Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[cm husker]

If you wanted a program with every recruiting advantage in the world, a history of churning out NFL talent, the means and willingness to hire top flight coaches, and a place reserved in every preseason Top 25, you'd have UCLA.

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

How do you figure?

 

UCLA is notorious for their awful facilities (which are being upgraded) and their remote football stadium (campus is far from Pasadena). They also have stricter admissions standards than even Cal (at least in theory).

 

In the past 20 years, they've produced a 4+ NFL draftees class only 3 times (by comparison, NU has about 11), which equals the number of classes they had where no one was drafted (by comparison, NU has had at least 2 players drafted in each year during the past 20, and in 19 of 20, at least 3). UCLA also had a number of years with only a single player drafted.

 

A willingness and means to hire top flight coaches is a little harder to gauge, but they've had 4 in the past 20 years, none of whom were attention grabbing until Mora:

 

Bob Toledo - 14-30 as a division 1 coach prior to hiring

Karl Dorrell - a WR coach (in the NFL) with no prior HC and limited coordinating experience

R. Neuheisel - a coordinator in the NFL and failed former HC (once fired and once pushed out)

 

Even Mora didn't have a gleaming resume, though he does have a largish contract ($3.3mm a year puts him at 25th among current coaches) and a staff that ranks 11th in total compensation.

 

As far as a place reserved in the top 25, I don't want to go back through a lot of pre-season polls, but going back to 2002, UCLA was a preseason top 25 team only once prior to Mora's arrival. http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1/seasontype/2/year/2002/week/1

 

 

Even geography isn't enough for many programs. That's why coaching is so important.

[beorach]

I don't recognize that you've made a counter argument. I don't think you've shown any substantial fallacy (aside from Donnan being included incorrectly, as I noted above - this is why I qualified this with substantial) and you're reading into Landlord's post to the extent that I think it's fair to say you've got its meaning twisted. Put in the time and make your case if you like but questioning whether altering the research by including bad coaches, going with seven years, etc., is nothing but speculation until then.

[cm husker]

I don't recognize that you've made a counter argument. I don't think you've shown any substantial fallacy (aside from Donnan being included incorrectly, as I noted above - this is why I qualified this with substantial) and you're reading into Landlord's post to the extent that I think it's fair to say you've got its meaning twisted. Put in the time and make your case if you like but questioning whether altering the research by including bad coaches, going with seven years, etc., is nothing but speculation until then.

 

 

No point in me putting in more time. You won't even consider it, clearly.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, in one sentence, how would you sum up the point of Landlord's post (and yours)?

[Sargon]

70% winning for Riley at NU will

 

NOT happen

 

for years, if ever. 6-7 is in the books.

 

 

 

6-7 + 10-4 = 16-11 59%

 

+11-3 = 27-14 66%

 

+12-2 = 39-16 70.9%

 

 

I like MR at NU and think we'll be better each year until he hits a 2 loss season. His chance at hitting or beating the records above is very low IMO. NU does not have the players to beat that, and I wouldn't predict that the D coaching (save LB) is up to it either.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Even geography isn't enough for many programs. That's why coaching is so important.

 

 

Believe it or not, I was trying to help you make your point.

[cm husker]

 

Even geography isn't enough for many programs. That's why coaching is so important.

 

 

Believe it or not, I was trying to help you make your point.

 

 

 

I believe it. Sorry if that came off as combative.

 

 

I do agree that UCLA has a lot of "natural" advantages, though I think there's a lot of building to be done there before they can claim to be a truly solid program.

 

 

I will say this, if I was an HC who had to choose a job at either NU or UCLA in 2008 and/or 2014, I would have probably picked UCLA in both years. Kind of shows why I think "potential" is more important than history for a lot of these coaches. It's why NU is going to have trouble filling coaching positions with highly coveted candidates.

[Guy Chamberlin]

UCLA has a long, rich history of squandering talent.

[beorach]

 

I don't recognize that you've made a counter argument. I don't think you've shown any substantial fallacy (aside from Donnan being included incorrectly, as I noted above - this is why I qualified this with substantial) and you're reading into Landlord's post to the extent that I think it's fair to say you've got its meaning twisted. Put in the time and make your case if you like but questioning whether altering the research by including bad coaches, going with seven years, etc., is nothing but speculation until then.

 

 

No point in me putting in more time. You won't even consider it, clearly.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, in one sentence, how would you sum up the point of Landlord's post (and yours)?

 

Why wouldn't I consider it? I've clearly explained myself and you're weaseling out on actually providing some substance to back up your hypotheses. I tried summing up repeatedly above and avoided calling you insulting and idiotic (despite your having started with that toward me with your summation) so I don't get the continued attitude. It's all right to have a difference of opinion but you don't get to claim you've refuted something by merely questioning it.

 

p.s. - I guess I will try to sum things up again for you after all. You have taken offense to my appreciation for Landlord's post and have gone so far as to claim it's BS but you won't back that opinion up with any research of your own because of your opinion about me.

 

If you never saw any post I wrote on here outside this thread, I would expect that you might still be able to realize that I value facts given my appreciation for the research Landlord did. If you saw that I mainly share statistics on here, I'd think you'd realize even more the value I place on what's real, tangible, measurable, FACTual, etc. To continue laboring the point, I can make no judgment at this time as to your opinion that Landlord's data sampling obscured the truth about whatever side of whatever issue you think we've been discussing.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

I really think Riley will get it done here beginning next year so this point is moot but if it gets to year 3 and were 5-7/6-6 You pay Tom Herman whatever it takes to get him here.

 

That's very easy to say as someone who doesn't actually have the responsibility to come up with the money.

 

Let's say Saban retires and Texas decides to get a new coach that same year.

 

How much do you think it would take to get him to come to Nebraska over those two schools and why would he come here instead of one of those?

 

I guess nobody has why Tom Herman would come here instead of Alabama or Texas????

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

I really think Riley will get it done here beginning next year so this point is moot but if it gets to year 3 and were 5-7/6-6 You pay Tom Herman whatever it takes to get him here.

 

That's very easy to say as someone who doesn't actually have the responsibility to come up with the money.

 

Let's say Saban retires and Texas decides to get a new coach that same year.

 

How much do you think it would take to get him to come to Nebraska over those two schools and why would he come here instead of one of those?

 

I guess nobody has why Tom Herman would come here instead of Alabama or Texas????

 

If all three were open at the same time, he likely wouldn't choose Nebraska, imo. One of the few things that may interest him more about Nebraska than Alabama would be expectations - ours are quite a bit lower right now, unfortunately, than what Alabama would expect/demand in his first few seasons.

 

Otherwise, Texas/Alabama are certainly better jobs overall.

[beorach]

That thought about expectations got me thinking. He'd be able to prove more here as folks would be less surprised at what he could do at Alabama and Texas. Then again, I suppose he proved quite a lot at Houston already, despite the reality about Florida State's offense (HINT: it was not very productive this season - look at their numbers within the total and scoring offense categories).

[cm husker]

 

 

I don't recognize that you've made a counter argument. I don't think you've shown any substantial fallacy (aside from Donnan being included incorrectly, as I noted above - this is why I qualified this with substantial) and you're reading into Landlord's post to the extent that I think it's fair to say you've got its meaning twisted. Put in the time and make your case if you like but questioning whether altering the research by including bad coaches, going with seven years, etc., is nothing but speculation until then.

 

 

No point in me putting in more time. You won't even consider it, clearly.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, in one sentence, how would you sum up the point of Landlord's post (and yours)?

 

Why wouldn't I consider it? I've clearly explained myself and you're weaseling out on actually providing some substance to back up your hypotheses. I tried summing up repeatedly above and avoided calling you insulting and idiotic (despite your having started with that toward me with your summation) so I don't get the continued attitude. It's all right to have a difference of opinion but you don't get to claim you've refuted something by merely questioning it.

 

p.s. - I guess I will try to sum things up again for you after all. You have taken offense to my appreciation for Landlord's post and have gone so far as to claim it's BS but you won't back that opinion up with any research of your own because of your opinion about me.

 

If you never saw any post I wrote on here outside this thread, I would expect that you might still be able to realize that I value facts given my appreciation for the research Landlord did. If you saw that I mainly share statistics on here, I'd think you'd realize even more the value I place on what's real, tangible, measurable, FACTual, etc. To continue laboring the point, I can make no judgment at this time as to your opinion that Landlord's data sampling obscured the truth about whatever side of whatever issue you think we've been discussing.

 

 

I've already shown that the methodology is flawed and that it's incomplete. I've shown specific incidents of the flaws (e.g., the wrongly included coach) and explained why the methodology itself is designed to support a prior conclusion (e.g., it drops coaches who were there less than 4 years without any real explanation for why and fails to address whether the 49 who are included may actually all be pretty great).

 

It's clear that you have a bias (that winning .700+ games at NU doesn't take a "great coach"), and Landlord's fundamentally flawed and incomplete post provides your desired confirmation of said bias.

 

I'm not going to spend 10+ hours going through and redoing what Landlord already referred to as a "nonscientific" post just so you can dismiss it.

 

I'll simply state that the premise that it's easy to win at the winningest programs ignores the simple fact that the winningest programs may have had the best coaches a lot of the time. For example, of the coaches who helped make their teams the winningest in the nation were successful at lesser programs prior.

 

The more you think about it, the more Landlord's entire post falls apart as either (a) flawed in methodology and application of flawed methodology, and (b) not actually disproving the original argument because he fails to account for the fact that many of those coaches were great coaches. Yes, it's sort of a chicken or egg thing, but guys like Devaney, Bowden and Spurrier built their programs from the ground up.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really think Riley will get it done here beginning next year so this point is moot but if it gets to year 3 and were 5-7/6-6 You pay Tom Herman whatever it takes to get him here.

 

That's very easy to say as someone who doesn't actually have the responsibility to come up with the money.

 

Let's say Saban retires and Texas decides to get a new coach that same year.

 

How much do you think it would take to get him to come to Nebraska over those two schools and why would he come here instead of one of those?

 

I guess nobody has why Tom Herman would come here instead of Alabama or Texas????

 

If all three were open at the same time, he likely wouldn't choose Nebraska, imo. One of the few things that may interest him more about Nebraska than Alabama would be expectations - ours are quite a bit lower right now, unfortunately, than what Alabama would expect/demand in his first few seasons.

 

Otherwise, Texas/Alabama are certainly better jobs overall.

 

OK....you have Alabama which I would agree. He might not want to go there. Being the guy who replaces a legend usually doesn't work out well.

 

Then you have Texas. Texas is sort of in the same boat we are. They haven't done squat for some time. The fan base would love to at least be competing for championships. They haven't done that for a while (not as long as us but still...a while). They are starting to play second fiddle to aTm in the state. That won't sit well. That's even worse in their minds than Iowa beating Nebraska.

 

So, I would say the expectations of Texass fans are on par with Nebraska. They have all the talent in the world right around them. They have great weather that the wife and family might like and they can pay what ever is needed.

 

Now....let's talk if it's down to a school like Georgia and Nebraska. I have no data on this but I would assume Georgia has about the same resources as far as money as Nebraska. BUT, they are sitting in the middle of a lot of talent. VERY close to Florida to tap into that market. Their fans haven't had a conference championship for a while. A chance to coach in the vaunted SEC....OMG....

 

OK...why would he come here instead of Georgia?

[Landlord]

Whoa. Hadn't popped in here and realized an old post of mine was being referenced. Cool

 

 

 

 

CM, as to the 62%, then 68%, then 65%, 62% was the original number but per my research and anecdotal assessment, West Virginia seemed like a bit of an anomaly among the schools listed, so I removed them. With them not in it, it was 68%, so then I just averaged the two out for a general number.

 

I made a point in the thread to say that the research was far from scientific. You bring up a good point on the 4 year thing - but even if we included that, then it would be something else. That's the problem with statistics, they don't provide good context (ie, Mike Riley being a career .500 coach without looking at his decision to stay at a sh**ty mediocre school where he overachieved even though he had opportunities to go to schools where winning would be much easier). I decided to focus on a 4 year cutoff because there's a pretty common thought amongst plebs such as ourselves that any coach needs 4 years to really get to his full ability at a school with his coaches, his players, culture, etc. I figured for all of the awful coaches who get fired before 4 years, there were just as many who were hastily gotten rid of before they had a fully fair shot. Maybe not just as many, but I was just trying to generally provide some context to the numbers.

 

I'm no mathematician and definitely no scholar or football guru; I'm just a guy with too much time on his hands. Regardless, I've made better posts about this exact same topic in the past.

[Husker Psycho]

Headline from the Omaha paper... today...

 

 

"Would Mike Riley be up for Saints job?"