Evolution of the Big XII South
Chris Bellomy
Ever since the Big 12 got started, I've seen a few tectonic
changes afoot that would remake the image of the league.
Nebraska, first of all, would end up hurt the most of the
Big 8 schools by the elimination of partial qualifiers.
That, of course, happened.
Next would be the slow decline of the football program at
OU, mostly at the hands of Texas A&M. That hasn't really
happened yet, but I think it's starting. Here's why I think
so.
OU boasts roughly 21,000 undergraduates on campus. Their
alumni base is reasonably large and very committed to
success in football, adding about 5000 new members each
year. Naturally, some of those alums have deep pockets.
A&M has roughly 38,000 undergrads, sending ~9500 Aggies
into the real world each year. Fifty years ago, though,
those numbers were 7500 and 1750 respectively. Even as
the school grew at a frenetic pace, the alumni base
lagged behind in size. A&M has been a very large school
for over twenty years now, though. The graduates of the
class of 1989 are now in their early to mid 40s, just
starting to really come into their own financially. And
of course Aggies are just as crazy about football and
their school as s00ners, to put it mildly.
There's no way that OU can compete with this over time.
It's always been hard enough for them competing with you
guys, but an A&M program that's well-coached and well-
funded makes coming into Texas for recruits that much
more difficult for them... and now A&M is playing in
DFW every year, too, just like them. (As is Arkansas
again, of course.) OU is gonna miss on two or three
blue chippers every year that they used to get without
hesitation, and that can't help but have an effect.
There are other issues at work of course. Stoops has
become a prisoner of his own persona, taking dumb risks
in big games when there is no upside -- just because he's
the gambler. He's losing the close games now, and can't
buy a bowl win. His best assistants are mostly gone. Can
he really absorb a five-loss season (a distinct likelihood)
now without feeling the effects on the recruiting trail?
It's possible, but I doubt it.
Meanwhile, over in College Station, Sherman has more raw
talent on the field than any coach at A&M has trotted out
there since the 1990s -- and there's a bunch more already
in the pipeline. And face it, he has a great message,
especially on the offensive side of the ball -- come here
and pick up the skills you need to play on Sundays. Nolan
Cromwell will be calling the plays. We've got Brett Favre
on speed dial. Etc. None of this is a guarantee of success,
but none of it should be pleasing to Okie ears, either.
A solid program in Aggieland puts OU in a position where
they have little chance to compete with Texas, and we know
how that goes over with their alums.
I may be wrong (is Mack Brown *still* in Austin?!) but this
time I really don't think I am. I don't see how OU can sustain
a return to prominence if their ability to attract top-shelf
HS talent from the state of Texas is impaired, and I think
it now is.
cb
Phil
I understand what you are saying....BUT, I don't think their ability
to get talent is that impaired. First, they play good football in
Oklahoma and pretty much anyone good there wants to play for the
homestate sooners. They don't lose anybody out of state. Let's say
there is enough talent in Oklahoma to sustain 25-35% of a good
program. Therefore, they have the get the rest from Texas, which is
historically what they have done.
While I think the decline in a&m is partially related to not playing
in Dallas, I think the bigger decline started when Mack Brown got to
Texas. It used to be automatic that a kid in inner city Dallas would
be an aggie, but in his first year, he hired a high school coach from
Carter on his staff. That stopped the bleeding (for Texas), but Mack
recruited the Houston suburbs really well. RC was still recruiting
well, but Stoops was there now and he was recruiting the hell out of
Dallas too. Now the talent in Dallas was split 3 ways instead of one
and the talent in Houston was split more in Texas favor, especially in
those early Mack years.
I think when aggie lost RC, it really hurt them in Dallas and they
still haven't recovered. I'm not saying getting rid of RC was the
wrong decision, I think it was the right one, but I think their
coaches just didn't recruit Dallas as well as Stoops and Brown.
Perhaps a&m has recovered or is in recovery, I can't tell, I'm not as
close to it as I used to be.
So my thought on it is this. I have always thought there is enough
talent in Texas to support 3 really good (top ten annually)D1
programs. Those programs should be the three we are talking about
now. I think Stoops may be hurt a bit, but he will adjust and find a
coach who can make up the difference and cherry pick what he needs out
of Texas to go along with the 30% he already gets. Texas is doing it
so well now it is scary but a good a&m is a threat to their recruiting
base. I think, if what you are saying about aggie talent is true,
that there will be 3 top 10 teams in the south perenially and the Big
12 will surpass the SEC permantly as the best conference in football.
Of course, I thought this would happen years ago when Fran took the
job and boy was I wrong.
There is one wild-card in this now and that is OK State. The
facilitites they have up there can not be ignored. Kids in Oklahoma
may start splitting their loyalties a bit and that could be what
ultimately hurts Stoops the most because it will be hard to get the
talent out of Texas if he is having to compete with UT AND a&m as
opposed to just Texas.
You are right, a&m is the sleeping giant and honestly, they have been
sleeping too long. I would be fine if they stayed asleep but we will
see if Sherman is waking them up. I don't think it means the end of
dominance for ousucks, it just means they are going to have to work
harder.
Chris Bellomy
> While I think the decline in a&m is partially related to not playing
> in Dallas, I think the bigger decline started when Mack Brown got to
> Texas.
I disagree. It started with the Warren Gilbert scandal and
the probation year in '94. Mostly what Brown did was stem
the flow of recruits out of state.
> It used to be automatic that a kid in inner city Dallas would
> be an aggie,
See Warren Gilbert.
> I think when aggie lost RC, it really hurt them in Dallas and they
> still haven't recovered. I'm not saying getting rid of RC was the
> wrong decision, I think it was the right one, but I think their
> coaches just didn't recruit Dallas as well as Stoops and Brown.
> Perhaps a&m has recovered or is in recovery, I can't tell, I'm not as
> close to it as I used to be.
A&M is recruiting the area again pretty nicely. Look at
the pipeline from DeSoto -- Von Miller, Cyrus Gray, Garrick
Williams, Tony Jerod-Eddie. So far.
> So my thought on it is this. I have always thought there is enough
> talent in Texas to support 3 really good (top ten annually)D1
> programs.
I think that's optimistic, but maybe if LSU, OU, Arkansas,
Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc., were totally stopped in their
tracks... then you look at the other Texas schools that
have had recent success: TCU, Tech, Houston. They'd have
to suffer, too.
> Those programs should be the three we are talking about
> now. I think Stoops may be hurt a bit, but he will adjust and find a
> coach who can make up the difference and cherry pick what he needs out
> of Texas to go along with the 30% he already gets. Texas is doing it
> so well now it is scary but a good a&m is a threat to their recruiting
> base. I think, if what you are saying about aggie talent is true,
> that there will be 3 top 10 teams in the south perenially and the Big
> 12 will surpass the SEC permantly as the best conference in football.
Maybe. I don't think it's possible as long as TCU is
running up 10-win seasons, though.
> There is one wild-card in this now and that is OK State. The
> facilitites they have up there can not be ignored. Kids in Oklahoma
> may start splitting their loyalties a bit and that could be what
> ultimately hurts Stoops the most because it will be hard to get the
> talent out of Texas if he is having to compete with UT AND a&m as
> opposed to just Texas.
That's true, too, and I should have devoted a graf to it
in my original post. OAMC used to have a passive attitude
about football -- they'd just dominate the Big 8 in every-
thing else, which they pretty much did. (Well, they and
Kansas dominated bouncyball.) Now they've gotten serious
about football, and that, too, is a bad omen for the Norman
inbreds.
> You are right, a&m is the sleeping giant and honestly, they have been
> sleeping too long. I would be fine if they stayed asleep but we will
> see if Sherman is waking them up. I don't think it means the end of
> dominance for ousucks, it just means they are going to have to work
> harder.
I say they'll be good, but they'll not dominate again for
years at a time, not in my lifetime. It would take both
A&M and Texas to fall on hard times simultaneously, and
I'm not sure that's even possible.
cb
Steve Cutchen
Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
Well, there is no doubt that Brown secured the borders for Austin.
Brown doesn't so much recruit now as he selects. He's said that among
mothers of high school seniors across the state,he's the most hated man
in the state. He talks, for example, about going after just one
marquee running back a year, because to go after two would be to imply
splitting time and that will chase off the best backs. They have a
choice of maybe 3 or 4. So it is up to him and his staff to pick the
right guy. One that would be willing to come to Austin, and then the
best for the program.
Not that he doesn't miss recuirts. Adrian Peterson is the most
obvious. And he wanted Ryan Piriloo until he realized what a head case
he was.
I think I read more than half of the Texas football recruits were
captains on their HS team.
Over 95% of the Texas roster is from Texas. That is an unbelievably
freakish number. And of the 6 guys from out of state, some have Texas
ties and are really just coming home to play. (There are 10 out of
state Aggies... also freakish when compared to other top programs. TCU
has 22. Florida has 33 out of state, including 6 from Texas. The same
number as Texas has from the entire rest of the country. OUsucks has 43
Texans, 35 Okies and 31 out of staters)
So what's been the effect of this success? The first and biggest
effect I think was on the Florida States and Miamis and Michigans and
Wisconsins of the world. At the end of the SWC and even under Mackovic
and RC, Texas talent was flooding out of the state. As y'all have
mentioned, Brown put a stop to it. And he's been unabashed that he
wants the kids we don't have room for to stay in state as well. They
still get kids from Texas, but for a while, all the TOP talent as
leaving.
OUsucks has always recruited in Texas. Even back in the late 70s, we
called them the University of Texas at Norman. I think even with the
inevitable rise of the Aggies, they will still cherry pick in Texas.
Maybe of that 40% of their roster that are Texans, a percentage will be
lesser players. But A&M is already recruiting Texas to the tune of 90%
of its roster. So if they tap OUsucks, it will be a trade of quality,
not a reduction in number. And OUsucks obviously recruits well outside
of Texas and Oklahoma, more that Texas or A&M, so they have that
pipeline, and that will continue.
Also, Texas, OUsucks and all other top programs are pretty dang good at
turning 3 star recruits into good football players over time. And even
if OUsucks drops the number of 5 star Texans, their ability to grow
within will continue until the coaching starts to suck.
The real key is as A&M gets more consistently good, what will happen to
OU's performance. Right now, Texas and OUsucks fight it out to claim
the Big12 south. We've beat OSU 11 in a row. And regardless of last
year, we pretty much own Tech historically. For A&M or anyone of the
others to make this a Triparte, they will have to beat Texas and
OUsucks as often as they get beat. Your view is that Sherman is
leading this march to the sea. You may be right, but I don't think it
will be as a replacement for OUsucks, I think if it comes to pass, it
will be in addition. And if it is three teams sharing rather than two,
all three will be able to sustain. I think it would take a bad
coaching change or 3 to 4 years of OUsucks finishing 3rd or 4th to
really dent their program long term. That's what it took to dent A&M in
the first place. And even if they lose some of their top Texas talent,
I think they have enough options to keep this from happening just by
A&M getting better.
Chris Bellomy
> The real key is as A&M gets more consistently good, what will happen to
> OU's performance. Right now, Texas and OUsucks fight it out to claim
> the Big12 south. We've beat OSU 11 in a row. And regardless of last
> year, we pretty much own Tech historically. For A&M or anyone of the
> others to make this a Triparte, they will have to beat Texas and
> OUsucks as often as they get beat.
Well, to accomplish what I'm talking about, A&M needs to go
at least .500 against OU. Our record against Texas doesn't
strictly matter.
> Your view is that Sherman is
> leading this march to the sea. You may be right, but I don't think it
> will be as a replacement for OUsucks, I think if it comes to pass, it
> will be in addition. And if it is three teams sharing rather than two,
> all three will be able to sustain.
That, by itself, represents a significant step down for OU.
See what I'm saying?
cb
Phil
One of the things Steve mentioned in his post was the decline of Fla
State, Michigan, Wisconson, and Miami. I was going to touch on this
when I posted but I didn't. I really believe the decline in the Big
10 and Michigan and Notre Dame (I know they aren't in the Big 10 but
they should be) in particular was the creation of the Big12. Ohio
State gets almost every kid in Ohio and there is enough there for one
school. Michigan has to cherry pick Ohio, PA, and Texas and with
Texas locking up kids to the Big 12, it has hurt them. Just my
opinion.
Chris Bellomy
Interesting thought. Maybe so.
cb
Steve Cutchen
Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
Well, going from 2 to 3 would be a significant step down for OUsucks
AND Texas, because it would reduce the chances for conference and
national titles. But I don't think it has to happen concurrently with
a drop in their performance. I think Texas and OUSucks could maintain
their current national status while still allowing for enough talent to
go to TAMU for y'all to also get to that level. I would see that, on
a year to year basis, one of the three would be on top, and that team
would have the inside track for a national title.
Though the analogy is geographic and not based on a common conference,
I could see the three teams in the Big 12 South being a bit like
Florida, Florida State and Miami of yore.
Ron Blancarte
>In article <t4Cdnfyxr47lxWrX...@supernews.com>, Chris
>Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>
>> Or, how Mike Sherman may send Bob Stoops into early retirement...
>>
>
>Well, there is no doubt that Brown secured the borders for Austin....
You know I had to chime on this thread...
First off, one quick thing before I get onto the whole South Evolution thing:
In terms of Nebraska, their decline was not fully due to the whole partial
qualifier thing. Nebraska had a period of success under Solich, including
playing for an MNC in 2001. He had one down year of .500, but rebounded with a
10-3 year and was rewarded by being fired. That firing was the mistake that UNL
made, and it was for three reasons:
#1- It was such a drastic move. The whole reason people were down on
Solich (and they would have been similar on Osborn) was that the offense
was mired in the 70s. Honestly, firing the coach (and thus the whole
staff) modernizes it, but forcing Solich to get a pass minded OC would
have probably been a better solution (the changes in 2002 did result in
the 10-3 year)
#2 - They had no plan. Great, your coach isn't with the times, you fire
him to ... conduct a search?!?!? Maybe you should have put some feelers
out there before making the move. In the end their list of interviewees
sucked (Dave Wannstedt, Al Saunders, Houston Nutt, Mike Zimmer, Steve
Spurrier-rumored), and all of them turned UNL down. So... (Small note,
in 2003 down the raod in Utah was a guy named Urban Meyer)
#3 - They end up with Calahan who was a disaster and effectively burned
UNL football to the ground.
Just my thought.
As far as the South Evolution thing:
Reading your posts, I see you guys making an assumption/observation - that Texas
somehow only has enough talent to sustain a few programs. And if anything, the
last few years show us that just isn't true anymore. Texas is not just a gold
mine of talent, it is like the warehouse of government artifacts at the end of
Raiders of the Lost Ark, you can make whole teams here. I think a lot of that
has to do with the scholarship limits allowing more talent to be evenly
distributed.
The biggest key is that Texas is STOCKED with 3- and 4-Star talent that is equal
to 4- and 5-Star talent from other states. Mack is a perfect example of this.
Remember back in the heyday of his recruiting, he was stockpiling 5-Stars like
they were candy. 2002 saw him bring in 6 (5 from Texas). And then he decided
that he wanted to go more character guys the next year. The number of 5-Stars
fell off, instead he focused on 3- and 4-Star character guys. He wouldn't bring
in 6 more 5-Star guys until 2007 and that was 2003-2007 COMBINED. But he knew
that if he brought in his kind of guys, even lower on the blue chip scale, he
could and would make his team from that, and he has.
Another thing to realize about Texas is that OUsucks doesn't focus on Texas the
way it once did. Steve, those numbers were very much indicative of that - 43
Texans, 35 Okies and 31 other. When was the last time you saw an OU team with
less than 40% of their roster from Texas? That could honestly be 50% too. Geoff
Ketchum over at Rivals/Orangebloods has an article on this recently and talked
about how OU lessened recruiting in Texas to focus on more talent. The result
is that 28% out of other 48ers.
The next thing you guys are looking at is PURE talent. And that is VERY MUCH no
longer the case. What is more important to the lifeblood of all these programs
is not just PURE talent, but the RIGHT talent. You guys focus on Mack Cherry
picking, and in some cases this is right. But he would rather get 4-Star talent
that is exactly what he needs than 5-Star talent that is a near fit. Look at
his 5-Star talent from the last 4 Classes (06-09):
06 - Eddie Jones (DE), Sergio Kindle (DE/LB)
07 - Tray Allen (OL), Curtis Brown (DB)
08 - NONE
09 - Garrett Bilbert (QB), Alex Okafor (DE), Mason Walters (OL)
These guys are contributors or being groomed. Eddie Jones is the only one that
is a question mark, and he has a year left to show what he can do.
Still the point is, it is much more important to find guys that are the fit that
Texas (or OUsucks or A&M or whoever) than the other way around. Look at Tech,
finding freakish athletes to play WR and QBs that can read a defense in a split
second and make the right reads.
Here are the rivals rankings for the dominant programs of the area, take a look:
School '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Ave Rank
Texas 1 15 10 20 5 5 14 5 9.375
OUSucks 7 4 8 3 9 14 6 13 8
A&M 23 10 13 8 27 43 16 22 20.25
Tech 48 44 33 37 25 52 45 33 39.625
Neb 40 42 27 5 20 13 30 28 25.625
TCU 79 69 55 54 61 80 96 46 67.5
Texas is clearly the best team this year and hasn't been the top recruiting
school. Tech has been spanking A&M with lesser talents (and got us last year).
TCU has terrible talent, and while I agree they are not playing Big 12 type
teams, they got the right guys to fit their school and are winning. Proof - GET
THE RIGHT GUYS!
That also leads into the final thing - Coaching is a MAJOR premium. One of the
reason that Mack has been able to go for "the right" as opposed to the best guys
is that they are coaching them up to get maximum effort out of them. Think
about the 2000 MNC of OUsucks. Do you think that was the most talented team in
the country? No. Heck some would question if they were the most talented in
the conference!! Yet, Stoops won it all because he coached them to be a single
unit. Look at Texas that year, and all of the teams that followed for 1/2 a
decade, fractured. Hell, we wheeled out teams in 2001 and 2002 that we were
SURE that were more talented, yet both got thumped by double figures. Why?
Because they were a lot of every man for himself. Hell, you had Roy and Benson
hating each other in the locker room. (BTW - as a side note, I think it is an
embarrassment to Texas that our leadership award is named for Roy Williams). On
the flip side, OU players lived and DIED for each other. Why? Stoops got them
to buy in. And Mack is doing the same with lesser talent now.
My thinking of how I see things fall out is this:
Mack here at Texas - IMHO, he is going to stay where he is. Recruiting like a
monster and coaching like one too.
Stoops at OUsucks - I don't see him falling any. I think he will figure it out
and right things at OUsucks. But you never know, he might jump ship too - NFL,
and I have a feeling the ND might open up.
Sherman at A&M - to me the real question is this "can Sherman coach this team to
win?" I question it, but given the turn around this year, I won't say he can't.
If he can coach up his guys, then what CB said is right.
BTW - I posted it before, I will post it again:
THE WORM TURNS FOR THE LONGHORNS AND SOONERS (or How Mack Brown because Bob
Stoops and Bob Stoops became Mack Brown)
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=986855
-R
Phil
Are you sure you posted this article before? If so, I missed it.
That was awesome. Your points, along with that article, bring back
the memory of what my high school coach always said (daily, over and
over and over in that raspy voice he had), " I'll take a little man
with a big hear over a little man with a big heart every time and I'll
win every time!" There are limits to that, but I have seen that
proven over and over and over.
Steve Cutchen
<ron@---TAKETHISOUT---.blancarte.com> wrote:
#2 and #3 I agree with 100%.
#1, though.. I don't have the details on the tip of my brain like I
used to, and I'm too lazy to look them up again, but Solich could not
beat a ranked team. He beat a #25 OSU at the start of one season, and
then lost every other game against ranked opponents. EVEN IN THE YEAR
HE PLAYED FOR THE MNC. He had essentially every non-conference game at
home, and was beating up on cupcakes.
All of the pro-Solich cornheads were pulling for the guy because he was
a tie to Tom and because UNL's program is built on fierce loyalty.
Look at their tradition of walk-ons. Un-freaking-believable. And
with the disasters that befell UNL because of #2 and #3, they have a
huge "But What If" hanging over their heads.
But you can't lead with your heart in matters of football coaching.
What I think Peterson saw was the ghost of RC. He was winning, but not
winning any big games, and that was likely to perpetuate because his
style was being blown into the weeds like a horse and buggy at Indy.
NONE of that, though excuses #2 and #3, which were indeed the death
knell. Solich wasn't the guy. But you can't chuck him until you know
who the guy is.
> As far as the South Evolution thing:
> Here are the rivals rankings for the dominant programs of the area, take a
> look:
> School '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 Ave Rank
> Texas 1 15 10 20 5 5 14 5 9.375
> OUSucks 7 4 8 3 9 14 6 13 8
> A&M 23 10 13 8 27 43 16 22 20.25
> Tech 48 44 33 37 25 52 45 33 39.625
> Neb 40 42 27 5 20 13 30 28 25.625
> TCU 79 69 55 54 61 80 96 46 67.5
> Texas is clearly the best team this year and hasn't been the top recruiting
> school. Tech has been spanking A&M with lesser talents (and got us last
> year).
I wish the recruiting ranking were adjusted for the number of
scholarships available. If it is a year with fewer openings, your rank
gets crushed. I think a weighted average recruit rank might be a
better way to look at it, especially if it were factored by some type
of "how did you meet your needs" thing.
> TCU has terrible talent, and while I agree they are not playing Big 12 type
> teams, they got the right guys to fit their school and are winning. Proof -
> GET
> THE RIGHT GUYS!
And this goes along well with the comment I saw about Mack "selecting"
talent more than "recruiting" it these days. He seems more inclined to
pass on a guy that is playing him against other schools and instead
offer the guy that absolutely wants to go here.
> That also leads into the final thing - Coaching is a MAJOR premium.
A theory I have that I don't think I've mentioned on line is that Vince
Young should get a lot of credit for how he changed Mack as a coach.
I think Vince made Brown lighten up a lot. He cured the pucker factor.
Mack finally realized it was not just OK but good to let the guys be
the guys... and, if he was recruiting the right character of guys, he
could trust them to be casual when casual was OK and still be deadly
serious when serious mattered.
I think Vince promoted a sea change in Mack's coaching style.
Ron Blancarte
<max...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>#1, though.. I don't have the details on the tip of my brain like I
>used to, and I'm too lazy to look them up again, but Solich could not
>beat a ranked team. He beat a #25 OSU at the start of one season, and
>then lost every other game against ranked opponents. EVEN IN THE YEAR
>HE PLAYED FOR THE MNC. He had essentially every non-conference game at
>home, and was beating up on cupcakes.
Since the Cowboys are KILLING me, I looked this up:
Solich record vs Ranked Teams including bowl games:
1998: 2-3 Lost Holiday Bowl
1999: 4-1 Won Fiesta Bowl
2000: 2-2 Won Alamo Bowl
2001: 2-2 Lost Rose Bowl (MNC)
2002: 0-4 Lost Independence Bowl*
2003: 1-1 Won Alamo Bowl*
Overall, he was 11-13 in ranked games. Other than the 2002 season,
not a bad mark.
Not a bad mark. BTW - Cowboys are STILL killing me. The game is over
(just waiting for the clock to hit 0:00).
BTW - replay rules SUCK.
Steve Cutchen
<r...@bla.nca.rte.com> wrote:
It was the 2003 season that they beat #24 OklaState in the opener as
the only win against a ranked team, and they were 0-4 the year before.
They were still decent at home through 2000.
Looking back, the last wins on the road against ranked teams were
Texas (#12) 12/4/1999
Tennessee (#6) 1/2/2000
Notre Dame (#23) in OT, 9/9/2000
Northwestern (18), 12/20/2000
That MNC year, they only played 3 regular season games on the road;
Missouri (4-7), Baylor(3-8) and Kansas (3-8). THAT is a gimee
schedule.
They lost BOTH post season games.
So I think a good argument could be made that they were not a top
national team regardless of thier MNC appearance.
So I still think Solich was circling the drain.
Ron Blancarte
Hard to say about 2001. Yea, their away schedule was a joke. Their
non-conference was deceptive. TCU that year came off a 10-2 season. Notre Dame
came off a 9-3 season. But neither would finish above .500 (TCU 6-6, ND 5-6).
But they did knock off #2 OUsucks, which speaks for something. They lose to CU
to miss the Big 12 Title game, back door into playing Miami and get crushed.
I rack up CU to rivalry and Miami to that team being a SICK collection of
talent.
All in all, I think that you had a good, but untested team.
I will say this, to me the reason that Solich was fired was perception. In this
case, perception of:
A. the North where KSU was starting to pass UNL. Solich went 2-4 against KSU
and only took Nebraska to 1 Big 12 Title game (compared to 3 for KSU).
and
B. the Big 12 as a whole where power seems to shift south. UNL didn't have the
best South record against the South Powers (1-4 Texas, 1-1 OU). And what
occured during Solich's time at UNL was a shift of the North schools entering as
the higher ranked team in the Big 12 Title game, to the South schools being
higher ranked.
While I agree 2002 put him on the hot seat, 2003 he somewhat righted the ship. I
think that he had earned at least a year or so more before dumping the guy. A
10-3 mark is pretty good.