I’m honestly torn on this. Husker football has sucked for so many years that another crap year added onto this long string of sh*t really doesn’t matter. I’m puzzled about how many people think Scott is going to “reinvent” himself in year 5 and somehow become a great head football coach?!?! In my opinion, this guy has clearly shown he cannot get it done at this level.
What scares me is that he ekes out a 6-7 win season with other “close “games that many view as victories and we hang onto a subpar head coach that much longer. Then he continues to improve to a perennial 8 to 9 win head coach for the foreseeable future.
Sorry if that makes me a hater, but that is not what I want to see in the Husker program I follow.
I am of the same thought process ^^^^
It is probably better for NU as a program if SF falls flat on his face, or just doesnt quite win enough to be retained and we make a change after this year. Better for the program as I dont see a world where SF grows a brain and becomes a good coach all of a sudden. History shows us that good coaches would have shown themselves to be good coaches in 2-4 years. Heck it only took Franklin 2 years to show he was a good coach at Vandy and that place is a dumpster 🔥.
With NIL and now without the yearly cap of 25 players, a new coach can rebuild a team in his vision fairly quickly now and find success (if he is a good coach). There are none of these nonsensical 7 year rebuilds or even 5 year rebuilds. Those time tables were NEVER a thing anyway no matter how much NU fans wanted to give SF that much time. College football and program expectations of success changed when Stoops won a Natty at OU in his 2nd year as they should have. In all reality, SF should have been let go after year 3 when he had his third straight losing season.
And yeah covid is no excuse either to give him more time. Both Kevin Sumlin at Arizona and Jeremy Pruitt At Tennessee were let go after their 3rd years (which was the exact same time period SF had at NU) and neither AZ or Tenn gave either of those coaches any slack cuz of covid. And Pruitt actually won 8 games his 2nd year and still was let go after 3 years. I would consider Tenn a peer program, but AZ as sad as it seems, has higher expectations right now then NU does..and AZ is NOT a peer program..
Lets be honest here: Even if he wins say 8 games..the schedule is pretty easy and we may not even beat a single team ranked in the final top 25 to get to 8 wins..So what would that really have proved? What would SF really have proved? That he can barely eek out 8 wins vs a soft schedule and it took him 5 years to do it? This is Nebraska not Vanderbilt or Kansas. That is simply not good enough. If RIley and Callahan were expected to win 9 games in year 4 and 5 of their tenures and Bo' winning 9 a year wasnt good enough...then SF winning 8 as his high water mark in year 5 should no way in HELL be good enough to keep his job.
Say he does win 8, is retained, then goes right back to 6 wins the next year (which I would fully expect he would)...is that it? Is he gone then? Or did the 8 wins buy him two more years? I am terrified of getting caught in Frost purgatory.
Simply put. SF makes way too many bad decisions as a HC. With him it is always one step forward and two steps back. Always since he got here.