How important is having an identity to the stability of our football program?

[luke hawg]

Our football program is being shaped in Bret's image. He has a unique style that appears to be capable of success with the right personnel. Nolan also had a unique system that was very successful. We chose to try something different after Nolans success, and in my opinion we lost our identity. We are currently enjoying our best season in 2 decades after 2 unsuccessful hires with Nolan's protege. When commentators talk about Mike Anderson's team, there are automatically adjectives that roll off their tongue even if it isn't 100 percent true of that years team at the moment. I've noticed the same kind of reaction to Bielema's style from the media. They assume we are automatically good at aspects of the game because of who our coach is. I hope we learn from our own mistake in basketball. We can't turnover a roster in two or three years; One bad hire can kill us for 7 or 8 years. Bret's recruiting philosophy acknowledges this fact. If Bielema is as successful as it appears he will be, we need him to be grooming the next head Hog. Barry Lunney seems like a possible candidate. I can't help but think that the best hire for Nebraska is Paul Johnson or the head coach of Navy. Oregon, Stanford, and Wisconsin seem to remain stable through transition when keeping the same style of play.

[HiggiePiggy]

The identity is what a coach brings.  It's not necessarily what the school is.   Good coaches win by having a plan from the start and sticking with it.   

After Nolan we went and hired a couple of up and comer coaches instead of going after a proven coach.  This time we went after a proven coach in basketball and in football.  Both are successful because they both have plans to put in place from the start. 

[luke hawg]

The identity is what a coach brings.  It's not necessarily what the school is.   Good coaches win by having a plan from the start and sticking with it.   

After Nolan we went and hired a couple of up and comer coaches instead of going after a proven coach.  This time we went after a proven coach in basketball and in football.  Both are successful because they both have plans to put in place from the start.

So you don't feel Oregon and Stanford hired guys that run a similar system. You disagree that this continuity has contributed to there success.

[arlhog]

Being master of the obvious, I say that if you are identified as a winner it is priceless!

[HiggiePiggy]

So you don't feel Oregon and Stanford hired guys that run a similar system. You disagree that this continuity has contributed to there success.

How did we do with Bobby Petrino?   How did we do with Eddie sutton?   

Coaches are what make programs not the schools.  You go after coaches that are proven, you have a very good chance of turning your program into a contender no matter what style they run.   

Sometimes you hit on a up and comer and it works.  I believe Nolan was an up and comer.   Sometimes you get an up and comer and you are looking at almost 2 decades of mediocre success or worse.