Depending on your perspective, he was either the most horrific head coach ever to coach at a BCS conference football program, or the victim of an egotisical megalomaniac. If you get enough people in a room, chances are you'll find at least one person with one of those divergent positions. Sure, names like "Steve Pederson" may have larger negative connotations, but vastly fewer defenders.
I'll be honest here... I fall firmly in the "victim of a megalomaniac" camp. So I was pleased to see that Solich got a five year extension at Ohio. He's got a winning record after three seasons, being bowl eligible in two of his three seasons at a school that previously hadn't been to a bowl game since 1968.
But when the news came out, I didn't plan to comment on it. We need to move on from the whole Solich debate. So I was rather disappointed to see that the Journal-Star is rehashing the whole debate in their new book "The Path to Pelini."
Maybe there's something new in the book... but the blog entry to promote it doesn't say much. We all know that Houston Nutt turned down a job offer from Nebraska. The Chuck Amato story isn't new either. But Steve Sipple says
Maybe if there were something new here. Maybe if you have to bring it up again because you need to tell the story about how Nebraska got into the mess they found themselves in last season.
"It's always interesting looking back to Steve Pederson's coaching search in late 2003 and early 2004."
But to say it's "always interesting"? Maybe if you like to raise people's blood pressure. Maybe if you like to start arguments that can't be won. Believe me, I've tried. It doesn't go anywhere.
Maybe in a few years, Husker fans will be able to look back at the last four years as the "dark ages" of Nebraska football. Names like Steve Pederson, Bill Callahan, and Kevin Cosgrove hopefully will be reduced to punchlines, much like Oklahoma fans view Howard Schnellenberger and John Blake.
But until then, rehashing it just to rehash it doesn't serve any purpose.