Dagerow

Is it, now, ok to say Riley needs to be fired? We should be able to run at will against them. They are not that good.

You are right. It's hard for me to see loyalty as a fault, but you are right and I misspoke with regard to that.

Bo got fired because the AD didn't like him. If TO was the AD, he wouldn't have got fired.

Yes, I understand they do that. But they could just as easily print out one of the message threads posted here (such as who should be hire) and show it. Long story short, I don't believe it makes a big difference (they can find a way to recruit negatively) and whatever the difference isn't worth, imho, the millions it may cost.

Yes, it may be for recruiting, but I don't think a recruit greatly focuses on if the coach has 3 or 4 years left in his contract. The recruit knows that if Riley does well, he will stay. If not, he will be fired. The way we play will be way more significant to whether a recruit will want to come here. What this does is limit our options and potentially cost us a lot of money. (I remember when this was done to protect someone from poaching our coach away. That obviously is not an issue).

I'm always amazed people think Bo hit his ceiling. This was his first HC job, and he never lost more than 9. Lots of good coaches do something similar and when they get a great player (texas - Vince young), assistant coach (Oklahoma with Leach), or something else, it puts them over the top. Heck, if TM didn't get injured, I think we would have been right in it. I'll tell you this, I always had faith in a Bo teams and Bo himself. Yes, he made mistakes (JP is the biggest), but he always was aware of them and looked to correct them. Now go ahead and bash me.

Wil: We like to throw into coverage.

What we learned: Our offense looked pretty good. Not great, but good. Ark is a pretty good team. Lee is very good at some things, but is certainly not as good as some pundits have made him out to be. Bryant did fine, but if you don't rest him properly over the season he is going to wear down. Our defense has some serious issues to address. Admittedly, being the first game in a new system against a team that plays like Ark does (the hurry up offense, and style of attack) will expose the weakness in a much greater extent then normal, especially when the DC is in the box and can't communicate with the players during the game. But prep work should have addressed some of that (being the first game, they had plenty of time to prep). There is reason for concern especially against Orgen. You can't leave receivers open like they did for short yardage plays (I'm not talking about the screens (which is problematic in itself but seemed to be addressed by halftime adjustments), I'm talking about 5-10 yard passes, mostly covered by our LBs). The run defense is not good. This is Ark - imagine almost any other opponent we play. Our pass defense rush is not bad. We can create some pressure. Secondary played well. Simply put, in our scheme, the lbs' play should be the star, but in reality it looked like the weakness. Special teams. I thought Riley was supposed to be an expert on special teams and focused a lot of the teams attention to it. Apparently not. Nothing special about his special teams. I agree that it's hard to gauge a team based on the first game, but that's all we have right now. The offense is a little better than expected. The defense is worse than expected. The problem is that the team did not look like it deserved a top 25 ranking, and won't anytime soon.

Point out where anyone is saying this and that this is all that they ever expect Nebraska football to accomplish. There are several people who think 7-8 wins would be a decent season with this roster/staff. By extension, it's fair to assume 9-10 wins would be pretty good for this year. Here's one person using that exact language. Which leads me to ask once again....define "expectations". I have asked 3 times now in this thread and I still don't think I've actually gotten an answer. To me, expectations of the program is long term. Meaning...more than just one year. What should the program be working towards. Someone can claim that with a current roster, winning 9 to 10 games could be viewed as a good season WITHOUT giving up the expectation that the Huskers should be winning championships. Now, to me, anytime we win 9-10 games, it's a pretty decent season....but it's not the end goal I have for the program. It obviously was a season with some disappointment too. And...a 9 win season with 3-4 embarassingly bad losses to people we should be competetive with....would be viewed as a very disappointing year. A 9 win season with 3-4 losses to really good teams where we had a chance to win the games at the end....would probably be viewed as a decent season. BUT.....that still doesn't mean that's all I ever expect out of the program. What people are trying to do is pigeon hole people into groups in this thread based on if they wanted Bo fired (after winning 9-10 games) and now are optimistic with Mike as a coach (winning 9-10 games in the first 3 years -minus the first).....they have somehow lowered all "expectations" of what our program should be doing.......that just flat out is a wrong statement based solely on trying to further an agenda of wanting Mike gone. Good response. I might have been to harsh in my initial post because of my frustration with how Nebraska's being viewed this year (what the pundits are saying) and not being able to drink the kool aid that I love drinking right before the season begins (this summer has sucked in that regard). But my point was with the expectations that people have expressed here this preseason. I strongly dislike the idea of NU being viewed as lesser than or equal to Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, Minnesota, etc., and it pisses me off (and yes, I'm including Wisconsin and Penn State in that list). I want Nebraska to be better then those teams almost always, and it just doesn't sit right with me that NU being viewed as 3rd in the west (especially when I think that assessment is not far off). I do think, however, that those who wanted Bo gone are more will to accept the lower expectations then those who wanted Bo. So, yo can take issue with me on that.

Well at least you gave him a fair chance and are ignoring his willingness to make changes . But that's okay, whatever fits your narrative. I find it ironic that people forget what was posted here in the past and now, in a complete about face, suggest the opposite (I don't know if that was you or the other posters who replied to my post asserted that but it was the general narrative here). People were mad that Bo "only" won 9 or 10 a season because that wasn't enough, and now if Riley won 9 or 10, it would be viewed as a success.If that were true you would have a point. But..... You're joking right?

Could you please provide more context as to how and why people would fit into these binary categories of fandom.Does anyone actually believe with Riley as coach we could win the national championship? I don't know the answer to that. Considering winning a conference championship would be something new and completely different at Nebraska nowadays, I haven't got too involved with thinking about a natty. But what I do know is that we sure as hell weren't going to win one with Pelini. He was obviously satisfied with winning his 9 games and felt people were out of line expecting championships of any kind. And of course there were the lopsided blowouts and still running runnning backs. I don't predicate my fandom on any certain number of wins. I want us to play good ball and compete with everyone on our schedule. We haven't competed with top teams for quite some time and we have even struggled with some middle of the road teams. I don't know if Riley will get us to where I'd like to see us but I sure as hell am going to give him more than 2 years to see what he's got to offer. Personally I'm not a big fan of the type of offense he wants to run here (It's not physical and smashmouth enough for my tastes) but I also acknowledge that his way has not been given a fair shake yet. Nobody could run the type of offense he wants with TA (and no backups) at QB. I have serious reservations if his lightweight, finesse and pass based offense will ever cut it in the B1G. But it seems to me he is recruiting well, which we lacked with his predecessor. Seems to me he is willing to make changes on his staff to improve on results (Reed, Banker...). What I'm trying to say is, giving Riley 3 or 4 years does not equate to "If you like having Riley as our coach, you've settled for mediocre. If not, you haven't.". That is the statement you made and that is what I was responding to. Like I said, I'm not big on only looking at the W-L but given our schedule and where I think we should be this year, my over/under is 8.5 wins. 8 or less or some uncompetitive losses and I'll likely be screaming for a replacement. 9 or more and competitive in all games and I'll view that as being headed in the right direction. This thing has sucked since about 2001. I'm not unrealistic enough to think it's going to change drastically in 2 years, especially after the fashion this regime change took place. I don't think it is fair or reasonable to judge him on only 2 years (or his time at OSU) but I do think it is fair to hold him fully accountable beginning this year. I'm done with the buy in excuses (which I think had much merit) and I'm done with injury excuses (even if there were real issues there). Part of coaching at this level is planning and preparing your team for those eventualities. It is now fully his team and his responsibility. I'm going to give him at least one year where that is the situation. Fair enough. I will say he is recruiting well.

Could you please provide more context as to how and why people would fit into these binary categories of fandom. Does anyone actually believe with Riley as coach we could win the national championship?

Well at least you gave him a fair chance and are ignoring his willingness to make changes . But that's okay, whatever fits your narrative. I find it ironic that people forget what was posted here in the past and now, in a complete about face, suggest the opposite (I don't know if that was you or the other posters who replied to my post asserted that but it was the general narrative here). People were mad that Bo "only" won 9 or 10 a season because that wasn't enough, and now if Riley won 9 or 10, it would be viewed as a success.

It goes like this. If you like having Riley as our coach, you've settled for mediocre. If not, you haven't. (I usually don't like posting such negativity, but everyone is avoiding the issue, intentional or not. And yes, I know a lot will disagree).

Of course they do (have lower expectations). Part of it is trying to provide justification that Bo's termination was a good call.

FYI. While not ideal, you can just use BTN2Go on your iPhone and "stream/mirror" it on your tv via Apple TV. Just swip up from the bottom of your screen, and click the Airplay Mirror button. Works for anything.I have been doing this. The audio/video quality is horrible though.That's unfortunate. (Incidentally, for me, it works pretty good (not hd, but definitely watchable). I did have some issues before (but only on 1-2 occasions), but I think that was due to too many people streaming it and the BTN servers having issues. When I watched the replay, it was much, much better).

FYI. While not ideal, you can just use BTN2Go on your iPhone and "stream/mirror" it on your tv via Apple TV. Just swip up from the bottom of your screen, and click the Airplay Mirror button. Works for anything.

I've got to say: third in west sucks.

Thanks. Taylor, as the author put it, was my guy, and in my opinion, clearly elite. The only thing that could slow him down was injuries, which sadly did. Without those injuries, the recent history of the huskers could be very different. While I think coaching is always the key, I also think that luck (whether it's injuries, schedule, or otherwise) plays a big part whether or not a team wins 9 games or competes for a championship. Most of the time, when a good coach gets one real difference maker (e.g., Vince Young at Texas) the team becomes different.

I want whatever he's drinking!

Nuff said.

So your saying we may have the number one pro style qb in college football and we run a pro style offense.

I'm sick of all the negativity in the recent topics, and looking for the rush associated with a Kool Aid high, so I created this thread looking hoping others will add. The defense has chance to be very good. With the new scheme and coach, it should be exciting. Wisconsin's defense (which will be similar to what we will run) looked great over the last couple years, and I think we have great talent to work it. Lock down corners? Yup. Dominate stout DL? Yup. Aggressive hard hitting and quick lbs? Yup. We have at least as much talent (I think more) then Wisconsin has had, and that could make a big difference in close games. On offense, yes we lose a lot of talent, but not in the areas that are key to Riley's offense. The QB will be far more accurate and that is the key for his offense to work. Stud rbs? We have a bunch that should be able to consistently move the ball. WRs? In Riley's system a premier wr is not key (except in one position) -- just someone that can consistently catch the ball. And considering most if the dbs we will be facing, we will most of the time be equal or better. One shifty wr is a big part of taking the offense to the next level, and we certainly have that.

Of course, it should stay on Black Friday. It's fun, and draws viewers. While the "lesser" channel isn't ideal, it's not that big a deal.

I guess your perception and my perception are two entirely different things. I don't see a team on the upswing. The next two years are not going great. (And despite the ranting of some, a 9 win season in not something to laugh at. It is an accomplishment and not easy. And I'm willing to beat that any of Bo's NU teams could beat any of Rileys). It does look like our perceptions are different - which is fine. I based my perception on what i have seen over the last 2+ years. Based on your post you are basing yours on what you think will happen during the next 2 years (how can you say "the next two years are not going great"? we haven't played a single down in the first of those two years) Nice idea to try to "bet" on something that can't actually happen. So we are betting on hypotheticals and counting future predictions as facts. Actually, my perception is not largely based upon what I think will happen in the future. It is primarily based upon what has happened, and how people's narrative had changed over time. You simply characterized the 9 win teams as stuck in the mud, and a 7 win team as on the upswing. I was simply responding to your post.