ESPN: Is Nebraska making progress or starting over? Answer will come soon enough

[Saunders]

Quote

 

The intrinsic question around Nebraska football camp last month -- dating to the final hours of last year, in fact, after the Cornhuskers completed a flat finish to Mike Riley’s second season -- involves the quality that every coach, player and fan demands from their program.

 

Progress. In a competitive industry, if you’re not progressing, you’re regressing.

 

So just where does Nebraska, bound Saturday for an intersectional clash at Oregon, stand after 27 games under Riley?

 

It’s a question that requires a deeper look than the three-game improvement in victories from 2015 to 2016 at this once dominant program now seeking its first conference title since 1999.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/142760/nebraska-making-progress-or-starting-over-the-answer-will-come-soon-enough

 

 

[junior4949]

On offense, no we are not starting over.  I think there's been some pretty decent progress being made on the offensive side of the ball.  On defense, yes we are starting over.  This is why things were a bit rough Saturday.  I don't think many people thought Diaco was just going to come in here and wave a magic wand.  The defense will get better this year.  However, it will probably be sometime next season before the lights really go on.  Bo didn't just walk in back in 08' and immediately fix the defense.  It was after about three or so games into his second season that we were defensively where we wanted to be.  The offense is probably going to have to carry a lot of the load this year.

[brophog]

Given all the statements made about this program, both from the inside and outside, since 2001.....there is a strange calm this week about being a program that is a 2 TD underdog to an unranked team.

 

 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, brophog said:

Given all the statements made about this program, both from the inside and outside, since 2001.....there is a strange calm this week about being a program that is a 2 TD underdog to an unranked team.

 

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone really knows what to expect from either team.

[KingBlank]

7 minutes ago, brophog said:

Given all the statements made about this program, both from the inside and outside, since 2001.....there is a strange calm this week about being a program that is a 2 TD underdog to an unranked team.

 

 

That is far we have fallen, the urgency to win is gone from the fan base.  It is always focused on the future that somehow is always better to win then, than right now.

[ColoradoHusk]

10 minutes ago, brophog said:

Given all the statements made about this program, both from the inside and outside, since 2001.....there is a strange calm this week about being a program that is a 2 TD underdog to an unranked team.

 

 

I don't know if it's a strange calm, but I am just not very confident going into the Oregon game.  I almost expect a big loss at this point.

[junior4949]

I don't know about big loss, but I think we can expect a shootout.

[Roll Skers]

I expect a win

[TGHusker]

The question is - if we go 5-7 or 6-6 - should we expect a change at the top? If it is about progress and it is - I don't think we invest millions into this program for the purpose of being another NW/Iowa  at best or Minn, Ill, or Purdue.  While I understand many programs haven't won a conference championship in decades and seem to be somewhat content with middle of the road - that isn't who we are.  We were a program built around excellence for 40+ years.  Now we have lived almost half that time without a conference championship.  Imaging for us older guys not seeing a championship of any kind from 1980-1998.  Our younger fans know nothing of a championship, the excellence of getting there, and the feeling of that kind of school pride. It is hard to stop apathy when you have not tasted excellence.    I don't want to be a program in which .500+is a good season - knowing you'll get banged up by the big boys, hope to defeat other .500+ plus a couple of smaller non-power 5 schools. 

[grandpasknee]

34 minutes ago, KingBlank said:

That is far we have fallen, the urgency to win is gone from the fan base.  It is always focused on the future that somehow is always better to win then, than right now.

I think I speak for almost every fan...I still have an urgent desire for the team to win every game.  Truth is, my urgency, and the urgency of fans in general, has almost nothing to do with whether we win or lose.  Nothing. Since we can't effect the "now' (or the future for that matter) it make sense that reasoning people would recognize that the team may not be where we'd like them to be now, but hope for them to be so in the future.  Doesn't keep me from being a rabid fan for every kickoff.  (PS..I'm predicting NU 42 - Ducks 38)

[TGHusker]

14 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

If this is true, you must ask yourself how much changes at the top set things back.  Most say a coach needs 4 years to get their recruits in the pipeline before the heat should be put on them.

 

Are you willing to set the program back another 4 years just because you can't wait to have MR gone and because you aren't willing to give him 4 years?

Don't get me wrong - I want MR to succeed and yes, I'd like him to have 4 years.  But the schedule is even more difficult next year.  So, that is why I see more urgency this year to show progress.  I think on the O side, outside of still needing a stronger OL pipeline, we have vastly improve talent overall - with Kenny Bell and AA being the exception during the most recent

Bo years.   Your last statement begs the question: Is it true that a new coach would need 4 more years to be successful?  I don't think so with the overall upgrade MR has done in recruiting.  Unfortunately MR didn't receive the same upgrade from Bo.  Maybe we need to re-frame my original question:  Can we live wt 2017 and 2018 as difficult years knowing that the 2019 schedule  would be more friendly and MR's system more ingrained and primed for a conference championship? Note: I hoped to be surprised by a less difficult 2 year span.

[junior4949]

34 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The question is - if we go 5-7 or 6-6 - should we expect a change at the top? If it is about progress and it is - I don't think we invest millions into this program for the purpose of being another NW/Iowa  at best or Minn, Ill, or Purdue.  While I understand many programs haven't won a conference championship in decades and seem to be somewhat content with middle of the road - that isn't who we are.  We were a program built around excellence for 40+ years.  Now we have lived almost half that time without a conference championship.  Imaging for us older guys not seeing a championship of any kind from 1980-1998.  Our younger fans know nothing of a championship, the excellence of getting there, and the feeling of that kind of school pride. It is hard to stop apathy when you have not tasted excellence.    I don't want to be a program in which .500+is a good season - knowing you'll get banged up by the big boys, hope to defeat other .500+ plus a couple of smaller non-power 5 schools. 

 

I'm not sure I really understand this post especially when you consider where we came from.  In two of the three previous years to TO becoming the head coach, we won the NC.  It wasn't until TO's ninth season that we even won our first outright conference title.  We haven't even allowed a coach nine seasons since TO retired.  Has anyone ever considered that this might very well be why it has been so long since we won our last conference title?  Ushering in a new coach and AD every 4-7 years isn't going to yield any conference titles.  Heck, we could even pay the highest salary out there and it won't necessarily mean conference titles (Michigan probably doesn't win the B1G this year). 

 

To some degree, we already have enough disadvantages when it comes to recruiting.  We don't need to compound those disadvantages by constantly firing and replacing coaches.  Why would any top notch kid want to come into that environment when they have no idea whether the guy recruiting them will even be there when their time is up?   

 

 

[Street Novelist]

That's an interesting question: Would Husker fans be alright with a bunch of 8-4 or 9-3 seasons if it meant 5 or 6 years from now, winning the Big 10?

[BIG ERN]

We have to sit back and realize we are the 5th best team in the B10....out of 14 teams -- that's the reality. We first must start to consistently win the West as we did the North of the B12. Wisconsin should be our main priority before we think about winning a B10 title. 

[junior4949]

15 minutes ago, Street Novelist said:

That's an interesting question: Would Husker fans be alright with a bunch of 8-4 or 9-3 seasons if it meant 5 or 6 years from now, winning the Big 10?

 

Whether most would be alright with it, I don't know.  However, we very well should be.  TO's first six seasons went like this:  9-2-1; 9-3; 10-2; 9-3-1; 9-3; and 9-3.  This came on the heels of winning two NCs in three years.  I've been a big Mike Riley fan for quite a while (over a decade).  However, I'm still not sure this was the best hire when one considers his age.  Does he coach into his 70's?  If not, I have to think Eichorst thought he'd build a pretty good base for the next one up.