247Sports Director of Recruiting: "Riley's vision at Nebraska coming together"

[Saunders]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close.

That's some what of a straw man argument and it gets thrown out any time someone says patience is needed.

Everyone is frustrated without winning a conference championship in 18 years. But, that doesn't mean that once a major change is made like it was two years ago with the hire of Riley, that he won't need time to put in place what is needed for long term success in the program.

He said people who show up to watch winning football have an entitlement attitude. It also doesn't change the fact that while "program image" and culture are nice things (however you're trying to measure that), that winning is what puts butts in seats.

 

[Saunders]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close.

Technically, Nebraska was nationally relevant six months ago, when it entered the Wisconsin game ranked #7, and a week later when it only dropped two spots after a hard fought loss in Camp Randall that seemed to impress the pundits.

Wheels came off that next week against Ohio State. We were a paper tiger after all. Still...Nebraska was technically relevant going into the last regular season game against Iowa when it still had a shot at the CC game. And the Huskers put in another paper tiger performance.

It's time for the Huskers to win one or more of those games. Everyone gets that. It's not entitlement. It's just more fun. And as of this year Riley can take all the credit/blame for himself. I don't think he'd mind that a bit.

Since I don't know what will happen until it happens, I'm going to err on the side of optimism because....why not?

Well, yes, but nobody believed that ranking, and we were getting called the next Iowa. Once we lost that, and got blown out by OSU, we were an afterthought. The chances of us making the B1G CCG were minimal at best.

And I'm not not really being pessimistic, I posted the original article. I'm just pointing out that fans wanting to see a winning product isn't entitlement.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close.

That's some what of a straw man argument and it gets thrown out any time someone says patience is needed.

Everyone is frustrated without winning a conference championship in 18 years. But, that doesn't mean that once a major change is made like it was two years ago with the hire of Riley, that he won't need time to put in place what is needed for long term success in the program.

He said people who show up to watch winning football have an entitlement attitude. It also doesn't change the fact that while "program image" and culture are nice things (however you're trying to measure that), that winning is what puts butts in seats.

Nobody is arguing that winning isn't what puts butts in the seats. And, nobody is arguing that Riley needs to start winning something of importance soon.

BUT...what people are saying is that seeing what is happening behind the scenes with recruiting, national image, organizational building...etc. is reason to be optimistic enough to give him time to see how it affects play on the field.

With the attitude of..."OMG...we haven't won a conference championship in 18 years, we need to win NOW", we might as well hire a coach and if he doesn't win one the first two years, fire him and get someone else no matter what.

THAT would be a devastating way of managing and I don't think anyone would support that.

So, the argument really is, where is the happy medium between keeping one coach forever no matter what and firing a coach every two years?

Watching what is happening behind the scenes is a good way of measuring where that happy medium is.

 

[ScottyIce]

It's humorous how many on here are bagging on the past two years performances. The tools MR had to work with were just not up to par with what is needed in this conference. Armstrong was bad... really bad. Yes, occasionally his YOLO bombs would land in a lucky spot but can you imagine trying to coach that? I for one give the guy a couple mulligans based on what he had to start with. This is year one in my book. If the product on the field doesn't yield results by 2019 then we have reason to tell the guy to kick rocks...

Year one?

Yeah, Tommy was a 4* like O'Brien and Gebbia, but he was trash.

Dude was recruited for a different system. He must have had something that gained the interest of Chip Kelly, Art Briles, Garry Patterson, and Kevin Sumlin for them to offer him.

We are still mentioning Briles as a god around here?

 

[Making Chimichangas]

Now, we need to land a 4 star average plus class this time and we will be on the rise.

So we need to have the Top Rated recruiting class in the nation?

I'm not a star-gazer nor do I view player or class ranking as absolute truth...

But I'm not opposed to having consistently #1 "ranked" classes either.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

I disagree that wanting a great team is an "entitlement."

It's more akin to "return on investment."

Nebraska fans invest heavily, in terms in dollars and in how the program is doing, and we want to see great football.

If I want to throw my money away, and expect nothing for it, I'll donate it to a homeless person.

 

[Red Five]

It's humorous how many on here are bagging on the past two years performances. The tools MR had to work with were just not up to par with what is needed in this conference. Armstrong was bad... really bad. Yes, occasionally his YOLO bombs would land in a lucky spot but can you imagine trying to coach that? I for one give the guy a couple mulligans based on what he had to start with. This is year one in my book. If the product on the field doesn't yield results by 2019 then we have reason to tell the guy to kick rocks...

Year one?

Yeah, Tommy was a 4* like O'Brien and Gebbia, but he was trash.

Dude was recruited for a different system. He must have had something that gained the interest of Chip Kelly, Art Briles, Garry Patterson, and Kevin Sumlin for them to offer him.

We are still mentioning Briles as a god around here?

Where did that happen?

 

[SuperBigFan69]

It's humorous how many on here are bagging on the past two years performances. The tools MR had to work with were just not up to par with what is needed in this conference. Armstrong was bad... really bad. Yes, occasionally his YOLO bombs would land in a lucky spot but can you imagine trying to coach that? I for one give the guy a couple mulligans based on what he had to start with. This is year one in my book. If the product on the field doesn't yield results by 2019 then we have reason to tell the guy to kick rocks...

Year one?

What would be the monkey's record in year 3 at NU?

9 wins...right?

 

[Saunders]

It's humorous how many on here are bagging on the past two years performances. The tools MR had to work with were just not up to par with what is needed in this conference. Armstrong was bad... really bad. Yes, occasionally his YOLO bombs would land in a lucky spot but can you imagine trying to coach that? I for one give the guy a couple mulligans based on what he had to start with. This is year one in my book. If the product on the field doesn't yield results by 2019 then we have reason to tell the guy to kick rocks...

Year one?

Yeah, Tommy was a 4* like O'Brien and Gebbia, but he was trash.

Dude was recruited for a different system. He must have had something that gained the interest of Chip Kelly, Art Briles, Garry Patterson, and Kevin Sumlin for them to offer him.

We are still mentioning Briles as a god around here?

Hes a scumbag, but that doesn't take away from his ability to coach.

 

[Saunders]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

I disagree that wanting a great team is an "entitlement."

It's more akin to "return on investment."

Nebraska fans invest heavily, in terms in dollars and in how the program is doing, and we want to see great football.

If I want to throw my money away, and expect nothing for it, I'll donate it to a homeless person.

Bingo.

 

[Saunders]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close.

That's some what of a straw man argument and it gets thrown out any time someone says patience is needed.
Everyone is frustrated without winning a conference championship in 18 years. But, that doesn't mean that once a major change is made like it was two years ago with the hire of Riley, that he won't need time to put in place what is needed for long term success in the program.

He said people who show up to watch winning football have an entitlement attitude. It also doesn't change the fact that while "program image" and culture are nice things (however you're trying to measure that), that winning is what puts butts in seats.

Nobody is arguing that winning isn't what puts butts in the seats. And, nobody is arguing that Riley needs to start winning something of importance soon.
BUT...what people are saying is that seeing what is happening behind the scenes with recruiting, national image, organizational building...etc. is reason to be optimistic enough to give him time to see how it affects play on the field.

With the attitude of..."OMG...we haven't won a conference championship in 18 years, we need to win NOW", we might as well hire a coach and if he doesn't win one the first two years, fire him and get someone else no matter what.

THAT would be a devastating way of managing and I don't think anyone would support that.

So, the argument really is, where is the happy medium between keeping one coach forever no matter what and firing a coach every two years?

Watching what is happening behind the scenes is a good way of measuring where that happy medium is.

i don't disagree. All I've done is bring up the trends and data pointing out that most successful coaches hit their stride in year 3.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

It's humorous how many on here are bagging on the past two years performances. The tools MR had to work with were just not up to par with what is needed in this conference. Armstrong was bad... really bad. Yes, occasionally his YOLO bombs would land in a lucky spot but can you imagine trying to coach that? I for one give the guy a couple mulligans based on what he had to start with. This is year one in my book. If the product on the field doesn't yield results by 2019 then we have reason to tell the guy to kick rocks...

Year one?

Yeah, Tommy was a 4* like O'Brien and Gebbia, but he was trash.

Dude was recruited for a different system. He must have had something that gained the interest of Chip Kelly, Art Briles, Garry Patterson, and Kevin Sumlin for them to offer him.

We are still mentioning Briles as a god around here?

Hes a scumbag, but that doesn't take away from his ability to coach.

But I would hope it would preclude his ability to be hired by Nebraska.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle.
I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do

Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go.
So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too.

Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole.

That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product.

Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.

Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close.

That's some what of a straw man argument and it gets thrown out any time someone says patience is needed.
Everyone is frustrated without winning a conference championship in 18 years. But, that doesn't mean that once a major change is made like it was two years ago with the hire of Riley, that he won't need time to put in place what is needed for long term success in the program.

He said people who show up to watch winning football have an entitlement attitude. It also doesn't change the fact that while "program image" and culture are nice things (however you're trying to measure that), that winning is what puts butts in seats.

Nobody is arguing that winning isn't what puts butts in the seats. And, nobody is arguing that Riley needs to start winning something of importance soon.
BUT...what people are saying is that seeing what is happening behind the scenes with recruiting, national image, organizational building...etc. is reason to be optimistic enough to give him time to see how it affects play on the field.

With the attitude of..."OMG...we haven't won a conference championship in 18 years, we need to win NOW", we might as well hire a coach and if he doesn't win one the first two years, fire him and get someone else no matter what.

THAT would be a devastating way of managing and I don't think anyone would support that.

So, the argument really is, where is the happy medium between keeping one coach forever no matter what and firing a coach every two years?

Watching what is happening behind the scenes is a good way of measuring where that happy medium is.

i don't disagree. All I've done is bring up the trends and data pointing out that most successful coaches hit their stride in year 3.

Well that's good because I think Riley has this team primed to hit their stride this year

 

[admo]

Everyone talks about the early success of Meyer at OSU, Harbaugh at Michigan and Stoops at Oklahoma. You see Franklin busting through with a nice season in 2016. Was their respective roster situations as bleak as Nebraska's at their hires? People lauded the immediate success of our past HC but it was fools gold after the 4th season.

When does the statute of limitation end with Pelini's players as an argument in support of Riley?

When they are all Riley's players.

No, it doesn't take that long. By year 3, it's the current coaches team. If the players aren't his recruits, they're at least guys he's coached more than his predecessor. In year 3, you're very likely see what a staff is capable of. For example, James Franklin won the B1G in his 3rd year, after two 7-6 seasons.

I agree it doesn't take that long, and the third year is a good indication as any. Getting Diaco in and Banker out will help a lot. It says a lot too. So will Tanner Lee.

 

[admo]

Do we though Teach? I feel like we are seeing things take place in the Riley era that we haven't seen really ever. I think it is fair to change the definition of progress when someone presents a new way of doing things. Riley is following a championship formula in a way past coaches haven't. To me that should count for something. Results on the field must mirror this perception, but I think it is fair to allow this method Riley has brought to work a little longer than what Billy C or Pelini was given. Just because they showed they weren't willing to change. They stuck with their methods that weren't yielding the results we needed. Riley on the other hand seems to evaluate as he goes and make changes where he sees fit to improve on his results. Will it work out in the end? I don't know but I sure do think his method has a much better chance of yielding favorable results than what we have seen the last 15 years

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams.

He can't lose to cruddy teams, for sure. Even if he pulls off an occasional upset. Gotta win the games you are suppose to win.

25th year, but not all at Nebraska. I mean, even Mack Brown took 22 years to win a championship (his 8th season at UT). And that would be his only one in 29 years or so as a head football coach. I've never like Mack until he retired and went into the halftime booth, but they stuck with him.