Good coaches show immediate improvement. Great coaches sustain it. It's as simple as that.
Riley needs to keep his job until 2019-2020.
- Thread starter DudznSudz
- Start date
Might as well fire David Shaw too, that 8-5 record and now a 2-2 start means he's not great.
With Gundy, aside from his first year (4-7), he had winning records, and overall made improvements in record from year to year or stayed the same (4-7, 7-6, 7-6). The records going back 7 years prior to Gundy taking over were 5-6, 5-6, 3-8, 4-7, 8-5, 9-4, 7-5. When you look at the actual year by year records in context, his performance and improvement was well within historical performance and expectations.
Swinney is a similar story. His records in the 3.5 years since taking control have been 4-3 (partial first season), 9-5, 6-7, 10-4. The records prior to him taking the reigns going back 7.5 years were 7-5, 7-6, 9-4, 6-5, 8-4, 8-5, 9-4, 3-3 (partial season before he took the reigns). Do I think talk of firing after the 6-7 season was valid? Sure. I'm sure they're glad they didn't in retrospect, but it was also one season, not 2 out of 3 losing seasons following consistent seasons of no more than 4 losses.
If we end up with a losing record this season, which seems very possible, Riley will have 2 out of 3 losing seasons which is something neither Gundy nor Swinney had despite coming from programs with arguably lower expectations. There is also the context that both Gundy and Swinney were first time head coaches and were learning on the job, whereas Riley has years of experience as a head coach. To me, that puts the expectations for Riley a little higher.
Like I said, I hope that this all becomes moot by us winning out (or darn close to it) and having a great year, I just don't see it. Heck, if he can even have a .500 year I think he probably earned himself another year. I don't think we HAVE to fire Riley at the end of the year by any means, but if we end with a losing record I think it would be perfectly justified.
Tom Osborne:
"I never, when I was coaching here, until maybe my last three or four years, thought I could survive a losing season as head coach.”
And now people are saying having losing seasons in two out of three years would be acceptable. Unbelievable.
"I never, when I was coaching here, until maybe my last three or four years, thought I could survive a losing season as head coach.”
And now people are saying having losing seasons in two out of three years would be acceptable. Unbelievable.
So his first 3 years (18-19) didn't equal the previous 3 years (24-14) but somehow "in context" it's all good...
...except, that's a 2 win per season difference.
We hired Riley because we really needed a place holder to get rid of all of Bo's toxicity. After Riley makes everything nice again, then we can find one who will become a legend. I think that's how the story goes.
So his first 3 years (18-19) didn't equal the previous 3 years (24-14) but somehow "in context" it's all good...
...except, that's a 2 win per season difference.
Snarky memes aside, I didn't say it was "all good." His 4-7 season was only 3 seasons removed from 4 consecutive losing seasons, which is the context I am talking about. The reality is that in OSU's shoes, his 4-7 first season was not far outside of the recent expectations of the program, as opposed to what Nebraska's expectations are given recent history, and he showed improvement after it.
We are looking at the same statistics, but in different ways. You are looking at the big picture (overall record, cherry picked from the information I gave so that it doesn't include the losing seasons), I'm saying the devil is in the details (individual season records, including the losing seasons for context).
A small number of people were calling for Riley's head after his losing season his first year, but most excused it as the nature of the transition which is probably a fair assessment. If we have a losing record this season, I don't think he gets the same benefit of the doubt for a losing record that he did then, and he shouldn't.
Stop acting like this is hard to understand and ignoring all his points. You look foolish.So his first 3 years (18-19) didn't equal the previous 3 years (24-14) but somehow "in context" it's all good...
...except, that's a 2 win per season difference.
Gundy and dabo both only had 1 losing season in their first three years at schools that did worse than NU did before Riley took over.
Now this whole debate could be a moot point if Riley goes out and has a winning season, which is still possible, especially if we win Friday.
I just don't think dabo and gundy are the great examples of coaches like Riley that you think, or hope, they are. It's not close, really, if Riley does end up with a losing season, especially a 4 gamer or something.
Thanks, I didn't think it was that complicated.
I'll add that, for arguments sake let's say we lose to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Iowa, and 1 of Northwestern/Minnesota/Purdue/Illinois. I think that seems like a relatively likely scenario with the way the team is playing and possibly even 1 more loss, but hope I'm wrong. That would put us at 5-7 this season. That would put Riley's record at 20-18 his first 3 years, with 2 losing seasons. I never thought I would see the day that that was acceptable for University of Nebraska football.
I did exactly what he did, weird how you two didn't appreciate it. I'm not surprised though, it's par for the course.
You clearly don't understand the original response that prompted this. It has nothing to do with "who I think, or hope, Riley is or isn't". If you can't follow along, or better yet understand what's going on - I suggest skipping right over my responses in the future.
Dabo is a very rare exception. And I don't remember him losing to a MAC school at home or getting blown out by 59 points. His teams have always been competitive. I'd be willing to give a young guy like that more time, than a 64-year-old with a long career of mediocrity and a lot of bad losses on his resume.
Ya, expectations. 3 straight winning seasons, program finally flipped under Miles and bam - losing season under Gundy in season one. Yikes, revionsist history but you don't get to recreate it.
2008 hot seat, Mike Gundy:
http://www.coacheshotseat.com/MikeGundy.htm
If that's not good enough, I'll dig up old articles from around that time where Oklahoma State peeps were calling for his head.
Luckily for him (hindsight), the I'm 40, I'm a man rant was a turning point for Oklahoma State. From that point after, they've had really good seasons and the preseason hot list was just that, a list.
Agreed. I think I mentioned it at some point, but I think Riley's age and track record (which is extensive) compared to Swinney and Gundy (who had none) affects how it should be approached.
But losing by 39, in year 5, is okay.
RollingLaughRollingLaughRollingLaughRollingLaughRollingLaugh
Gosh damn tradition coalition, y'all are hilarious.
And I don't think they were inherently wrong, although I think it was jumping the gun just like people that were calling for Riley's head after season 1. Calling for someone's head after their first season being a losing season is different from calling for their head after 2 losing seasons out of 3. One of one could be an aberration, two out of three could very well be indicative of a pattern. Which, that is making an assumption about how this season plays out. I will be incredibly happy to be wrong, but a loss to NIU doesn't make me optimistic.
Did I use that in a response to you? I don't believe so but if I did, I'll correct it. HC is a well known tradition coalition fan, only can do it the Nebraska way, with Nebraska ties. Nobody else.
Make up your mind...
The reality is that in OSU's shoes, his 4-7 first season was not far outside of the recent expectations of the program
If 4-7 was not far outside their program expectations, then OSU peeps wouldn't of called for his head. In year 1, 2 or 3. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody wants, or expects, losing at Nebraska. The classic straw-man needs to stop.
Right now I would settle for Riley beating MAC opponents.
They showed sustained improvement. Clemson was not Nebraska.
Now look at them.
Gundy is at Oklahoma St. They aren't even suppose to be good.
Riley has played a very soft schedule in 3 years and is still barely above 500. The assumption that we have talent has no basic in fact, as we struggled to beat arkansas state and rutgers and lost to two mediocre teams. The idea that there is a set number of years for a coach is absurd. Riley's teams are not efficient, they turn the ball over a ton for a vanilla offense, they have a ton of penalties for such a passive team...they aren't explosive in any one area, riley isn't developing NFL talent. And we have been embarrassed on national tv when it matters. If Riley was fired tomorrow and there was an interim coach it would make no difference, the team will beat teams that they are superior to and get drilled by good teams.
Whatever you want to believe is fine with me. Your opinion doesn't hurt me at all. I expect improvement in 3 years and we are seeing the opposite of that which is why SE got canned.
Ferentz had not been a head coach when he took over Iowa. We all know Riley's record with Oregon State. He's working on his 17th season as a college head coach. We know his record at Oregon State and we know his his record is with the Huskers. I just can't get over how many of my fellow Husker fans support average coaching.
Last edited:
Couple Riley's record since he has been in Lincoln with his 12-13 record his last two years at Oregon State. That adds up to a lot of losing (26 games in 4 1/3 seasons).
This is the crap that makes me laugh. We were averaging more than nine wins a year under the last staff. Let's not pretend Riley took over a 2-10 team . We started sucking after he took over. Just like OSU started sucking before he left.
What is this talent thing you speak of? There are maybe 6 "NFL possible" players on this entire roster and that is being generous. If you thought this year was rough wait til next year. This is going to be a pretty poor performing program for the next few years regardless of who the HC is.
OSU averaged 8 wins a season the three years before Gundy and he went 4,7,7.
Clemson averaged over 8 wins a season the three years prior to Dabo, doesn't seem like they were much different than Nebraska the last decade. Plus, Clemson and Nebraska played each other in the Gator Bowl Dabo's first year the two programs were in the same spot then look at them now.
I believe there is considerable risk to keeping Riley unless the play drastically improves for the remainder of the year. However if it does improve and the team looks competitive, defense plays well and we have a winning record then I hope Riley stays. Recruiting is going to be impacted if the rest of the season goes south even further anyway. If we get killed by the good teams and struggle and lose to the majority of the rest of the teams then I say really no point in not calling the Riley era over as it is obvious it will not get us to where we want to be
This is not an apples to apples comparison. Both Gundy and Dabo were first time head coaches. It took them time to get their footing as such. Why don't you go ahead and include the record of the coach who is widely considered the best coach in today's college football, Nick Saban? Nick was 34-24-1 at Michigan State.
Riley had 14 seasons at Oregon State. He did not inherit a losing team. He's was an average coach at Oregon State and he has been an average coach with the Huskers.
(Whatever happened to Riley and Langsdorf being some type of QB whisperer. The Husker quarterback they inherited too often zeroed in on his primary target and was not inclined to dump it off to a wide open receiver in the flat and now the QB they had all last year to groom is doing the exact same thing. Sadly much like his record, Mike's coaching remains the same).
Last edited:
Wow, I can truly empathize with many of you guys because you sound just like us Michigan guys towards the end of Hoke's tenure. A lot of us were "on the fence" too. And for me (looking back) it had way more to do with wanting good things to happen for the team and staff than really believing it would...basically, wishful thinking getting in the way of logic.
Which is why I will share my opinion on your situation because not only do I understand it but in your case don't have an emotional attachment:
I understand that, depending on the circumstances, that 3 years isn't enough to truly "rebuild" a program but by the end of this year you should have a pretty clear picture of where this is headed. You should see a team that looks like they are on the verge and shouldn't have to grasp at straws to prove that point. For those of you saying 6/7 wins while looking competitive against the better teams should be enough to have him keep his job, I simply can't agree with that.
In fact, I think that is the worst thing that could happen because he probably does keep it (imo). Unless you are talking say 1 point losses, on fluke plays, a season like that should tell you mediocrity, going forward, is probably your ceiling. There is also as likely a chance that you are on the verge of the wheels going from a wobble to completely coming off. The chances of all of a sudden "a switch" being turned on in year 4 is unlikely. If you don't see your team playing with an "on switch" by seasons end (even if it still results in loses because you simply get beat by more talented teams) you could very well be looking at a team that is starting to give up on it's coach and year 4 could be a disaster.
So unless this team comes together and pulls off 8 or 9 wins this year it is probably best to rip the band-aid off and go in another direction. Don't worry about things like keeping a recruiting class together because there is a decent chance things start going south in that department in the next year (as his seat gets warmer), you don't know if these are kids the new staff will want, you might lose them to transfers if/when there is a change anyway, etc. Don't worry about the perception of not giving a coach enough time because coaches aren't stupid and know the deal...plus a great coach should have the mentality they will get it done and doesn't worry about that (bigger worries are things like being given all the resources they need, other than time, to win). Don't concern yourself with the nice guy factor nor if he is beloved by his players...he is not doing this for free and the players will likely "love" the next guy too.
A lot more things that you can worry about, that you shouldn't, but I'm sure you get the point. Hopefully, it becomes a moot point as you go on a run and it becomes clear that he is the guy for the job. However, at seasons end if you are a fan "still on the fence" you probably shouldn't be (I stayed on it way to long myself)...you should be off it and ready for change.
Which is why I will share my opinion on your situation because not only do I understand it but in your case don't have an emotional attachment:
I understand that, depending on the circumstances, that 3 years isn't enough to truly "rebuild" a program but by the end of this year you should have a pretty clear picture of where this is headed. You should see a team that looks like they are on the verge and shouldn't have to grasp at straws to prove that point. For those of you saying 6/7 wins while looking competitive against the better teams should be enough to have him keep his job, I simply can't agree with that.
In fact, I think that is the worst thing that could happen because he probably does keep it (imo). Unless you are talking say 1 point losses, on fluke plays, a season like that should tell you mediocrity, going forward, is probably your ceiling. There is also as likely a chance that you are on the verge of the wheels going from a wobble to completely coming off. The chances of all of a sudden "a switch" being turned on in year 4 is unlikely. If you don't see your team playing with an "on switch" by seasons end (even if it still results in loses because you simply get beat by more talented teams) you could very well be looking at a team that is starting to give up on it's coach and year 4 could be a disaster.
So unless this team comes together and pulls off 8 or 9 wins this year it is probably best to rip the band-aid off and go in another direction. Don't worry about things like keeping a recruiting class together because there is a decent chance things start going south in that department in the next year (as his seat gets warmer), you don't know if these are kids the new staff will want, you might lose them to transfers if/when there is a change anyway, etc. Don't worry about the perception of not giving a coach enough time because coaches aren't stupid and know the deal...plus a great coach should have the mentality they will get it done and doesn't worry about that (bigger worries are things like being given all the resources they need, other than time, to win). Don't concern yourself with the nice guy factor nor if he is beloved by his players...he is not doing this for free and the players will likely "love" the next guy too.
A lot more things that you can worry about, that you shouldn't, but I'm sure you get the point. Hopefully, it becomes a moot point as you go on a run and it becomes clear that he is the guy for the job. However, at seasons end if you are a fan "still on the fence" you probably shouldn't be (I stayed on it way to long myself)...you should be off it and ready for change.
Last edited:
The thing is, those were first time head coaches. You had to expect a learning curve. Nobody generally expects a first time head coach to step in and win right away. Sure, it happens, but those are great coaches. There is a reason our last coach is the only one to win 9 games in his first seven years.
Our coach is old without any history of doing what people somehow think he is going to do despite the fact that he took over a winning program and is now likely heading for his second losing season in three years.
It amazes me that being bad at football is now acceptable in Nebraska if the coach plays nice on TV.
I get tired of everyone saying this program was in a complete spiral. There is no proof to that......only that Mike Riley spiraled it his first year. All this crap about a cancer and player buy in. They didn't buy in because they hated half their new coaches.
Any coaches who are the subject of the above numbers gymnastics get teabagged by a directional school in their own house, year 3 or later?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Its highly possibly this talent isn't being realized because of the lack of development. I can't say that I'm seeing any real improvements by players and or player groups.
You are right. The facts just don't bear this supposed "death spiral" out. The Riley apologists love this narrative and know they can get away with it because Bo could act like a jerk. One of the greatest football coaches of all time put it into perspective:
I called for Pelini to be fired in 2013 while you and your minions still wanted to give him more time. I was never a big fan of his. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Show me any proof that I am part of this so-called "tradition coalition". I've repeatedly said here in the last week I hope we hire the most qualified AD and Coach whether he has Nebraska ties or not. So that was a blatant lie on your part.
Also find me another great coach of a major program who lost to a MAC school at home in Year 3, and maybe I'll have more hope for Riley.
Last edited: