Grantland: Ranking College Football’s New Head Coaching Hires

TheSker said:
I don't care what his "disadvantages" were. He had losing seasons in 3 of his last 5 years and lost to two FCS schools. That he is not highly regarded as someone to become the head coach at the University of Nebraska is hardly surprising.
Click to expand...
OBAMA_Deal_2.gif


 
unlfan said:
Whose job, exactly, was it to get those inferior players at OSU? The fact that some people use that point to defend MR is baffling. Inferior players with inferior record.
Click to expand...
Apparently context has no bearing in a discussion like this. Riley either did or did not do better than Pelini at his last gig, and both situations are 1:1 equal in every way, so if he didn't do better, that's a failure on Riley's part.

Orrrr........

We could recognize that Nebraska doesn't have a larger, better-funded, better-positioned D1A school in their state, who gets free or near-free marketing aimed directly at the demographic the two schools are recruiting year in and year out. Nebraska isn't in an after-thought city in this state with no major airport for recruits to fly into. Nebraska isn't dealing with the worst athletic facilities in their conference. Nebraska isn't dealing with the smallest athletic department budget in their conference.

Nebraska wasn't dealing with most of the disadvantages Riley was dealing with at Oregon State, but let's completely ignore all of that, let's ignore that the PAC-10/PAC-12 has been a tougher conference than the Big Ten these past four/five years, let's ignore everything and just look at the bottom-line numbers alone.

Because context doesn't matter. Right?

 
Was it Aaron Semm? I think it was, but maybe I'm wrong. One of them guys on the radio after Riley was hired said coaching and trying to recruit to Corvalis would be like trying to recruit to Grand Island. The only difference being the state's big program would be 80 miles away, not 40. I think that's pretty telling.

 
unlfan said:
I get that. But because it's not 1:1 does not automatically tip the scales that MR was a great hire. It's still debateable
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to be a great hire. He has to be better than the guy he replaced. And if he can win nine games every season, occasionally vie for a conference title and once in a while sniff an upper-tier bowl, and do all that without: creating an unnecessarily hostile relationship between himself and the school administration, the press, the officials calling his games and a portion of the fan base; instilling in his players an "us vs. them" bunker (Bo's own word) mentality so much so that everyone outside the locker room, including fans, is "them;" not being a national punchline for his sideline outbursts; and not getting blown out each and every year he's here...

Well, if he can do that and only wins nine games per year, that's still a vast improvement over the guy he replaced. I'll take that in exchange for Bo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
unlfan said:
Whose job, exactly, was it to get those inferior players at OSU? The fact that some people use that point to defend MR is baffling. Inferior players with inferior record.
Click to expand...
Apparently context has no bearing in a discussion like this. Riley either did or did not do better than Pelini at his last gig, and both situations are 1:1 equal in every way, so if he didn't do better, that's a failure on Riley's part.

Orrrr........

We could recognize that Nebraska doesn't have a larger, better-funded, better-positioned D1A school in their state, who gets free or near-free marketing aimed directly at the demographic the two schools are recruiting year in and year out. Nebraska isn't in an after-thought city in this state with no major airport for recruits to fly into. Nebraska isn't dealing with the worst athletic facilities in their conference. Nebraska isn't dealing with the smallest athletic department budget in their conference.

Nebraska wasn't dealing with most of the disadvantages Riley was dealing with at Oregon State, but let's completely ignore all of that, let's ignore that the PAC-10/PAC-12 has been a tougher conference than the Big Ten these past four/five years, let's ignore everything and just look at the bottom-line numbers alone.

Because context doesn't matter. Right?
Click to expand...
Mike Riley was competing with Nike U in Oregon, it is very difficult for any school to compete with Oregon these days. Not to mention he was out spent in the PAC 12 by major schools in the recruiting pipelines of the PAC 12.

Oregon state ranked 11th in the PAC 12 for athletic facilities which is one of the major selling points to recruits and crucial to developing your players. Oregon is ranked 1st. the only team that was behind Oregon State was Washington State. So that fact right there shows how amazing it was that Riley had any success in the PAC 12.

Nebraska is ranked 2nd in the Big 10 in athletic facilities, the number one team is Ohio State.

The best example that I can give regarding the importance of athletic facilities to coaching and recruiting is Nick Saban at Michigan State, between 1995-1997 his best finish was a 7 win season, in '98 Saban upset #1 Ohio State but still finished 6-6. His best season at Michigan state was in '99 where he finished 9-2 (10-2 with the bowl game that he did not coach), Riley had similar numbers at a weaker school. It wasn't until he went to LSU where Saban's worst season was an 8 win season. Today, LSU's athletic facilities ranked 2nd in the SEC where Michigan State is ranked 5th in the Big 10.

So, you are giving a coach who had success against top ranked teams at a bottom of the barrel power 5 school better facilities and better recruiting pipelines in a softer conference than the PAC 12. I am not saying that he will be our Nick Saban but at least look at the bigger picture and give the guy some support, he hasn't even coached a game yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top