Dear Husker Nation: Letter from OSU fan

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is unrealistic to expect the AD to fire Riley after one season. Eichorst would have to be fired first.

I do not believe if Riley were to be fired after one year that it would paint the Husker program as toxic or keep really good coaches at bay. A really good coach demands a compensation package in the $5 mill range. We would have to decide if we want to spend that kind of money. If we did, we could find a coach, regardless of how long M R lasts.

On a closing note, the Miami Hurricanes just fired their coach.. Golden.. He was an Eichorst hire I think

No he wasn't SE inherited him. I am with Mr. Chamberlain NU has top 30 talent right now. Injuries have hurt no doubt, but that doesn't excuse losses to Purdue and Illinois.

 

CM I disagree that this is a terrible schedule. BYU is going to win 9 and maybe 10 games this year, Whisky sit at 6-2 with its 2 losses to Alabama and Iowa. NW is 6-2 with wins over Stanford and Duke. S. Miss is actually 6-3 right now I think and could win out. Plus we still have to play Iowa and MSU. Coming into the season the schedule looked fairly easy, but NU has played some good teams so far. Not a extremely tough schedule but better than a lot of teams. This schedule is tougher than last years by far.

Generally good teams can atleast break the top 50 in total offense. Except none of our opponents can, save for Southern Miss.

Put it another way, if these are all such good teams, where are their good victories? Northwestern has some good wins, but they're balanced by some greatly lopsided losses (and all you need to do is put the tape on to see that is not a good football team). Neither BYU nor Wisconsin has a win against a current top 25 team. Iowa currently doesn't, though Pitt and/or Wisconsin could slide into the rankings.

How then can you have a schedule of good teams if they're not ranked, they don't beat ranked teams, and all of them have weak offenses? I'm truly baffled how anyone can say this is a schedule of good teams with any kind of honesty.

So in your opinion the only good teams are ones in the top 25? If you go by that criteria not too many teams have good schedules.

MSU, OSU, Baylor, Oklahoma etc really have crappie schedules also?

 

Whatever you want to think but any team no matter what conference that ends up 9-3 or 10-2 is doing something right.

Good point. Makes one wonder why we keep firing coaches who were doing something right

 

 

Please don't use my argument as some validation on your point that BP should not have been fired. Whether he should or should not have been fired is a moot point at this time. He was fired. He was doing something right yes, his record shows that, but you know it is about more than that. I had a principle that was exactly like him personality wise. The "energy vampire" as you might say. He did some very good things, but I hated working for him more than anyone else in my life. I have to believe it was a lot like that with BP. You can't treat people like sh#t even when you are being successful.

 

Seven of the 9 teams we have played so far this year have at least a .500 record. Five of those teams are at least 2 games over .500. Does that mean that all of those teams are great should be in the playoff teams, not in the least, but it does mean we have played some decent teams. Our schedule is better than terrible like some think it is.

 

So now a couple games over .500 makes a good team?

 

More lowered expectations.

 

 

You are one that thinks are record is garbage. Please list 2 teams this year that you think have a real tough schedule. Please give me some of your wisdom.

 

Clemson and Alabama. Now your turn to answer a question.

 

Why did you want me to do that?

[Redux]

Bump.

 

Scary how accurate the letter ended up being...

[GSG]

46 minutes ago, Redux said:

Bump.

 

Scary how accurate the letter ended up being...

 

You should've bumped this on Halloween. Would've been extra spooky!

 

[irafreak]

Grrr...it wasn't until 2-6 was mentioned in a post that I realized how old this thread was...

[KazLong]

57 minutes ago, irafreak said:

Grrr...it wasn't until 2-6 was mentioned in a post that I realized how old this thread was...

I like to think of it as well aged.. Not old..

Like me.

Brian why do you keep trying to drag me back in? lol

 

Also Saturday 57 if you want to golf.

[KazLongDrives300]

I'm in for Saturday.

[KazLong]

4 hours ago, KazLongDrives300 said:

I'm in for Saturday.

Lol you have been ghosting this board  for years and THATS the user name you pick lmfao. 

[southernoregonhusker]

On 11/2/2015 at 1:04 PM, suh_fan93 said:

 

Considering they won 9 games last year with many of the same guys it really isn't even close to being delusional.

Two years later, my opinion hasn't changed.  You?

[Big Red Commie]

Prophetic

[HuskerMav11]

10 hours ago, Redux said:

Bump.

 

Scary how accurate the letter ended up being...

 

It's kind of a hindsight letter, even then.

 

The problem is that the issues Riley had in his first season still exist today. All the letter does is outline all the issues Riley had in his first season. And in year 3, he hasn't fixed any of them.

[neepster]

Shockingly, past performance remains the only realistic way to judge employees expected performance.  And this works 75-90% of the time. Always.

[In the Deed the Glory]

4 minutes ago, neepster said:

Shockingly, past performance remains the only realistic way to judge employees expected performance.  And this works 75-90% of the time. Always.

Edited November 3, 2017 by In the Deed the Glory

[brophog]

1 minute ago, neepster said:

Shockingly, past performance remains the only realistic way to judge employees expected performance.  And this works 75-90% of the time. Always.

 

It also means people are promoted until they land in a job they cannot do. You see this all of the time in football, because the jobs are very hierarchical. A position coach that makes a bad coordinator, a coordinator that makes a bad head coach, a head coach that makes a bad administrator. 

 

A large part of data modeling is deciphering between data that describes something and data that predicts something. Sometimes the key to analyzing something, especially when forecasting, is knowing just how much data isn't going to be predictive. If you look at my Frost posts, for instance, I'm not concerned about records or recruiting or these things. I want to focus on him as a person, and what qualities he has that other highly successful coaches share. These are traits he will carry on to future jobs.

[neepster]

On 11/2/2017 at 7:26 PM, brophog said:

 

It also means people are promoted until they land in a job they cannot do. You see this all of the time in football, because the jobs are very hierarchical. A position coach that makes a bad coordinator, a coordinator that makes a bad head coach, a head coach that makes a bad administrator. 

 

A large part of data modeling is deciphering between data that describes something and data that predicts something. Sometimes the key to analyzing something, especially when forecasting, is knowing just how much data isn't going to be predictive. If you look at my Frost posts, for instance, I'm not concerned about records or recruiting or these things. I want to focus on him as a person, and what qualities he has that other highly successful coaches share. These are traits he will carry on to future jobs.

 

That's great, but how do you quantify that?  I agree that past performance is not everything.  Bo Pelini was one of the best DCs in the country but a middling head coach when he made it to the next level in my opinion.  Muschamp the same, Charlie Strong the same.  However, Urban Meyer was a great assistant, coordinator and then head coach and there are statistics one could look at in each position to make the determination that he was suited to go to the next level.  

 

I know of no way to quantify the qualities SF has that will make him a great HC, other than to say 'he has been a successful FBS HC' (and now he has).  I was willing to take a chance on him 3 years ago when he was still just the OC at Oregon because they were so successful, but others (with good reason as noted above) wanted data on success at the next level.  

 

Looking at him as a person and his 'qualities' sounds great but there is no way I know of to quantify that.  That sounds a bit too much like Billy Beane when he was drafted into the MLB.  A few people seem to have the 'qualities' to be a good X (Head Coach, MLB player, etc), but if you can't put it into numbers than it is a hunch, not a fact based opinion.