: > The problem I see with people bringing up the past coaching staff is
> it is usually done to say "I told you so" whenever something goes
> wrong, not to remember the Husker Tradition, the way it should be. It
> is true, the tradition has been severely tarnished the past several
> years and Solich et al were not treated well at all, but constantly
> rehashing it whenever times get tough does absolutely NOTHING to fix
> the problem and only gets fans taking sides, and that also takes the
> focus away from what is happening here.

Yes.  I TOLD YOU SO.  When it happened, I told you so.  And since
then,, I told you so; I told you so; I told you so.  I even told
Perlman so.  (Though his response indicated he didn't believe me then,
I hope he's rethinking things now.)

Here is why it has EVERYTHING to do with how to "fix the problem":
if we don't learn from past mistakes, we won't be able to "fix the
problem".  So, this long post will attempt to connect "what happened"
with "fixing the problem".

First, Pederson didn't fire Solich for his record.  Solich had a career
record as head coach of better than 75%, was in the BCS championship
game less than two years before he was fired, and had a 75% winning
record in the year he was fired.  Look up how many career coaches have
better than a 75% career record.  (Callahan is not in that group.)
Even Pederson said it wasn't about "wins and losses".

Pederson claimed he fired Solich because of the "direction" of the
program, but that statement is absurd.  After the difficulties of the
year NU finished 7-7, Solich replaced a number of long-time Husker
coaches, who, honestly, may have stayed past the point where they were
as effective as they had been, and Craig Bohl, whose defense didn't get
the job done (whether or not that was Bohl's fault).  The next year, NU
made a strong turnaround, in the record and in most statistical
categories.  NU had some pretty good new assistant coaches.  So, what
was Pederson's problem with "the direction of the program"?  From many
accounts, Pederson made some pretty specific instructions to Solich
about how to coach the football program and Solich apparently didn't
follow those instructions well enough to please Pederson.  Now, some
people have said that you've got to do what your boss tells you, but if
Solich didn't win, do you think he could have just said that he
followed Pederson's instructions so it wasn't his fault?  No, Solich
knew that coaching the football team was his job, not Pederson's.
Solich and his new staff were successful turning things around, but
not successful following Pederson's dictates.  Pederson fired Solich
because his ego was in conflict with Solich.  He cared more about his
ego concerning Solich than he cared about the FACT that Solich and his
new staff were headed in the right direction.  That right direction was
the same direction that NU had followed since Devaney --- commitment,
coaching continuity, integrity, and a focus on improving.  Do you want
to know when Pederson was most unhappy with the "direction of the
program"?:  When NU beat CU on the road in Boulder and failed to provide
the right backdrop for his firing of Solich.  Instead of "backdrop",
I should say that the team tore away the false backdrop that Pederson
hoped to use for his egotistical, megalomanical dumping of Solich and
his staff.

At the time, there were many stupid fans and some foolish donors who
thought Solich was not doing well enough, but those are the same sort
who wanted to fire Devaney in the late 60s and to fire Osborne in the
late 70s and early 90s.  You expect your AD to recognize that achieving
the high sucess that NU had in the mid 1990s is not sustainable for any
program, let alone a program with some inherent limitations (albeit
also many advantages) as Nebraska.  You expect your AD to recognize
that the basis for NU's long success, at a much lower level than in the
mid 1990s, was due to commiment, coaching continuity, integrity, and a
focus on improving.  You expect your AD to see what many fans who were
so dismayed by Pederson's actions saw: the Husker tradition was both
the foundation for the program's great success and the source of their
solace when the goal of winning was not achieved --- as, at some point
nearly every season, no matter how successful a program is, that goal
is lost.  But, Pederson overthrew good reason and took, what I "told
you so" at the time, was a rash, foolish, and risky action, based
largely on his ego.

Despite all of this, some few fans (though their number dimishes with
each game), even on this list, voice their opinion that Pederson has
done well with the rest of the Athletic Department.  First, as was
written by another poster already, athletics at UNL were good when
Pederson arrived and it's difficult to see where they are any better.
(It would be interesting to compare the conference standings in all
sports standing pre and post Pederson, but I'll leave that to someone
else.)  And, though some are better and some are worse, it's hard to
see where Pederson deserves much credit or blame, as the case may be.
But, most importantly, football is the public focus and financial
foundation of the NU Athletic Department and it is in football where
Pederson's actions are most controversial.  So, I ask: how has his
rash, foolish, and risky action with the football staff, the heart
and public face of NU athletics, evidenced his performance as AD?

I want to add one final point about Steve Pederson.  (However, I'm
going to leave out my comments on the coaching search, including his
treatment of Gill and Pelini.)  He thought Solich and his staff were
spending too much time during the season coaching their players and not
enough time recruiting.  In that, he thought he knew better than Solich
(as did some unhappy fans).  Apparently, Callahan and his staff are
putting more effort and having greater success recruiting.   Well, on
balance, how's that working out?  In retrospect, will Pederson admit
that he doesn't know as much about being football coach as he thought
he did?  Don't hold your breath for someone who "knows" he's always
right to admit that he was dreadfully wrong.

Thus ends my litany about Steve Pederson and begins the question of
how to move forward, to, as you put it, "fix the problem".  Let's
say that Steve Pederson believed what he said about Solich and his
staff trending toward mediocrity (despite the record, when he spoke
iof it "not being just about wins and loses")?  If he believes that,
then what would he do now?  He would fire the current staff after
the CU game.  On the other hand, let's say (as I've contended) that
he really fired Solich because of his ego.  Then, it will be very
difficult for him to "go another direction", because it would be his
failure too, which is hard on someone with such a large ego.  How do
you think Pederson's been handling this so far?  Like a hypocrite
who lacks integrity.  Pederson would like to continue to deny that
a change is necessary, but being behind 38-0, at half, at home, to
an unranked team, is a problem.  It is well below mediocre.

So, what of "fixing the problem"?  I, like many fans, would like to
see us look for coaches who have demostrated a connection and/or
understanding for the program.  (In that regard, I like to follow
Solich, Gill, Sanders, etc., although I don't know well enough what
match they would be for what jobs.  And, I think Pelini, who was here
for one year and who I think would come back if Pederson is gone, knows
more about Husker football than Pederson does.)  NU doesn't have to
have a head coach who was a former player or assistant, but I would
like to see us return to the approach that Osborne and Solich carried
on for more than 30 years after Devaney.  (In  my opinion, Callahan's
biggest mistake was not trying to keep the best of Solich's staff.)
Should we trust Pederson, who cares more about his ego than the
direction of the football program, to oversee these changes?  No; no;
and HELL NO!

My advice to Perlman:  Clean out Pederson first; then, hire someone who
will inspire confidence and provide real leadership in charge of the
Athletic Department.  There are plenty of Huskers who could fit that
bill.  I think Osborne would be a great AD, if only for a few years
to "right the ship".  I think he knows more about picking the next
football coach than the guy who did that job the last time.  Maybe
Kiffin could be brought in as head coach to assemble a staff that could
succeed him.  Alternatively, I think Osborne would be a great head
coach for a period to "right the ship" (and that isn't measured by
another championship) and bring in a staff for the longer term.  In that
scenario, there'd be no shortage of candidates for AD better suited for
running the Athletic Department than Steve Pederson.

In summary, folks are interested in past Huskers because they have
demonstrated a Husker heritage that can be a guide for the future.
In other words, "we told you so" that it was a mistake to so recklessly
tear up that heritage and now the best way to fix that mistake is to
look to restore that heritage.

Steve Reichenbach



       
---------------------------------
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV.  Watch previews, get listings, and more!