[Husker] Conspiracy?

[Steve Reichenbach]

Fortunately, this forum is a little less susceptible to these
crazy rumors.  It is so unbelievable that Perlman, Pederson,
and Callahan "knew" this was coming, that it's hard to understand
how someone can dream it up and that others can repeat it.
Moreover, suggestions that Perlman has decided that Callahan
will be fired and is already looking for coaches seems equally
ludicrous.  Isn't Perlman's statement that he's not the one to
be deciding such things so obvious on its face that any other
characterization of the current situation is ridiculous?

Why is it so difficult to believe that Pederson, believing it
himself, convinced Perlman that the football program "was" on
the right track?  Callahan's teams had improved every year,
won the Big 12 North last year, and entered the year ranked
and perceived to be a contender to repeat or improve on last
year's results.  I'm a Pederson critic (which Perlman had not
been) and that seemed plausible and perhaps even likely to me.
As a supporter of Pederson, Perlman would have even less reason
do doubt this was so.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Perlman didn't get much
criticism about Pederson from within the athletic department,
especially when there has apparently been something of a culture
of fear there?  (I do think Perlman should have been aware
that the culture there was more hostile than it had been before
Pederson came and that there were a number of prior indications
that Pederson's style was problematic.)  It seems entirely
credible to me that, as Perlman says, after Pederson's renewal,
that several key people left and made clear that there were
deeper problems.

Of course, the problems on the field have changed the perspective
on the football program, which is the backbone of the athletic
department, so it is imperative to have an AD who can be trusted
to lead in the face of the questions about the football program.
It seems to me that Perlman realized that Pederson had neither
public support nor the support within his own organization to do
that.  Moreover, his rosy evaluation of the football program
turned out to be mistaken.  Perhaps being wrong about the state
of the football program could be accepted, but the issues with
Pederson's leadership couldin't.  In that sense, I think Perlman's
statement that Pederson's positioning was really more critical
to the firing than the problems in the football program (although
they certainly contributed to Pederson's lack of credibility).

So, Pederson isn't the right person to evaluate the issues
in the football program and Perlman decided he had to have
someone else.  "There are no other personnel changes that are
being contemplated at this point," Perlman said. "I don't think
that I'm the person to evaluate the athletic standing of the program."
That's so obvious, I just don't think it is believable that
Perlman has decided Callahan must be fired (although he certainly
knows that someone has to evaluate that as an option) nor that
Perlman is already looking at new coaches.  That seems quite a
stretch of imagination.

Isn't the most logical explanation of all this also the one that
is most obvious?  Perlman needs someone to evaluate the situation,
make a plan of action, and lead the athletic department into the
future.  I don't think things are any different than they have
been explained publicly and most of these rumors seem crazy to me.