Where's the evidence for any of the talk about what happened regarding to and frank?
Seriously, is there an article with sources?
Or does everyone just pick their favorite narrative?
And does any of it matter?
TO speak
- Thread starter Husker.Wed._rivals
- Start date
Seriously, is there an article with sources?
Or does everyone just pick their favorite narrative?
And does any of it matter?
There is zero evidence for any of it. That is why it is the height of nonsense to make absurd claims about what ultimatums Byrne gave Osborne. Never mind the fact that Byrne was in no position to be dictating anything to Osborne in 1997.
What about the other argument? That TO went behind everyones back and made everything unilaterally etc?
When I say any claims I mean ANY claims regarding the situation. Where are the sources? I simply haven't seen them
Me either. Nor do I care. Ancient history. What TO did for Nebraska football speaks for itself. All the other speculation is agenda driven gossip.
I think it’s possible that TO has seen that the “one man search committee” approach has resulted in multiple ****** hires within the program, including the one Eichorst made.
No, follow me here, it was more important for Tom to keep his word to Frank than bow to the bullying of Byrne.
I didn't spin it. That's your job.
That's your speculation, I know you won't back that up with anything other than the same nonsense that gets posted on here all the time. You have no clue how the decision to hire Frank Solich went. I don't know that I even care at this point, but this is the usual crap to try to make TO look like part of the problem.
Unless I am missing the quote, my God, you guys are sensitive.
Ok. So again it was more important to Osborne to make sure Solich was hired than it was to coach. See my post on personal agendas.
Secondly, if he quit coaching before he wanted to, as you suggest, he did bow to the bullying
"I think (Bounds and Green) did the very best they could to make sure they covered all the bases and got as much input as they could," Osborne said. "It was not a unilateral decision where one person went out and hired somebody with no other input."
Yeah, that seemed like a jab at Perlman. If it was, that's OK.
So Sipple believes it was a jab at Perlman, he just believes it’s ok.
Wait I thought he wouldn’t be bullied.
I guess I am having difficulty believing the fact that Bill Byrne had enough power to “force” a retirement but not have enough power to “force” a retirement and name his coach.
What does Byrne win in that situation? Not having Tom Osborne around? And if working for Bill Byrne was so bad AND Byrne forced him to retire, why would a man with integrity then subject his hand picked successor to such a horrible work environment? Why would the hand picked successor want to work for a guy that “forced” his mentor into retirement and lastly why would he want to work for a guy that would only allow him to be the coach if Tom Osborne left the program immediately after the 1997 season?
"Clearly you do not see the the hypocrisy of TO criticizing the unilateral, one man hiring committee with no input from others."
Scathing criticism. You have to look really hard to find hypocrisy in that statement. I guess if that's what you want to find, you'll find it.
I don't have any proof one way or the other about the Solich transition. I only remember what I remember and heck, we didn't even have message boards then full of people with inside information. I remember there was talk of TO hanging it up sooner or later and Byrne said in the paper when TO retired there would be a search to get a coach. Then (as I recall) Byrne was on a business trip or vacation and TO had the PC retiring and naming FS the new coach. I lived in California and my dad wrote me a letter saying he and many of his coworkers thought TO backdoored Bryne. Whether "backdoor" is fair or not, it is virtually undeniable the way it was done was "irregular" at best. Whether that irregularity was justified, honoring a promise, earned, showing integrity, or whatever depends on the point of view of the person thinking about it. But it seems to me it should have technically been Bill Byrne's prerogative to fill the position the way he wanted. Another factor in this was Graham Spanier hired Byrne, then bolted for Penn St in 1995. NU hired a music teacher from South Carolina, Moeser who was chancellor until he bolted to North Carolina in 2000, then Harvey was appointed. Byrne had lost his backing from the chancellor's office when Spanier left and Moeser was not experienced or forceful enough to herd all the cats in 1998. That's how I remember it.
I don't remember back that far but why would an AD want to retire a coach who lost like 3 games in the last 4 years. I speculate that since TO retired 4 years after the last scholarship reduction he knew parity and maybe even mediocrity was looming. He could quit on a high note. Solich was a move to maintain stability with the coaching staff. No facts to back this up. Just my opinion
Ehhhhh...I don't think scholarship reduction was a huge issue. In some ways it helps a team who has a really good walk-on program. Plus, Frank put together three top ten recruiting classes ('98, '00, '01). If Frank could do that, Tom would have had no issue.
Weren't scholarship reductions put into effect to create parity? With our population base a good walk on program isn't enough
Byrne knew about Tom and Frank for months. Only the public was blindsided.
The blindside happened when Harvey blindsided TO and hired Eichorst even though he had promised TO he would have a say in who he picked.
It meant the good teams couldn't "hide" good players from bad teams. In this sense it helped create parity. However, a team like Wisconsin does well with quality walk-ons because those guys get offers of schollies from other schools but those offers aren't from schools like Nebraska, OSU, MU, or even Iowa or MInnesota which they would be if there weren't reductions.
Agreed. And it's a shame because decisions involving Tom have been good. Solich and Pelini. With out Tom not so good. Callahan, eichorst, and Riley. I am glad he was in on Moos
Getting Leach was hardly a big pull... he was out of coaching for several seasons (off the top of my head- I know he did some tv work)... I live here in Texas and my brother is Tech grad (and booster) and he said he was a pompous prick at events (showing up in shorts/tshirts and saying as little as possible and walking out). As in all instances the true value in a coach is who wants/hires him when fired (i.e. Pelini, Solich, Callahan, and soon to be Riley)
Out of work for 2 seasons 2010 and 2011. Just for factual accuracy. Maybe two is several to some.
With that said, I agree with the premise, he was out of work and I think too much is made of bringing him to Pullman. He didn't get about 7 jobs he was interested in, in 2010 and 2011.
With that said, I agree with the premise, he was out of work and I think too much is made of bringing him to Pullman. He didn't get about 7 jobs he was interested in, in 2010 and 2011.
We'll get another chance at this when Frost has a limited coaching resume and we justify "proven" by a bunch of qualities he possesses that lead us to believe he will win big in big time conferences.
As the lady Tom moans about Riley possessing qualities, but qualities don't prove anything.
Moos is a self described "fit" guy. I don't think he's necessarily going to go out and get the top three winning PCT coaches and interview them.
Frost is going to make his list regardless of whatever numbers he has, and I'll still be excited to have him if that who is selected.