SI Mailbag: What Are Realistic Short-Term Expectations for Nebraska?

Redux said:
We hired the best coach in the country and are talking about 6-6 being a realistic expectation.

That's literally the best example of apathy I can think of.
Click to expand...


Yeah. If I recall correctly, Mike Riley was allowed zero transition time, expected to immediately do better with the same players, because that's why you hire a new coach. 

I agreed with that thinking then, and I agree with it now. 

Weird that the people who wanted nothing less than Scott Frost are scaling expectations way down for him.  Nobody liked the transition rationale and empty cupboard excuses three years ago.

Frost took UCF from 0-12 to 6-7 to 13 - 0, with a win against the big bad SEC.  He was the hottest coaching candidate in the land, coming to bigger and better resources, and will be building on a #24 recruiting class, only two seasons removed from a 9 win team, and a season removed from a lame-duck coach, an ill-fitting staff, and the wrong quarterback. 

I'll always reserve the eye test for a team that's competing and improving, if not always winning, but six wins next season would rank as a disappointment, and eight wins is hardly the greedy wish of an entitled fansbase — it's the difference Scott Frost is supposed to make.

Three seasons will tell a better story, but if we're not expecting Scott Frost to have us competing for both the division and conference by then, we owe the previous coaches an apology. 

 
knapplc said:
This is a very reasonable take. It's weird that it's getting pushback. 

I responded to some posts in the Shed before knowing where they were coming from.  It's definitely plausible that we go 6-6 this year, even with a rock star coach, based on SOS, lack of familiarity with schemes, and just plain bad luck.

It's also plausible we do better than 6-6 (and possible, although highly unlikely, that we do worse).  But anyone expecting better against this schedule has their Big Red Homer Glasses on quite firmly. 
Click to expand...
Finally!! I thought I was the only one who had these thoughts.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Yeah. If I recall correctly, Mike Riley was allowed zero transition time, expected to immediately do better with the same players, because that's why you hire a new coach. 

I agreed with that thinking then, and I agree with it now. 

Weird that the people who wanted nothing less than Scott Frost are scaling expectations way down for him.  Nobody liked the transition rationale and empty cupboard excuses three years ago.

Frost took UCF from 0-12 to 6-7 to 13 - 0, with a win against the big bad SEC.  He was the hottest coaching candidate in the land, coming to bigger and better resources, and will be building on a #24 recruiting class, only two seasons removed from a 9 win team, and a season removed from a lame-duck coach, an ill-fitting staff, and the wrong quarterback. 

I'll always reserve the eye test for a team that's competing and improving, if not always winning, but six wins next season would rank as a disappointment, and eight wins is hardly the greedy wish of an entitled fansbase — it's the difference Scott Frost is supposed to make.

Three seasons will tell a better story, but if we're not expecting Scott Frost to have us competing for both the division and conference by then, we owe the previous coaches an apology. 
Click to expand...
I expected a transition time for Mike Riley, but he was taking over a 9 win team... Frost is taking over a 4 win team.

I don't see any reason to put Frost on the hot seat in year 1... even if they go 4-8 again this year, would you really want to fire him and find someone else????

 
HS_Coach_C said:
I expected a transition time for Mike Riley, but he was taking over a 9 win team... Frost is taking over a 4 win team.

I don't see any reason to put Frost on the hot seat in year 1... even if they go 4-8 again this year, would you really want to fire him and find someone else????
Click to expand...
I don't care what anyone says, we were better than a 4 win team last year.  We were not as bad as our record showed.  I think that's where people are getting these "lofty expectations" of winning more than 6 games.   The context of the wins and losses matters this season so 6 wins could be an improvement but lets say this season plays out about the same as last season (don't think that'll happen), other than we have 2 more W's on the record, 6 wins would not be an improvement in my mind.

Edit:  No he would not be on the hotseat and I don't think any rational person would be calling for him to be fired

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Yeah. If I recall correctly, Mike Riley was allowed zero transition time, expected to immediately do better with the same players, because that's why you hire a new coach. 

I agreed with that thinking then, and I agree with it now. 

Weird that the people who wanted nothing less than Scott Frost are scaling expectations way down for him.  Nobody liked the transition rationale and empty cupboard excuses three years ago.

Frost took UCF from 0-12 to 6-7 to 13 - 0, with a win against the big bad SEC.  He was the hottest coaching candidate in the land, coming to bigger and better resources, and will be building on a #24 recruiting class, only two seasons removed from a 9 win team, and a season removed from a lame-duck coach, an ill-fitting staff, and the wrong quarterback. 

I'll always reserve the eye test for a team that's competing and improving, if not always winning, but six wins next season would rank as a disappointment, and eight wins is hardly the greedy wish of an entitled fansbase — it's the difference Scott Frost is supposed to make.

Three seasons will tell a better story, but if we're not expecting Scott Frost to have us competing for both the division and conference by then, we owe the previous coaches an apology. 
Click to expand...
I disagree that Riley was allowed zero transition time. Many people (myself included) were willing to take some steps backward if it meant reaching for a higher ceiling. The ultimate problem is Riley went 4-8 and captained the worst Nebraska team in more than 40 years. I keep seeing a lot of people say 'they don't think the team was as bad as the record showed last year.'

They were. They struggled in week one. They were blown out by an average Oregon squad in week two. They lost at home to a non-Power 5. These are problems that stemmed from offseason conditioning, culture, preparation and coaching. They didn't just manifest in October or November as some people seem to think they did.

Now, all that said, I fully believe Frost will succeed here and I expect he will, but undoing almost 20 years of football mediocrity may not happen in one season and for a variety of reasons. I know it sucks, but the man deserves time to rebuild a ship he had no involvement sinking.

 
RedSavage said:
I don't care what anyone says, we were better than a 4 win team last year.  We were not as bad as our record showed.  I think that's where people are getting these "lofty expectations" of winning more than 6 games.   The context of the wins and losses matters this season so 6 wins could be an improvement but lets say this season plays out about the same as last season (don't think that'll happen), other than we have 2 more W's on the record, 6 wins would not be an improvement in my mind.
Click to expand...
No offense, but I don't understand this mindset or the justification behind it.

Nebraska played like a below average B1G team pretty much right out of the gates. Those are problems that came out of the off season, the culture, the coaching and preparation. Nebraska was not good last year and their record proved it. That doesn't mean they don't have talent or the potential to do better, but last year's team was not better than a four win team. They were a four win team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The team is only as good as the coach.  Same team, same schedule as last year.  Does Frost only muster 4 wins?  I bet not.  You know darned well that the team had given up by mid October.  They were better than 4-8, not by a lot, but better nonetheless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux said:
He clearly never said that.  Neither did I yesterday.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, I guess that's just the natural tendency when a coach is falling short of expectations.  My bad.

As for me - I fully expect Frost to win at least as much as Pelini did.  I just don't have win/loss expectations for year 1. 

Would 4-8 surprise me? No

Would 8-4 surprise me? No

 
Enhance said:
No offense, but I don't understand this mindset or the justification behind it.

Nebraska played like a below average team pretty much right out of the gates. Those are problems that extended into the off season, the culture, the coaching and preparation. Nebraska was not good last year and their record proved it. That doesn't mean they don't have talent or the potential to do better, but last year's team was not better than a four win team. They were a four win team.
Click to expand...
Was that because we had below average talent or because we had way below average coaching?  Lets say we had even an average coach last year, maybe Jeff Brohm as an example, do you think we win more games or our record is the same?

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Yeah. If I recall correctly, Mike Riley was allowed zero transition time, expected to immediately do better with the same players, because that's why you hire a new coach. 

I agreed with that thinking then, and I agree with it now. 
Click to expand...
Mike Riley was allowed zero transition time because of the way his superiors "sold" his hiring.

Most are now aware of the political clown show that went on behind the scenes.  But the way it was sold was getting a coach who could take us to the next level.  

Immediately.

 
RedSavage said:
Was that because we had below average talent or because we had way below average coaching?  Lets say we had even an average coach last year, maybe Jeff Brohm as an example, do you think we win more games or our record is the same?
Click to expand...
I think that's two different conversations, though. Maybe I'm looking at this too deeply and my apologies if I am.

I should be clear, I think Nebraska's biggest problem last year was coaching and culture. No question in my mind. Could a different coach have done a better job? Quite possibly. But, I don't think that allows us the ability to say they were better than their record showed because I don't think they were. They were a bad team and it was evident in week one. I'm just always cautious about trying to make broad statements like that. If anything, I'd say their record looked better than they were.

I think what I'm ultimately trying to say is some of the problems that plagued them last year very well could plague them into 2018, especially if some of the bad apples aren't completely weeded out by September (which is a real possibility). Throw in a new QB, a new system, new coaches, new culture, etc., and there's just a lot of 'new.' Could it go very well in year one? Absolutely. Could it not? I think the answer to that is absolutely, as well.

 
Redux said:
The team is only as good as the coach.  Same team, same schedule as last year.  Does Frost only muster 4 wins?  I bet not.  You know darned well that the team had given up by mid October.  They were better than 4-8, not by a lot, but better nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Well Saban started off with a 7-6 record but by your logic that shouldn't have happened.  Same with Bob stoops and Pete Carroll.  By your logic their first year shouldn't have been bad and they should have competed for a conference title.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top