Grateful For Mike Riley

[Elf]

Can we clean this thread up?

 

Go back to the OP. This was NOT the point of this thread. Can these people manage to let one positive Mike Riley thread go by without ruining it?

Sorry for not resisting this time.

[GBRFAN]

 

 

 

 

Very few were ready to give up on Riley last year, mainly the ones that just plain did not want him here. He needs at least 3-4 years. He has the team improving, and really that is all anyone can ask of a coach. The kids are a team, we haven't seen that in a long time.

I new HC needs at least 6 years as long as nothing unethical or illegal happens under their watch to show if they are a good fit with the program that they are currently with. That is 4 years of having to use the players that the last staff recruited which can be a good or bad thing depending on how good recruiters they were. Then two years with experienced players that they recruited to play in their system. Bo had 7 years which was more than enough time to prove how good of a fit he was, and Frank had 6 and both proved that they were not fit for the job here.

Of our last five coaches only one has proved he wasn't worthy of being here. It wasn't Frank or Bo.

Your statement is true however you could have changed the second sentence to say "and two proved that they weren't going to get us where we inspired to be".

 

The statements would have included the same three coaches.

My statement was actually based on facts. Your statement is pure speculation on your part. We will never know what Frank could have done if he stayed.

 

 

FS was doing things behind the scenes that were not going to get this program to the level that was demanded. Plenty of facts out there to support my statement - similar to yours.

[BRV920]

I'm aware of Franks off the field problems. But I'm not sure you can call those facts.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

I like MR personally, but I am not thankful he is the Husker HC. Solich and Bo were fired because 9 wins isn't good enough. MR gave us a losing season. That should never have happened. We are 7-0, but we haven't played a top 50 team yet. I am hoping for the best, but I think there were many better coaches available.

Cracks me up when people say things like the bolded. It's either a huge exaggeration or they don't have any idea what a bottom half team actually plays like. We're clearly a top 30 team. It's easy to argue we're not a top 10 team. Stick with that. But we'll see how the next 2 games go.

Well, it is an exaggeration but only slightly. According to Sagarin, the best team we've played is #44 Northwestern.

 

It's a huge exaggeration. You aren't slightly better than the best team you played. That's bad logic. If you managed to beat every team you played that's something in itself. Teams that aren't in the top 50 manage to lose some of the types of games we played, even if they're playing teams ranked worse than them.

 

I know there are way, way more factors involved but let's say a team has a 80% chance to beat each of the first 7 teams on their schedule. Even then, their probability of beating all 7 is 21%. Any team who does that is almost assuredly top 50 unless they're playing only teams in the bottom 10%, e.g. an Ivy League school.

Where did he say we're only slightly better than the best team we've played?

 

He said we haven't played a top 50 team. Which is only a slight exaggeration.