Recruiting and coaching are equally important

Much has been said how college athletic recruiting and professional sports drafts are an inexact science.


After all, you never know if success at the high school level will translate to success at the college level. For that matter, there are plenty of cases where college success does not translate into professional success. In rare cases, there are youngsters that have better college careers than high school careers or better pro careers than college careers.

Much continues to be made of athlete’s measureable skills like 40 yard dash times, vertical leaps and how many times he can bench press 225 pounds just to name a few. However, ascertaining a youngster’s toughness (physical or mental) is not as quantifiable but just as important if not more so.

For all the good things Nebraska has done in head coach Bo Pelini’s four-year tenure, the team can still be maddening inconsistent. The microcosm that showed last season was how the team dominated eventual Leaders Division champ Michigan State 24-3 one week but lost 28-25 at home to a mediocre Northwestern team one week later that went 7-5.

Pelini’s recruiting has been criticized in that his first three seasons, and to a lesser extent last year, the belief was that Pelini reached the untapped potential that Bill Callahan failed to maximize in his time but now that the those recruits are out of the program, Pelini has not landed the difference makers that Callahan did.

According to Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple, Pelini has enlisted help from an outside firm of research professionals to help his staff's efficiency in the recruiting process. It's his first go-round with such a method.
"They're working to help us to not only ask the right questions, but teach us what to listen for when we ask the questions and get more insight in the limited amount of time we're with recruits," Pelini told the LJS. "The most important part of it is knowing what key words and what reactions to assess as you're asking the questions."

Whether or not the plan works remains to be seen but I like the idea, at least initially. Pelini has been viewed as head strong by media members and segments of the Husker fan base but this approach shows that he is willing to be proactive in helping Nebraska address unique challenges related to geographical limitations. Those shortcomings can be circumvented to some degree if a coaching staff maximizes the time spent with a prospect.

The last two seasons have shown an obvious lack of mental and physical toughness within the Husker program. We all get hung up with the recruiting, which let’s not kid ourselves is damn important, but being a blue collar tough football team with a swagger that "we are tougher than anybody" is the only way Nebraska will again start winning championships. The Huskers last won a conference title in 1999. Most of all, I would be interested to know if Pelini has tweaked his process to get his players to be more consistent in their focus and toughness.
The criticism of Pelini’s recruiting has been warranted to a point. The Huskers strategy of putting most of this last year’s recruiting class together in January was a bad move to say the least. However, Pelini is addressing that problem by saying he wants half of the 2013 class in place by summer time.
The Tom Osborne zealots are famous for saying how Nebraska’s recruiting classes were seldom highly touted yet won conference titles and three National titles under Osborne and two under Bob Devaney. However, the notion that Osborne had all of his success with two and three star recruits is somewhat of a myth. Quarterbacks Tommie Frazier and Turner Gill were very highly touted. Most of the running backs in Osborne’s time were 4-5 star recruits (whatever that means).
His offensive line recruiting was a position to fit the scheme of the offense, stocky run blockers who would hit low and drive to the next level which was not the prototypical NFL lineman but very successful in college. The same could also be said of the wide receivers that blocked well downfield.
It’s funny how people have their own idea of what is more important acquiring talent or developing talent. It’s both. One is NOT more important than the others. As the saying goes, “It’s Xs and Os AND Jimmies and Joes,” not, “Xs and Os OR Jimmies and Joes.”
The truth of the matter is, you have to bring in upper level talent and have good coaching. One or the other will only get you average results. However, those who sip the 4-5 star recruiting Kool Aid fail to comprehend is that the 2-3 star recruits and walk-ons push those guys to either perform, get better or get out of the way.
Just because a kid has a few more stars does not mean they don't have to earn their spot on the field by beating out someone who wants that spot just as bad as the highly ranked youngster wants it. There is a word for that called “competition” and it pushes everyone to higher heights.

How do you determine a "clean" program?

Isn’t it amazing how issues within another program can trigger thoughts about your own?


Now that we find out that TCU had at least four players dealing grass along with statements gathered by undercover police by said players that at least 60% of the team would fail drug tests, are we more apt to take to heart that Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini always talks about running a clean program? A lot of programs (USC, Ohio State, TCU, Miami, Alabama, etc.) have now been put on some pretty serious negative sanctions/embarrassing light. Need we get started with Penn State.

Four football players were among 17 TCU students arrested on drug charges Wednesday, and an arrest warrant for one of the players alleges that at least three players were dealing drugs. According to the warrant, one of the players also said that drug use was widespread on the Horned Frogs' team.

According to Fort Worth police, the players arrested are: junior linebacker Tanner Brock, junior safety Devin Johnson, junior defensive tackle D.J. Yendrey and sophomore offensive tackle Tyler Horn. They have been removed from the team.

We all want 11 wins and conference championships every year, but I don't think any program is immune to getting in trouble; although it seems Pelini and Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne run a pretty tight ship. It does mean something, right?



Do you want 13 wins and trouble? Or 9-10 wins and no major embarrassment? Or would you rather your team goes 0-for-the season with a clean program or go 13-1 with some crookedness?

That's something that gets lost in the thinking of some fans. Former Nebraska football coach and athletic director Bob Devaney once said: "I don't expect to win enough games to be put on NCAA probation. I just want to win enough to warrant an investigation."



Less than 1% of the youngsters playing today will make a career in the NFL. Character counts in my book and is being taught by Pelini and staff. They might not recruit like Nick Saban, but at the end of the day I would rather have youngsters learning that there is life after college football and get some character building (which will last long after the final whistle) along the way.



Unfortunately, as long as the NCAA looks differently at different programs and some get hammered while others get nothing disparity of performance based upon the integrity of the program will always exist.



What's a clean program? I'd say a program is clean if only a handful of guys get arrested each year. If you randomly selected 120 non-athlete college guys that's about what you'd get. A handful of arrests, mostly for DWI and such. Also by clean I'd say we don't have guys juicing to build muscle, and cleverly covering it up.



Arrests and bad behavior mean the program isn't clean, it means the players who are part of it get into trouble. How the coach runs his ship and how he responds to these incidents define how clean the program is. You could hand a principled coach a roster full of thugs who, all they do is get arrested, but it doesn't mean that coach isn't running a clean program.



Nebraska has had a decent amount of alcohol related incidents during Pelini's tenure; however, I'm not stating alcohol related incidents have increased under him. Just wondering where some draw the clean/dirty line. I think there's a difference between "clean" and "pristine".



When the school's biggest problem is giving the players textbooks, I think we're a pretty clean program. Seriously, every program is going to have players getting into some mischief (especially with alcohol). I hate to excuse that sort of behavior, but it's almost part of being in college. I realize that these guys are expected to maintain higher standards than most students, but that doesn't mean they aren't human and don't make mistakes.



I'm just glad Nebraska isn’t anywhere near the level that Ohio State or Penn State. On a national scale, the Huskers are a pretty squeaky-clean program.



If I had to choose between running a clean program and winning 5-7 games each year versus running a program that bends the rules a little but is in the perennial hunt for the national title, I'd take the latter. But I think we have close to the best of both worlds at NU. The football team is run very well and nine wins a year is nothing to be ashamed of despite how frustrated some fans are that the program has not reached BCS Bowl level under Pelini. Hopefully this coming season we can break through that barricade and win 11-14 games.

More Pelini perspective

Whether the Nebraska football head coach has been Bob Devaney, Tom Osborne, Frank Solich, Bill Callahan or Bo Pelini, Husker football coaches will always be subjected to (how can I put this nicely) — public opinion.
Despite the fact that Pelini has guided the Huskers to a 39-16 record (if you include the interim coach Alamo Bowl game in 2003) since taking over for Callahan after the 2007 season, the biggest sticking point with most Nebraska fans is that the program has not taken the next step to becoming BCS Bowl material. Pelini’s initial impact was great as the Huskers went from 5-7 in 2007 under Callahan to 9-4 in 2008 (Pelini’s first season). Though the Huskers were on the doorstep of a Big 12 conference title in 2009 and 2010, they have done no better than 10-4 in his tenure.

There are a segment of Husker fans who want him gone, and those in the media who are also ultra-critical of the Pelini. While some of the criticism has been warranted, sacking the man at this point the answer. I think that he’s earned another year (all you ever do season to season in my opinion). I think a 9-4 performance next year would also secure him another year, however, I wouldn’t feel as good about it. Then again, the 2011 version of 9-4 was not much to crow about either.

The question then becomes, how long would you say that this standard of performance could go along before you’d believe that a change needs to be made?

Though improvement can always be made, I think Pelini is doing a fine enough job at the moment, but that’s on the basis that we all think his teams are going to get better at some point. I’d say that a conference title and a top 10 finish in his first decade as a coach would be acceptable to me.

My overall evaluation of Pelini as our head coach is positive. Of course, there are areas in which I feel he could improve, but I had those feelings about Osborne during his tenure. There is no perfect coach. During his coaching career, Osborne was criticized for not being able to win the big games, for being too one dimensional on offense, for not recruiting well, for his sideline behavior (not being animated enough), for his media presence (being too dull), etc., but he turned out to be a pretty darn good coach.

Pelini is still learning, and has made improvements. He has acknowledged some issues, and worked on them. He took over the program at a tough time, had his hands tied during his first recruiting class, and has gone through a conference change.

Football is cyclical. There are times of prosperity and growth, and there are rebuilding times. You don’t always have a Tommie Frazier in the program, sometimes you have a Mike Grant. That is not a slight against Grant, who was a good quarterback but not the difference-maker that Frazier was.

Pelini has had some special players on his teams (some he recruited and some he coached), and he has done well. I think brighter days are ahead with Pelini, and think if we get rid of Pelini for anything other than NCAA violations, serious transgressions either on the field or off, or horrible losing seasons, we're doomed to repeat our Steve Pederson/Bill Callahan errors.
However, I think that Nebraska needs to eventually be looking to win at least three conference titles per decade. I say this because we should wish to be in the game more often than not and hope to go about .500 in it. I understand that Michigan isn’t going to roll over and neither are Ohio State and Penn State. Still, Nebraska needs to fill in that gap.

That said, I think the Huskers are still recovering to some degree from the last decade and especially the Callahan years, as such I think that we need to allow our young coach with plenty of time, I still think that he’s got to perform at some point. So I don’t think a conference title in the first decade is unreasonable.

It seems to me that Osborne has five rules for Pelini’s continued employment: 1) Maintain good graduation rates; 2) Maintain team support; 3) Limit Woody Hayes-like behavior; 4) Don’t break any rules/embarrass the university; 5) Consistently field a respectable/competitive team.

I think Pelini will be there as long as he doesn’t violate one of these rules and continues to be happy in Lincoln. The blow-out losses in 2011 could be his Achilles heel.

That said, I don’t find 9-4 as acceptable in the long term, I only find it acceptable right now because five years ago the Huskers had a losing record. They’re trying to build the program, I also think that dropping four games every few years is OK, but 9-4 ought to be one of their “down” years. I think that Pelini will have Nebraska on an upward trajectory, he just needs to iron out some of the team break downs, which I think start with him.

9-3 is in the eye of the beholder

With Nebraska’s regular-season ending 20-7 win over Iowa having come and gone, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple posed the question of “how do you feel about the Huskers’ 9-3 season?”


It’s certainly not the end all, be all that comes from any fan over the age of 30 that truly remembers Nebraska winning national championships (five to be exact). Keep in mind, Nebraska won three in the 1990s and went 60-3 from 1993-1997. However, I have said for a long time that we, as Nebraska fans, had become so jaded because of the long run of success we had during the Bob Devaney/Tom Osborne eras that we had lost sight of the definition of success.

Winning a national championship is every team’s goal, but only one team gets to do it. Does that mean every other team failed? Certainly not. We’ve had more than our share of success and failures this season, but any time you win 75 percent of your games, especially in a meat-grinder of a conference such as the Big Ten, you’ve got to look at that as a success (at least on some level).

You have to remember what Nebraska had for a leader in the athletic director’s chair and where that leader took this program (namely Steve Pederson). We didn’t “gravitate toward mediocrity” under his leadership, we sprinted toward it.

Could the Huskers have done better in 2011? Certainly, short of going undefeated, teams can always do better. They crapped the bed against Northwestern and didn’t play well against Michigan or Wisconsin. In the grand scheme of things, though 9-3 is a pretty good season. Great season? No but it certainly beats the 7-5 saddle Iowa has to ride on.

Osborne made a living on nine win seasons in a conference where you had six blowout wins a year and one legit game against Oklahoma. Well, when the Sooners started to backslide that the legit games later became Kansas State and Colorado. In the Big Ten, there is quality at the top and lack of quality at the bottom but the quality in the middle is much better.

The nine win benchmark was what everybody pointed to when Frank Solich broke that streak with a 7-7 season in 2002. Now, we have Bo Pelini winning nine games for the fourth year in a row and people are mad. Those same people who point to the 1990s don’t remember the 1970s and 1980s. They only remember the 1970 and 1971 seasons ending with national crowns. They don’t remember that from 1972 to 1979, the seasons ranged between 9-3 and 10-2. Those same people also only remember the 1980s for the consecutive 12-1 seasons in 1982 and 1983. They don’t remember that the rest of that decade ranged between 9-3 and 10-2. They also don’t remember that it took nine years for Osborne to win a conference title; something Pelini has had Nebraska on the doorstep of doing twice in his four year span.

I recently went to an Oklahoma message board after they lost to Texas Tech and they were calling for Stoops head. One post read like this “If you want to win a conference championship every other year Stoops is your guy, but if you want to win a national title we need a new coach.” Really? It’s about the perspective of fans. We would be thrilled with a conference championship but I dare say if we won a couple of those our fans would then elevate their expectations to winning national titles and if we didn’t do that they would still want Pelini fired.

Look, there’s no way in hell I want to have Iowa’s standards. They’re happy with seven wins but do you hear Iowa fans calling for Kirk Ferentz’s head right now? Hell no because their standards are nowhere near ours (which is why they've never won a national title).

What people don’t seem to realize is that the days of Nebraska beating the living crap out of teams week in and week out are long since passed. College football has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. The playing field is a lot more level than it once was when an elite list of teams like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State and others were dominant year in and year out. Northwestern isn’t the weak sister they once were because they’re now capable of playing at a more competitive level than they used to. Conversely, look at Colorado, they had risen up to an elite level not that long ago, and now they’re the Pac 12 doormat. Osborne averaged ten wins a year in 25 years as head coach, and there were a ton of 9-3, 9-2-1 seasons in that legendary era.

I remember in the early 1990s about how Husker fans had to make a choice whether we could be happy with nine wins a season with Osborne or hire somebody who can get us to “the promised land.” Well, a few years later, he got the Huskers to the promised land three times in four years, and it wasn’t until we got an underhanded sleeze of an AD like Pederson that the program fell from the elite.

Nebraska is back where it once was with nine wins a year, and I think it can get back to the promised land with the current setup. I appreciate those years under Osborne today more than I did at the time they happened, and I think the frustration of losses like those the Huskers experienced this year are far outweighed by the overall success and direction the program is now headed but beating Iowa was helpful.