Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[teachercd]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

I agree...I think that is what most people are saying.

People want everyone to give Riley a chance and be positive...I agree! Be positive! I think he will do great and see no reason he can't win 11!

 

[The Dude]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Didn't virtually everyone give Bo 5-6 years to get his own men into the program? Giving Mike the same deal isn't hypocrisy. Not giving him that deal would be, however.

 

[Saunders]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Didn't virtually everyone give Bo 5-6 years to get his own men into the program? Giving Mike the same deal isn't hypocrisy. Not giving him that deal would be, however.

Sure, you can say Bo was given 5-6 years to get his own guys... to win a championship. But that's not what's being argued. We're talking about the fact that there's no excuse for a regression, which is the "excuse" that is being discussed here.

 

[Saunders]

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

 

[The Dude]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Didn't virtually everyone give Bo 5-6 years to get his own men into the program? Giving Mike the same deal isn't hypocrisy. Not giving him that deal would be, however.

Sure, you can say Bo was given 5-6 years to get his own guys... to win a championship. But that's not what's being argued.

Carry on then. The arbitrary 9-win minimum was never my hangup. People only thought it was important because they thought it would replace championships in terms of job security. That turned out to be false, and the arbitrary 9-wins turned out to be unimportant. What's important is winning a championship in the next 5-7 years.

 

[admo]

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

More than 4 losses next year? Possible, yes. But it won't happen.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

 

[commando]

never mind that we don't know yet if MR will succeed or not...it's time for heads to roll now! the Bolievers and Debbie Downers have spoken and we should damn well listen to them!!!! It used to be that we waited a few seasons to lynch the coach and we fired them for only 9 wins...we are going to step up and hate the new coaches before the first spring scrimmage! If we can fire them even quicker that would be best for some "husker" fans.

 

[Saunders]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Didn't virtually everyone give Bo 5-6 years to get his own men into the program? Giving Mike the same deal isn't hypocrisy. Not giving him that deal would be, however.

Sure, you can say Bo was given 5-6 years to get his own guys... to win a championship. But that's not what's being argued.

Carry on then. The arbitrary 9-win minimum was never my hangup. People only thought it was important because they thought it would replace championships in terms of job security. That turned out to be false, and the arbitrary 9-wins turned out to be unimportant. What's important is winning a championship in the next 5-7 years.

It's not about #9wins as much as it is about regression. If Bo and co were as bad as they were, and the new staff is an improvement, then there's no reason at all for us to regress.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Sorry, I'm not seeing any Mike Riley hate around here at all.

I see a handful of skeptics. At worst they're being cautious.

I see a lot of Kool-Aid drinkers. I'm one of them. Why not? This is the best time to drink Kool-Aid.

I see good reasons to be optimistic. So it's not just the Kool-Aid.

Maybe a couple of nay-sayers putting a stake in the ground, hoping to say "I told you so!" at a later date. It would be weird if there weren't any.

(I can say categorically that a 5 -7 season will not make me yearn for the bygone era of Bo Pelini)

But it looks to me like Riley will have every chance to prove himself on the field. He was perfectly aware of the expectations when he took the job. Apparently it's why he took the job.

FYI: this conversation -- in much worse versions -- is currently happening on every fan board in every team sport.

 

[Saunders]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

 

[Saunders]

never mind that we don't know yet if MR will succeed or not...it's time for heads to roll now! the Bolievers and Debbie Downers have spoken and we should damn well listen to them!!!! It used to be that we waited a few seasons to lynch the coach and we fired them for only 9 wins...we are going to step up and hate the new coaches before the first spring scrimmage! If we can fire them even quicker that would be best for some "husker" fans.

Nice strawman.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Is it possible to be proud that we were winning at least 9 games per year every year but still understand that improvement needed to be made and you constantly work towards bigger things than that and if that didn't happen (along with fixing the really bad losses) there probably would need to be a change at the top?

I thought that's where I was anyway.

 

[Saunders]

Is it possible to be proud that we were winning at least 9 games per year every year but still understand that improvement needed to be made and you constantly work towards bigger things than that and if that didn't happen (along with fixing the really bad losses) there probably would need to be a change at the top?

I thought that's where I was anyway.

Yes?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?