Some speculate it could happen right after Ohio State heading into the off week if they give us the predicted huge beaten.
Mike Riley gets 2 more years after this year, regardless
- Thread starter redwine65
- Start date
Some speculate it could happen right after Ohio State heading into the off week if they give us the predicted huge beaten.
At the end of the day you're rationalizing 7-6 records. It's over my friend.
I think running the ball gives NU the best chance to win the most games.
but Im not sure it's fair to riley to give him a first year pocket passer and judge him on it. thats why Im ok giving it a real shot. 3 years isn't enough to turn around the mess bo had going. but like I said, I want it to give it our best shot possible. if we turn into new england GREAT! but if not lets go back to our bread and butter, running the ball.
Don't lose to NIU at home or lose three of your first six games, two to unranked teams, in year 3. Shouldn't be that hard. plus whatever else is coming.
Quit acting like our expectations are too high. They ARENT.
If you know from my previous posts I've always been a "let the season play out" guy.
Yes, I know we lost to NIU, but one game shouldn't determine whether we fire a guy or not. If we beat Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa then we beat everyone on our schedule that we were supposed to beat minus NIU. In my opinion NIU should not determine whether Riley should get fired or not. Not when he's only in year 3.
If this were year 5+? Yes the seat gets much warmer.
Did you guys watch Riley's press conference after the game? He is not ready nor was he ready to run a championship program - He spoke as if he was still at OSU - when he said he has made progress but was not good enough for a team like Wisconsin - come on - Their coach has been there three years also
Riley, and crew are content with looking good for a half
Riley, and crew are content with looking good for a half
One game?? really what about losing to Purdue - how about having Iowa beat us like a little whiny child - my god have you watched what is happening the last three years
Yeah, Riley hasn't beaten a good team since Michigan State in 2015. Our best win last year was against a Minnesota team that ending up firing their coach. We lost to OSU by 59 points and Iowa by 30. I haven't seen anything the couple years that gives me hope that Riley will turn us into Big Ten champs before he retires.
Clearly I'm talking about this year. Have we lost to Purdue this year? If we do, then you're right.
Did you see who we had starting last year on OL and QB because of injuries?
I make my point clear about this year, NIU and if we beat Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa and you completely change the subject and start talking about previous years. Come on.
Clearly you didn't. No where did I rationalize 7-6. Here I'll post it again for you, this time with bold, underline and italicize important words and phrases.
HuskerO: If we go 7-6 then the argument that Mike needs to go because he has had 2 losing season in 3 years doesn't work.
YouGotSwatted!: You're rationalizing 7-6 record.
HuskerO: No I'm not, re-read what I said.
YouGotSwatted!: I did, you're rationalizing 7-6 record.
HuskerO: Sighs. Slaps forehead.
Well when we are at the standard that we aren't supposed to beat that many isn't that a problem? Depending on how things go we might not be expected to beat those teams you mentioned above. You do realize we are at the point where we might not be favored in most of those?
I agree, but I don't equate Vegas' line and teams we're supposed to beat to be the same thing.
So let's look at the body of work, unless the body of work doesn't fit your agenda.
3 losses in 6 games, two embarrassing, two to unranked teams, one a MAC team at home. You're absolutely foolish to think that shouldn't be held against a coach in year three.
You: 7-6 record should be included in the "keep MR" frame since it disproves 2 losing seasons in 3 years argument.
Me: While you're factually accurate, in the end it doesn't matter since you had a 7-6 record (thus your rationalization).
Maybe the endless forehead slaps explain your logic.
Yeah, you said seat shouldn't get warm until 5+ years of that happening (!). How is that not the same thing?
Well, Riley kept his home back at Oregon State. The Oregon State job is open now. They rehired Riley before. Time to do it a third time.
No where did I say the seat shouldn't get warm until 5+ years. Reading is hard.
Absolutely, that's why we fired a perennial 9 win coach, so we could somehow struggle to 7 wins by beating Purdue, NW and Minn.
I think that's also what the AD meant when he said "Win the games that matter" No doubt he meant Purdue...
So you think even after this year he shouldn't be fired?
Or even after four years of this?
The seat "gets warmer" at five? Hell it better not last 5+ at this rate. You think he deserves 5+ at this rate?
Maybe if your posts weren't so passive aggressive and cryptic people wouldn't read them the way you don't want them to.
And you only brought up NIU and said it shouldn't be held against a coach in year three. What about all the rest of the crap? You're all over the place
If we beat Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa. I clearly stated that.
I can't help if you can't follow along. Maybe it's my fault for not being clearer, but I keep re-posting exactly what you've been struggling to grasp.
It's not just about W's and L's, it's about the optics of those games and what trajectory the program is on.
Also, fair or not to Riley, I am sure that age may play a factor in it. If Riley was 55, NU might be a little more patient of give it another year....maybe even two. Even though he brought an entire staff with him he shouldn't have. Even with some of the inexcusable clock management situations. He would more than likely get the chance to see some of the changes he has made through.
Some want to act like MR is not getting a fair shot to get his system in place. He did step into a situation that was not great. And that is a fair point.
That being said, there are plenty of failures that fall on him. Bo has nothing to do with some of the coaching decisions made, staff brought with him, and losses and close games with poor teams and directional schools. Not to mention the fact that we do not even belong on the same field against teams like Iowa, OSU, and Wisconsin.
Last edited:
I've stated this from day 1 for Riley or for any other coach. A new coach needs at least 4 years.
The season hasn't finished so I can't answer that. I think it's dumb to fire any coach mid season. For example so if Riley loses to Troy next year and finishes 6-6, you fire him towards the end of the season. Not right after the Troy loss. (But we won't lose to Troy
).Lets say a coach goes 7-5 in year 3 and then 7-5 in year 5. The seat after year 5 is much warmer than the seat was in year 3 even though the records were exactly the same. That's what "If this were year 5+? Yes the seat gets much warmer." means.
I'm only passive aggressive when you put words into my mouth throughout this entire thread. Sorry if I'm coming off like a jerk, but I feel like you're doing it on purpose. I'm not being cryptic. You're just jumping to conclusions without fully reading my comments.
I'm clearly not the only one supposedly misreading your posts, which I'm not doing since you stated a coach needs at least four years, which means it doesn't matter what happens this year right?I've stated this from day 1 for Riley or for any other coach. A new coach needs at least 4 years.
The season hasn't finished so I can't answer that. I think it's dumb to fire any coach mid season. For example so if Riley loses to Troy next year and finishes 6-6, you fire him towards the end of the season. Not right after the Troy loss. (But we won't lose to Troy
Lets say a coach goes 7-5 in year 3 and then 7-5 in year 5. The seat after year 5 is much warmer than the seat was in year 3 even though the records were exactly the same. That's what "If this were year 5+? Yes the seat gets much warmer." means.
I'm only passive aggressive when you put words into my mouth throughout this entire thread. Sorry if I'm coming off like a jerk, but I feel like you're doing it on purpose. I'm not being cryptic. You're just jumping to conclusions without fully reading my comments.
I don't see how I can possibly be misreading that, and if I am reading it right, it makes zero sense to me to have that logic, especially at Nebraska.
I agree. Let's say we beat Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa, but then lose to Ohio St and Penn St. Our final record 7-5. Not good, but is it good enough? For some yes, for some no, for others it's "how did we win/lose those games".
Well we already know what Riley did year 1 and 2. Unless we go winless the remainder of the season, in my opinion, Riley (or any other coach that's in Riley's exact same situation) should get a 4th year. Sorry if that bothers you so much.
By the way, I don't care that you disagree with me. It's when you misinterpret what I'm saying or put words in my mouth (which you and swatted have done in most of this thread) is what bothers me. Examples; swatted kept saying I was rationalizing 7-6 when I clearly wasn't. You kept saying that I thought Riley's seat shouldn't get at all warm until year 5, which I clearly wasn't stating.
I think this thread has ran it's course...
And that's a fair point. That would take a miracle, but let's say they win those four and lose close ones to PSU and OSU. It might be enough for some to think he deserves another season.
If it doesn't happen EXACTLY that way, anybody is crazy if they think he still deserves more time and the national media is going to beat us up for removing him.
Does beating Purdue, Northwestern Minnesota and Iowa by 6 points or less AND losing to Ohio St and Penn St by 6 points or less keep Riley around? How we won wouldn't be impressive, but how we lost would be (given where we're at now). Also depends how those teams finish I think.
Definitely won't be an easy decision for the new AD especially if we don't have Frost or a much bigger named coach lined up.
Then don't say simply stupid things.
That's the exact point you were making. In context with what was expected of Riley, what you wrote is comical