Bo Pelini had to go and Mike Riley had to be hired

[Saunders]

 

 

I keep hearing about these 7 wins so many are expecting, but the poll results in the "Setting First-Year Expectations" thread suggest it's an extreme minority opinion.

I don't know who's saying that. But I have seen people say they're okay with it.

 

 

 

Mavric's huge shtick last week was all these people that were expecting 7 wins. His words, not mine. So then myself and a few people asked him who exactly was expecting that, and he made the poll for people to vote in. Turns out - hardly anyone at all.

 

I don't remember the 7 wins part. I remember him referencing people saying they expected us to struggle with the transition though. IDK...

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[JJ Husker]

I have friends that are saying .500...they don't all post here. Its not shtick, there are lots of people that are saying that. Shoot vegas is putting it around 7.5 and or 8

You need better, smarter friends. Anyone could say that but to look at our schedule and actually mean it.....well that takes a "special" person.

[knapplc]

Where is this poll? I'm blind.

 

 

EDIT - nevermind. I was looking for a poll by Mav. I'm not blind, I'm dense.

[huKSer]

Where is this poll? I'm blind.

So you use Dragon Talk?

[Saunders]

Where is this poll? I'm blind.

 

 

EDIT - nevermind. I was looking for a poll by Mav. I'm not blind, I'm dense.

Well, you are getting old.

[Moiraine]

 

I keep hearing about these 7 wins so many are expecting, but the poll results in the "Setting First-Year Expectations" thread suggest it's an extreme minority opinion.

I don't know who's saying that. But I have seen people say they're okay with it.

 

 

I'm okay with it in year one if the losses are competitive. The following are unfortunately not games where we can win just by showing up: BYU/Miami/MSU/Wisconsin/Northwestern/Minnesota/Iowa/bowl game. But I'm not expecting to lose 6 of those. More like 3-4.

 

I will also not be ecstatic with only 9 wins.

[teachercd]

 

I have friends that are saying .500...they don't all post here. Its not shtick, there are lots of people that are saying that. Shoot vegas is putting it around 7.5 and or 8

You need better, smarter friends. Anyone could say that but to look at our schedule and actually mean it.....well that takes a "special" person.

 

Ha! I tell them that all the time!

[MichiganDad3]

 

TheSker has a point.

 

There's a lot of enthusiasm around here for Mike Riley, perhaps more than his actual record would warrant.

 

And If 7 seasons of 9 plus wins wasn't good enough for Bo Pelini, why are we suddenly reducing expectations and win totals for Mike Riley?

 

That's a valid question.

 

But here's where TheSker is wrong:

 

1) Mike Riley was a great choice to be Nebraska's new head coach.

 

2) Go Big Red.

I'm not seeing a lot of enthusiasm really. People seem cautious or skeptical. I'd say there's even three members here trying to prop up the former staff for a triumphant return.

 

As far as the lowering expectations comment, I can't stress this enough. 9-10 wins wasn't the issue. 4 losses and sometimes the embarrassing manner in which the team lost, that was the issue. Expectations aren't being lowered. Of Riley's staff loses like that, they'll feel the heat too, I guarantee it. Fact is, right now we know nothing. Also, I think its fair to say that if Riley and staff does lose four but keep them close, competitive, all while being some of the most likeable people in the state, then they may be cut a bit more slack than the last staff.

 

I will declare the season a big improvement over previous years if Nebraska loses four games all by less than a touchdown ... and no back gains over 400 yards in a single game.

[suh_fan93]

 

I don't feel like Mike Riley needed to be hired but Bo definitely had to go. It was long overdue at that.

Yea, NU wanted a guy like Mike Riley, there would have been plenty out there.

 

But not a single one has the reputation that Riley does in the landscape of College Football. He's one of the brightest minds apparently.

 

 

 

I get that's he's got the nice guy reputation and I'm sure he is a very nice guy. Almost anyone would have seemed a lot nicer and more personable than Dumbo however. He set the bar pretty low.

[Mavric]

 

 

I keep hearing about these 7 wins so many are expecting, but the poll results in the "Setting First-Year Expectations" thread suggest it's an extreme minority opinion.

I don't know who's saying that. But I have seen people say they're okay with it.

 

 

 

Mavric's huge shtick last week was all these people that were expecting 7 wins. His words, not mine. So then myself and a few people asked him who exactly was expecting that, and he made the poll for people to vote in. Turns out - hardly anyone at all.

 

 

Which, oddly enough, is what I said would happen.

[Hammerhead]

I have friends that are saying .500...they don't all post here. Its not shtick, there are lots of people that are saying that. Shoot vegas is putting it around 7.5 and or 8

 

Are they Pelini apologists? I can't see any other reason why anyone would expect us to regress back to the Callahan days.

[teachercd]

 

I have friends that are saying .500...they don't all post here. Its not shtick, there are lots of people that are saying that. Shoot vegas is putting it around 7.5 and or 8

 

Are they Pelini apologists? I can't see any other reason why anyone would expect us to regress back to the Callahan days.

 

Ahhhh good question. No, not at all.

[TheSker]

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

[teachercd]

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

How about, dorky?

[Stumpy1]

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.