One Senator called it out exactly for what it is:
https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-l ... e/60206747
Political BS. For anyone else to argue otherwise is a moron. Trev knew we didn't have a president on the hook in November, right? So why renew his contract if he didn't have high hopes for things moving along how he'd like them to. Ultimately, yes, you want a president in place at the most popular university in the UN system. However, as long as he feels secure in his role, has the freedoms he needs to get |expletive| done and can function at a high level as necessary then a president shouldn't be an absolute requirement. Of course they NEED one, SHOULD have one, but Trev's capable and can certainly handle things on his own (he's shown it).
The only reason he'd leave when he's already making great money at the university he said he's committed to is if |expletive|'s starting to fall apart.
Of course other senators are saying "this is not the time to be laying blame". Guarantee if the regents were a Dem majority this would be ALL ABOUT the politics and pointing fingers.
Damn this makes me mad - at first I was thinking (or more likely hoping) it was a little bump in the road. But I really don't think a lot of people realize what's going on here.
This isn't 1995 anymore. Love Tom Osborne, he did MANY great things... but we can't run the university like it's pre 2K. Wake UP!
If/when the sellouts stop (I suppose that will never happen because Republican money will foot the bill to buy out the stadium) then someone may finally figure out this isn't good. If Nebraska gets a |expletive| president and a |expletive| AD (sorry, we shouldn't hire someone that's 70 years old), then Rhule could be out the door next. If that happens you can certainly kiss Raiola goodbye and virtually every other commit we've gotten in the past few years. With NIL Why would anyone stay?