Sunk Costs

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The fan base reactions when Nebraska hired Mike Riley during the offseason were mixed at best. Some pointed to the fact that Mike Riley was never better than a .500 coach during his career, and that we shouldn't expect anything from Riley at Nebraska. After all, the typical best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and, although this doesn't work in some cases (Icek Azjen, a famous psychologist, found just a moderate correlation between a student's attendance during the first eight sessions of a class and their attendance during the second eight sessions of a class), this notion works when:

 

1) The behavior in question is a high-frequency, habitual behavior.

 

2) The behaviors are occurring over a short-time period (correlations between behaviors tend to understandably decrease over time--you wouldn't expect a behavior that occurred 5 years ago to be predictive for a behavior occurring today).

 

3) The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.

 

4) The behavior in question must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.

 

5) The person must remain essentially unchanged.

 

6) The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

 

 

All of those above describe sports coaches to a tee. Every coach has a scheme that they like to run and have little time to make significant changes to their philosophies. That's why it makes sense for schools to hire coaches who run a very similar scheme or who have a very similar philosophy as a previous coach who was successful. By all means, Bo Pelini wasn't the best fit for Nebraska, but what he did worked (at least more often than it didn't). There are plenty of coaches out there who rely on the run game to set up the pass. Hiring Mike Riley, who is grounded in the West Coast offense that relies on the pass to setup the run, was a very curious decision to say the least.

 

Still there was the thought that you can make any system work anywhere and that Riley's ability to "do more with less" at Oregon State would allow him to "do more with more" at Nebraska. I fell into that camp early on, and although I still hope that Mike Riley can right the ship, work and research in psychology gives me little hope that he will be able to accomplish what he was brought here to do.

 

That being said, it may be time for the powers that be to recognize the sunk cost fallacy. A sunk cost is a cost that has been incurred and cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy occurs when a decision maker allows a sunk cost to factor into their decision making. For example, let's say you bought tickets to a concert, but you wake up with the flu on the day of the concert. There is no way you can't get your money back, so it makes no sense to go to the concert because you already spent money on the tickets; you're going to be miserable if you do.

 

Given what is known about predictors of future behavior, Mike Riley might be a sunk cost, and it might actually work out in the long run to cut ties with him at the end of this season. There is a good amount of talent looking to jump ship at the end of this year (Justin Fuente, Tom Herman). There'll probably be other coaches that'll show promise that are looking to take the next step in their careers in other years, but if we have the opportunity and capacity to cut ties and head a different direction, we shouldn't allow the fact that Mike Riley has a x year contract influence our decision.

[PaulCrewe]

You're such a 14 year old nerd

[BoNeyard]

It makes sense.

 

Given he did more with less statement, the thought was a coach of his expierence could come into Nebraska and win right away, and I was not expecting 10-12 win seasons, I thought the first year was a 7-8 win type season, then we progressed the following years. But, instead, somehow this man has completely failed and this is suddenly the worst Nebraska team in the last 40 years. And Callahan was here not too long ago!

 

I figured after the hire Riley was here at max 5 years, regardless of success because he is 62. I figured he would come in and we would feel good about the first year and he would start to have his success, then retire...Then we have to rebuild again.

 

Those saying let him have 4 years. Ok? So we rebuild in 4 years? Or just admit the mistake now, adn rebuild immediately. Plus, with how bad this season is, next year is a rebuilding year anyways. Just move on here. No need to keep a failure around.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You're such a 14 year old nerd

 

I'm unsure how to take this.

[Sargon]

Read some more psych books then you'll know

 

BTW this isn't a sunk cost case. Sunk costs are already paid. NU hasn't already paid buyout money to this staff.

[Danimal]

Wish Buffett would go into Boone Pickens mode and do a one-time program bailout to get us Fuente or Herman.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Read some more psych books then you'll know

 

BTW this isn't a sunk cost case. Sunk costs are already paid. NU hasn't already paid buyout money to this staff.

 

Not unless you consider the buyouts already part of the sunk cost.

[HuskerMav11]

 

Read some more psych books then you'll know

 

BTW this isn't a sunk cost case. Sunk costs are already paid. NU hasn't already paid buyout money to this staff.

 

Not unless you consider the buyouts already part of the sunk cost.

/

Sunk cost is taking past actions/decisions and using that information to factor into your future decision when they have no relevence or affect on those decisions. Choosing not to fire riley after the 1st season is not a great example of sunk cost.

 

Sunk cost doesn't have to be money invested, and in fact is usually time/effort. Saying we can't fire riley because we've already invested this much into him would be sunk cost. However, there are factors that make it not sunk cost: 1. There are future variables for not firing him now. We haven't given him a chance to get his own recruits and his own system in place. 2. Buyouts are future payments that would be generated by the decision to fire him, so you can absolutely factor that into your decision.

[GBRedneck]

I was told there would be no math.

[HuskerNBigD]

Wish Buffett would go into Boone Pickens mode and do a one-time program bailout to get us Fuente or Herman.

Wasn't Buffett a big Bo advocate?

[Tomhusker64]

Is this stuff gonna be on the test?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

Read some more psych books then you'll know

 

BTW this isn't a sunk cost case. Sunk costs are already paid. NU hasn't already paid buyout money to this staff.

 

Not unless you consider the buyouts already part of the sunk cost.

/

Sunk cost is taking past actions/decisions and using that information to factor into your future decision when they have no relevence or affect on those decisions. Choosing not to fire riley after the 1st season is not a great example of sunk cost.

 

Sunk cost doesn't have to be money invested, and in fact is usually time/effort. Saying we can't fire riley because we've already invested this much into him would be sunk cost. However, there are factors that make it not sunk cost: 1. There are future variables for not firing him now. We haven't given him a chance to get his own recruits and his own system in place. 2. Buyouts are future payments that would be generated by the decision to fire him, so you can absolutely factor that into your decision.

 

 

Hey man, I never said it was a perfect example.

[huskerhead59]

Buffet doesn't donate. Never has and never will. He loves NU but will never donate

[In the Deed the Glory]

Buffet doesn't donate. Never has and never will. He loves NU but will never donate

He donates to the university, not the athletic department.

[Hayseed]

This thread went Sadsack in a hurry.