Serious question... if we were in a recruiting hotbed the likes of Ohio State and Penn State, would we be where we are right now? All I ever here is how we will NEVER recruit like they do, in large part because of their proximity to top talent year in and year out.
Chinander’s comments
- Thread starter HominidHusker
- Start date
Ohio St and Penn St weren’t on Probation long enough to effect them and Ohio St did have a losing season in 2011.
I believe so. We have more talent than all the other teams in the west, but they own Frost. Then the excuse is we don’t have the right talent, but a lot of our backyard talent is going elsewhere.
I bought into the Scott Frost hype for a bit, now it’s time to produce. Right now I have him pegged to be a Kirk Ferentz/Mark Dantonio results type guy. That is not satisfactory for me, but for a growing number in Husker Nation it seems to be just fine. He excelled in the minor leagues, but the majors he looks to be a bit above average. We’ll know soon enough
I bought into the Scott Frost hype for a bit, now it’s time to produce. Right now I have him pegged to be a Kirk Ferentz/Mark Dantonio results type guy. That is not satisfactory for me, but for a growing number in Husker Nation it seems to be just fine. He excelled in the minor leagues, but the majors he looks to be a bit above average. We’ll know soon enough
I don't have anything. Im using history, data, numbers, and stats to come up with my conclusions. Yes I have posted the data awhile back feel free to dig through and find it again.IT DOES NOT TAKE GOOD COACHES 5+ plus years to have success. It doesn't. You can go through decades of data and you will find the majority of coaches who have long successful careers with a program, win at least their division by year 4. ( No Kirk Ferentz is not my idea of a successful coach.) Im talking a coach who consistently wins 10+ , who wins conf championships, who plays and wins NCs. I know over the last 60+ years there have been a few that goes against this. Im saying in general odds say 3-4 years is the most it should take. No matter the shape of the program, no matter the previous coach or AD. No matter the current players or recruits. No matter what. Anything longer than that and odds are it just isn't going to happen. If you want to go against the odds and hold on to blind hope and faith you are more than welcome to. Im not here to try and convince you of anything. Just telling it like it is.
Again Im not arguing that Frost wont get it done. Im not saying I have lost faith in Frost at all. He could, and Im holding on hope he WILL flip this around in the next year or 2 and go on to do great things. What Im arguing is that it shouldn't take him or really any coach more than 4 years to do it.
We can debate all day long, but before we know it - two more seasons will be behind us and we will know. The only thing we know for sure is the results of the last two seasons and they are no where close to what Frost expected from his own words. I desperately want the Huskers to be relevant again. Living in Iowa is hell as a Husker fan, but just don’t have a lot of optimism that we have the right guy to take us to a Wisconsin level.
That’s funny, because I don’t see at all that Anybody in Husker nation would be fine with that long term. That’s what we had with Bo and husker nation kicked him to the curb.
I think your confusing patience with acceptance. Husker fans are showing more patience with Frost. But if he can’t do better than Ferentz Over time, watch Husker nation rise up.
I just don’t get how some people are so quick to say people who support Frost (even blindly) will accept 1 CCG appearance in 10 years and be happy with that. I don’t see people accepting that on this board at all.
I am not sure what angle you mean by this.. yeah there were times they only rushed 4 and other times we sent in corner blitzes to the wrong side, but to me we are seeing them upgrade the talent on defense, and they seem to play hard for what is being asked.
If however you mean in game adjustments, then I absolutely agree. The in game adjustments have been largely absent. I would have liked to have seen Frost go.. jeez, our high speed offense isn't working.. we have to get more conservative on D just to give us a shot here.. but he hasn't done that, that I am aware of.
It's possible they haven't taught the defense how to play a more conservative scheme, and/or he doesn't want to confuse them by switching to one, but we left a lot of games on the table by continuing to run that aggressive scheme last year.
The offense is going to have to start helping the defense this year to have any improvement in results.
Last edited:
Not sure what your getting at with this? Saban fits the model. He is odd case though. He never won a Division title( no divisions) or conf title by year 4. He did have success year 5 with a 10 win season, but left before he was able to potentially win a conf or NC with Mich St.
So yes, not saying Frost can't go on to be a great coach and win conf and NC even though he didn't find success by year 4. It just probably won't be with Nebraska. The model applies for the coaches current team only. The 4 year window resets with each new team the coach. IE Saban won his division year 2, his conference year 3 with Bama.
here's where I'm going:
good coaches aren't good until they are. there is no one-size fits all model. your attempt to rationalize the irrational is futile.
I agree it's time to produce. But saying we have more talent than anyone in the west, is not true. Watch the NFL draft the last three or four years. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Here is the link to my research. I actually used just conf for this not division as I thought. I prefer data to blind hope, but thats just me. Year 3 and 4 are VERY VERY important for Frost and any hope of him winning championships here.
https://nebraska.forums.rivals.com/threads/year-3-and-4-are-important.231801/#post-4926748
based on the data he provided, good coaches are good coaches period. There is nothing irrational about factual information.
I would say it is more futile to try and rationalize why a "good coach" doesn't win early than the opposite.
no, they're not.
they're good coaches when the right opportunity comes along. not from day 1 in year 3 as a coach, like he's expecting Frost to be at NU. he's only looking at the coach's career at the school they won a title, not the entire body of work like he should if he wanted this little exercise to try and mean anything.
it's a case by case basis tried to be squeezed into a one-size fits all model. it's nonsense & isn't predictive in the least.
A couple of things, he said coaches that win titles, do so early on in their tenure, or at least are progressing early on by winning divisions.
Since you don't win national titles at small schools like Toledo or UCF, any coach that is hired by a school capable of winning a national title, would more than likely have had success at a lower level.
How many P5 coaches, that have won national titles, had a losing record in their FCS or Group of 5 (6) careers? I will go out on a limb and say none.
Frost took over a P5 school after have some success at UCF as a head coach. Similar to the success that Meyer had at Bowling Green and then Utah.
The entirety of the situation is irrelevant because, as I wrote above, those small schools don't win titles and any coach that started a smaller school more than likely had significant success, that enabled him to get the big time job.
How many of the coaches that won titles won them at their first P5 job? (Stoops, Meyer, Osborne, Swinney, Schnellenberger, Tressel,). How many had success at lesser P5 schools that parlayed them into elite jobs (Saban, Mack Brown)? How many never had a head coaching job before the P5 job were they won a title (Stoops, Swinney)?
If you look at the data, I would say it is indeed pretty predictable.
I will say it this way, if Frost doesn't turn things around at Nebraska, he more than likely isn't getting a job at Florida or Alabama. He becomes more like Gerry DiNardo or Mike Shula than Nick Saban.
Frost's 2 years at UCF were similar to Meyer's 4 at bowling green and utah? if you say so.
of the 6 who are actually comparable to Frost and won in their first P5 job, one didn't win the conference until year 5 (Schnellenberger, in a joke of a Big East during a time college football was a fraction of what it is today), one took over an established program from a legend (Osborne), two were flashes in the pan who never coached anywhere else (Stoops/Tressel) for various reasons and Urban Meyer + Dabo.
we can all agree Urban is a legend, albeit a total scumbag. we can also all agree we'd love to have Dabo. who knows where he ends up on the list of all-time greats.
as for the rest, it's revisionist drivel with numbers assigned. it's not predictive. at all. otherwise, you'd be able to take this model and produce a shortlist of who'll be next. instead, you're left playing the guessing game like the rest of us.
and none of this makes any excuse for Frost, much less predicts guaranteed title-level success here. the odds are stacked against him to win a title, just like literally every single other coach to take over a P5 program.
I just threw out names off the top of my head. Frost and Meyer won at small schools, that is how they are similar.
Of course the odds are stacked against him, only 1 in 128 will win the title each year. But if you aren't winning in year 3 or 4, the odds become even more stacked against you. In 50 years, only a couple have won titles after not having won a conference or a division by year 3 or 4.
This is just like all the people that want to poo poo the recruiting rankings that say if you don't have huge numbers of 4 and 5 star players on your team then you won't be winning titles. The facts are out there, you can say it is predictive, but it is.
As far a your model goes, no one is predicting who will, this is a prediction of who won't. Pat Fitzgerald won't win a national title at Northwestern.
a couple? nearly 1/3 of the 39 who've won a title the last 50 years took longer than 4 years. two won a 14-team conference.
it's a list, nothing more.
Some others like Switzer, Joe Paterno, Coker...
By year 4 only 3 of the 39 coaches had not won some sort of division or conference title or a national championship.
Bill McCartney took 9 years.
Lavell Edwards took 13 years
Howard Schnellenberger took 5
so, winning the west by year 4 is what’s so important? that’s some magical key to titles down the road? how many coaches won a division or conference and went on to do diddly squat?
I’ll give you a hint: the vast majority.
I don’t know, man. this is a lot of what’s left after tons of noodles already hit the wall.
Again, you are looking at it backwards. It is a predictor of who won’t win titles. If a coach doesn’t win at least a division title by year 4, the chances of them winning a national title are minuscule at best. No one said every coach who wins a division title by year 4 will win a national title.
As I said before, it is similar to recruiting. You can recruit a bunch of 3 star kids and “coach them up”. You can win a lot of games that way, but you won’t win the national title. You can also recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star kids and not win the national title. But - if you don’t recruit and sign 4 and 5 star players you won’t win a national title.
see how it works
I know what you're saying. nobody needs some revelatory model to tell us every single coach has a minuscule chance to become a national champion or hall of famer.
this is a list of loosely related commonalities, not an if-then quotient. this guy simply made note of things that have happened. it's not even a predictor of who won't win (>10% break even the loose rules put in place), as it only looks at point-in-time regimes. every coach is on one side of the ledger until they're not.
using any gate or accomplishment from even 30 years ago, much less 50, has less than zero bearing on current-era success. you're trying to compare your local club championship to the US Open.
you can keep digging for gold in this pyrite mine all you like. you will be no more educated on the matter than when you started. if the goal of this exercise is to say coaches x, y and z will never win a title, then my answer is, well, yea, no shit.
imagine walking into a room and saying:
"Guys! I can predict, with 89.7% accuracy, which coach won't win a national title with their current team. Just give me 4 years, and I'll tell you."
you'd be laughed out of there immediately. this is not profound, by any means, nor is it telling.
sorry if this offends.
"Guys! I can predict, with 89.7% accuracy, which coach won't win a national title with their current team. Just give me 4 years, and I'll tell you."
you'd be laughed out of there immediately. this is not profound, by any means, nor is it telling.
sorry if this offends.
But that isn’t what the point of this is. We are talking about Nebraska football. The point of the matter is history has shown that if Scott Frost doesn’t win a division title by year for then he’s probably not going to win a national title here at Nebraska. That’s it.
if you want to talk NU specifically, here are OP's words:
Another interesting fact is Devaney and TO were 2 of the 12 that took longer than 4 years.
by my count, that's 100% of our national championship coaches who were outliers.
this discussion, like this exercise, is futile.
If Frost lost one game in 2021 and Wisconsin went undefeated and won the big ten then we would write him off as not being capable of winning a national title?
Cart before horse. Perhaps a winning record before we talk about 1 loss seasons.
yea. only talk about how in 2 years we'll know if he's in a fictitious class of possible title winners is allowed here. it's very horse behind cart lol.
Nebraska in 2017 and 2018 had far less talent than Ohio State or even Penn State at any time in the last 30 years.
That won't ever happen. Its a silly question.
Frost's success at Nebraska will mirror Art Briles at Baylor, but hopefully with far less rape.
2008 - 4-8
2009 - 4-8
2010- 7-5
2011 - 10-3
2012 - 8-5
2013 - 11 wins
2014 - 11 wins
2015- 11 wins
Baylor's Personnel Philosophy under Briles:
1. rebuild the offensive line. -
2. focus on special teams -
3. load up on offensive skill players and dual threat QB's
4. rebuild the secondary
5. develop a pass rush
Frost's biggest mistake was he failed to make priority #2 his #2 priority. I believe he has made a significant commitment to strengthening the special teams this off season.
Anyone who wants to run Frost off before he's had 5 total years to rebuild this roster is living in a fantasy World about the talent at Nebraska when he took over.
Mike Riley let the team fall below Indiana, Purdue, and Northwestern in total talent. The only teams with less talent than Nebraska were Illinois, Rutgers, and Maryland.
Going into year 3, the Huskers have moved up into the middle of pack. By 2021, I believe they will move into the top 5. And by 2022, I believe they will move ahead Wisconsin.
I do believe Nebraska has finally caught up to and is ready to move ahead of Iowa. Minnesota was a flash in the pan aided by a talented defense left over by Terry Clayes and Jerry Kill.
it was prefaced as a fictional story, so wasn't meant to be taken seriously
Baylor was a shit program before Briles came along. Even in our darkest days, we were never as bad as some of those Baylor teams.
Baylor was 3-9 in 2007. Nebraska was 4-8 in 2017.
In 2005, Nebraska went to Waco and only won 23-14. The 2005 Huskers would've sacked Zac Lee 12 times and broken him in half enroute to a 40 point victory.
I could be way off, but I think Frost and staff came into this with the mentality of run their system as is. Even without the proper players in it. I believe they want to get their system install from the get go. That way from the very beginning the young players will be learning it from top to bottom. Doing it this way probably hurt the team short term, but longer term it was for the best.
Could be, but not sure how anyone can say it was for the best, at least not yet, since that is really a forward looking statement.
It does paint Frost as inflexible to change and/or stubborn to a fault. He didn't need to sandbag two years of results just to run his system his own way, but I get that we are just speculating here.
I don't know about you, but being inflexible is a recipe for disaster in most businesses.. you don't get very far digging your heels in, esp if you're not producing results.
The opposite is also true.. So long as you are producing results, you can be the biggest jerk, and most will put up with it.
To me, Scott hasn't earned enough goodwill towards the fan base to be completely inflexible, so unless he actually starts winning, you could see the fan base loose patience with him quite quickly.
I don't think it was about being stubborn. It think it was about having a system he believed in and wanting it to be well known from early on.
Lets say he came in, saw he didn't have the players needed to run his system. So lets say he changed his system to be more cohesive to his current players. That would have probably got better results with his current players, but would be hurting his younger guys in the longer run IE having to basically learn two systems. Doing it this way, now basically every guy in the program knows the whole system from top to bottom, from day 1. If he had changed initially, now he would have to be implementing a new system again to fit the current players.
Now I do agree, I think Frost could have tweaked small things maybe not as drastically but enough to get better results. Calling swing pass after swing pass after swing pass that resulted in negative yards 90% was something that could have been adjusted. Playing an injured and horrible Martinez all year could have been tweaked. Playing fast, going 3 and out in under a minute and putting an exhausted D on the field could have been tweaked. These I think are the mistakes of a young coach. Hopefully he learns. I think him getting rid of some coaches shows he is willing to make changes when needed.
