Good grief

[NM11046]

Also, let's face it - we won't land all the big pendings ... BUT, I agree we are a step ahead of a year ago (or past years of my memory) and, you learn from mistakes and experience. Folks like Parella, Williams and Williams will only get better next year and beyond based on what they learn and see. The more experienced guys will be more engrained at Nebraska, with the program and with in state and surrounding high school coaches. I think there are only bright things ahead.

[marko polo]

 

 

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

 

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

 

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.

 

Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

 

there is the other thing, like let's not make the same mistake twice and wait another 7 long miserable yrs if that is the way it is going.

 

If Mike Riley somehow wins 9/10 games every year, and doesn't ever have any "Pelini" moments, he'll be here as long as he wants and I'll be happy with that.

 

Mike Riley will probably never have any "Pelini" moments so for him to be relieved of his coaching duties, it will be about the W/L record.

 

well that explains alot! You do remember this all started long ago about getting back to championships right?

[rasputzen]

 

 

 

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

 

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

 

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.

 

Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

 

there is the other thing, like let's not make the same mistake twice and wait another 7 long miserable yrs if that is the way it is going.

 

If Mike Riley somehow wins 9/10 games every year, and doesn't ever have any "Pelini" moments, he'll be here as long as he wants and I'll be happy with that.

 

Mike Riley will probably never have any "Pelini" moments so for him to be relieved of his coaching duties, it will be about the W/L record.

 

well that explains alot! You do remember this all started long ago about getting back to championships right?

 

 

"I will not let Nebraska gravitate into mediocrity," - Steve Pederson after firing head coach Frank Solich in 2003

[marko polo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

 

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

 

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.

 

Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

 

there is the other thing, like let's not make the same mistake twice and wait another 7 long miserable yrs if that is the way it is going.

 

If Mike Riley somehow wins 9/10 games every year, and doesn't ever have any "Pelini" moments, he'll be here as long as he wants and I'll be happy with that.

 

Mike Riley will probably never have any "Pelini" moments so for him to be relieved of his coaching duties, it will be about the W/L record.

 

well that explains alot! You do remember this all started long ago about getting back to championships right?

 

 

"I will not let Nebraska gravitate into mediocrity," - Steve Pederson after firing head coach Frank Solich in 2003

 

^ exactly

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

 

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

 

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.

 

Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

 

there is the other thing, like let's not make the same mistake twice and wait another 7 long miserable yrs if that is the way it is going.

 

If Mike Riley somehow wins 9/10 games every year, and doesn't ever have any "Pelini" moments, he'll be here as long as he wants and I'll be happy with that.

 

Mike Riley will probably never have any "Pelini" moments so for him to be relieved of his coaching duties, it will be about the W/L record.

 

well that explains alot! You do remember this all started long ago about getting back to championships right?

 

 

You do realize that a team can win 9-10 games in a season and still win their conference championship?

 

Then, in some years, the stars will align and you'll have a team capable of winning a conference and national title.

 

But the base is, and should ALWAYS be: a) doing things the right way and b) 9-10 wins.

 

It doesn't mean I'll accept mediocrity, or that I don't want Nebraska to win. What it means is that I understand that sometimes things don't go your way. But, as long as base expectations are met, I'll be happy.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

Cornstar said: Where did I say that I didn't like this staff? The actual facts are that most of these guys have a lengthy track record, and all are a question mark at best. We've seen what they've done at other stops, and we've seen what they've done here.

 

I don't see good coaches making some of the excuses you are making. They come in, they coach who they have, they win.

 

Yes there were some depth issues but 2 years later and there has been no progress. The depth issues certainly didn't cause most of the losses over the past 2 years, not with those easy schedules. I'll give you Ohio state, even though it never should have been a 59 point beat down.

 

Seeing what these guys have done over their careers, to consider them very good would be a big exaggeration. Some of them I liked and have disappointed, some I didn't like and have done nothing to change that opinion. A couple I didn't like should be given another year or two to prove their worth.

 

 

Well your statement that "many" coaches on this staff are question marks, implies you don't think they are capable.

 

I am not saying you dislike them on a personal level

 

You do realize that we have scholarship limitation right? And can only sign the number of players +3 that leave the following year. So if we have 20 open scholarships for the '17 class, then the max we can sign is 23. Even then, that number will have to come down to 20 through attrition. Nebraska's lack of depth was so bad, for several games this year, we had as many as 4 walk-ons starting along the OL. Factor in literally no backup QB, no depth at DT, DE, or LB.

 

Furthermore, our strength and conditioning program under Pelini and Dobson was so weak, that Boyd Epley commented that it would take 2-3 years of improved S&C to begin to get our players where they need to be.

 

Point is, you're asking for the kind of miracle turnaround that isn't realistic at all given the plethora of issues this program is currently facing.

 

In my opinion, Mike Riley should get at the minimum 2 more years.

 

Holy flippin' cow.... Not wanting to see the second worst loss in program history, and or avoid getting thumped by an average Iowa team is not "asking for a miracle."

 

And good lord your exaggerations are hyperbolic.

 

How did I exaggerate anything? Am I exaggerating our lack of depth? What about the media reports where Boyd Epley stated when he came back to Nebraska the players weren't even close, physically, to what was needed, did I exaggerate that also? I know, perhaps I exaggerated Bo Pelini's completely unprofessional conduct, petulant blowups, and utterly lazy recruiting. Yes, I "exaggerated" that has to be the answer.

 

And ya, nobody wants to see Nebraska lose by 30, 59, etc.

 

But there are a segment of fans who have the "just win to my satisfaction" regardless if what they're demanding is actually possible.

 

I think Mike Riley is on track and the program is trending in the right direction.

 

Now, if huge blow-out losses continue in season 3, then the seat will definitely start to warm up.

 

But dang, we gave Bo Pelini 7 seasons and all he did was: a) go 0-3 in conference championship games, b) embarrass the university publically, and c) basically taunted his his boss to try and get fired.

 

The absolute least we can do is give Mike Riley another 2 years.

 

Nobody is really saying to fire Riley now. But the excuses being used are the same one's we've heard for awhile. The depth issues aren't great, but they're nowhere near what you said. Nebraska still outrecruits it's divisional peers (by a fair margin) but some people refuse to believe it ('member the "purdue has more talent" garbage?).

 

And people are already hedging next year. The schedule won't get any easier over the next few years, so the team is going to have to make a big jump just to stay afloat.

 

Also, just because we gave Bo 7 seasons, doesn't mean every coach automatically should get that.

 

I didn't see the 2nd year jump I was hoping for. Yes we won more games, but last year Nebraska vastly underachieved, and this team wasn't that much better, we simply got the breaks.

 

It doesn't take 5 years to "build" a program, especially when this one didn't need built. I've posted the numbers before, but the tl;dr is the top coaches start hitting their stride in years 2-3. Next year is the make or break year IMO.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

Cornstar said: Where did I say that I didn't like this staff? The actual facts are that most of these guys have a lengthy track record, and all are a question mark at best. We've seen what they've done at other stops, and we've seen what they've done here.

 

I don't see good coaches making some of the excuses you are making. They come in, they coach who they have, they win.

 

Yes there were some depth issues but 2 years later and there has been no progress. The depth issues certainly didn't cause most of the losses over the past 2 years, not with those easy schedules. I'll give you Ohio state, even though it never should have been a 59 point beat down.

 

Seeing what these guys have done over their careers, to consider them very good would be a big exaggeration. Some of them I liked and have disappointed, some I didn't like and have done nothing to change that opinion. A couple I didn't like should be given another year or two to prove their worth.

 

 

Well your statement that "many" coaches on this staff are question marks, implies you don't think they are capable.

 

I am not saying you dislike them on a personal level

 

You do realize that we have scholarship limitation right? And can only sign the number of players +3 that leave the following year. So if we have 20 open scholarships for the '17 class, then the max we can sign is 23. Even then, that number will have to come down to 20 through attrition. Nebraska's lack of depth was so bad, for several games this year, we had as many as 4 walk-ons starting along the OL. Factor in literally no backup QB, no depth at DT, DE, or LB.

 

Furthermore, our strength and conditioning program under Pelini and Dobson was so weak, that Boyd Epley commented that it would take 2-3 years of improved S&C to begin to get our players where they need to be.

 

Point is, you're asking for the kind of miracle turnaround that isn't realistic at all given the plethora of issues this program is currently facing.

 

In my opinion, Mike Riley should get at the minimum 2 more years.

 

Holy flippin' cow.... Not wanting to see the second worst loss in program history, and or avoid getting thumped by an average Iowa team is not "asking for a miracle."

 

And good lord your exaggerations are hyperbolic.

 

How did I exaggerate anything? Am I exaggerating our lack of depth? What about the media reports where Boyd Epley stated when he came back to Nebraska the players weren't even close, physically, to what was needed, did I exaggerate that also? I know, perhaps I exaggerated Bo Pelini's completely unprofessional conduct, petulant blowups, and utterly lazy recruiting. Yes, I "exaggerated" that has to be the answer.

 

And ya, nobody wants to see Nebraska lose by 30, 59, etc.

 

But there are a segment of fans who have the "just win to my satisfaction" regardless if what they're demanding is actually possible.

 

I think Mike Riley is on track and the program is trending in the right direction.

 

Now, if huge blow-out losses continue in season 3, then the seat will definitely start to warm up.

 

But dang, we gave Bo Pelini 7 seasons and all he did was: a) go 0-3 in conference championship games, b) embarrass the university publically, and c) basically taunted his his boss to try and get fired.

 

The absolute least we can do is give Mike Riley another 2 years.

 

Nobody is really saying to fire Riley now. But the excuses being used are the same one's we've heard for awhile. The depth issues aren't great, but they're nowhere near what you said. Nebraska still outrecruits it's divisional peers (by a fair margin) but some people refuse to believe it ('member the "purdue has more talent" garbage?).

 

And people are already hedging next year. The schedule won't get any easier over the next few years, so the team is going to have to make a big jump just to stay afloat.

 

Also, just because we gave Bo 7 seasons, doesn't mean every coach automatically should get that.

 

The fact is, I didn't see the 2nd year jump I was hoping for. Yes we won more games, but last year Nebraska vastly underachieved, and this team wasn't that much better, we simply got the breaks.

 

Exactly!

 

Look...there is no way that an AD should be thinking "Well...the last guy I fired got X years so this new guy should get X years too"

 

That is the worst way to look at things.

[Enhance]

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

 

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

 

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.

 

Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

 

I never said anything about firing. I said their seats would be warm and they would be. Nobody is going to sit here years from now and forget SE said BP was fired in part for not winning the games that mattered and then his replacement is doing the same thing.

 

Furthermore, in my opinion, I don't think people will be as high on Riley's redeemable qualities if he has the same record as BP after 7 seasons. You have to at least be competing for and winning conference titles if you're coaching Nebraska and they haven't had a coach prove they can do that in almost 20 years.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

That could be true if you truly believe Coach Pelini was fired for failure to win games. I don't believe it had a lot to do with it. Some still forget that at Nebraska it is more than just wins and losses, or at least that is what we have stated for years.

 

you can't say statistics played a part in firing someone and then have their replacement do no better.

Yes you can.

Let's say Riley has an identical record to Pelini after his 7th year here and everything else with the games won and lost is identical (cept he needs more 10 win seasons to make up for his record last year).

In that case, Riley should get more time than Pelini had, because Riley doesn't have the other negatives that Pelini had.Record being a factor doesn't mean having the same record gets him fired, because there are other factors that put Riley above Pelini. Where record being a factor matters is if Riley's is more than marginally worse than Pelini's. Then the W-L record would outweigh the positives with Riley.

I never said anything about firing. I said their seats would be warm and they would be. Nobody is going to sit here years from now and forget SE said BP was fired in part for not winning the games that mattered and then his replacement is doing the same thing.

 

Furthermore, in my opinion, I don't think people will be as high on Riley's redeemable qualities if he has the same record as BP after 7 seasons. You have to at least be competing for and winning conference titles if you're coaching Nebraska and they haven't had a coach prove they can do that in almost 20 years.

Yep! no one will care that he is nice if he keeps losing the way he is… Just like people still bring up the fact that Frank got a DUI or whatever…

[cornstar]

 

 

Nebraska Harry, said: That absolute least would be to give Riley next season to prove himself. If he loses every game or only wins 1 to 3 games then there should be a serious conversation of termination. Even then, Shawn's seat would have to be getting pretty toasty for him to consider firing Riley. Even with that horrible of a record I think Shawn would have a hard time admitting he made a bad decision at this point.

 

That said, maybe Riley wins 11 or more games. Then we're talking contract extensions. But imo, I would say Riley wins 7 - 8 games next year with year 4 being the decision year on extension or termination. The schedule and the talent just don't seem to be in his favor for the next 2 to 3 years.

 

Of course the caveat to what I am saying is: if Nebraska somehow goes 2-10, 3-9, or some other similar dismal record in '17, then yes the conversation about letting the axe fall will definitely be warranted.

 

But I am optimistic. Our recruiting is better than at any time, at least on paper, since Bill Callahan was here.

 

Mike Riley is slowly bringing far more optimism into the program, there's more positive energy, and I believe that as more of the players that Bo recruited leave the program, things will only get better.

 

Now I will say this, in 2017, Mike Riley will have 3 QBs eligible to play who were specifically recruited to play in his offensive system. If we do not see much improved QB play, there will be trouble.

 

And I am of the belief that if we can get better, more consistent, play out of our QB, and keep improving on turnover ratio, yards allowed defensively, etc...I think Nebraska will be in a terrific position to return to the elite of college football.

Im not what you would consider a recruiting expect, but what makes you say that recruiting is better on paper since Callahan? To me it looks pretty similar between Pelini and Riley. If Riley actually hits on the big fish this year yet I'll agree, but that has yet to be determined. Pelini always had big fish he failed to reel in in the end, but he had them nibbling. Looks the same for Riley so far, but maybe I'm not seeing things the same. I don't know.. maybe it's just me.

It's not just you, the alleged improvement in recruiting is alleged. It's about the only hope we have right now, but at this point it is not at all true.

[cornstar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cornstar said: Where did I say that I didn't like this staff? The actual facts are that most of these guys have a lengthy track record, and all are a question mark at best. We've seen what they've done at other stops, and we've seen what they've done here.

 

I don't see good coaches making some of the excuses you are making. They come in, they coach who they have, they win.

 

Yes there were some depth issues but 2 years later and there has been no progress. The depth issues certainly didn't cause most of the losses over the past 2 years, not with those easy schedules. I'll give you Ohio state, even though it never should have been a 59 point beat down.

 

Seeing what these guys have done over their careers, to consider them very good would be a big exaggeration. Some of them I liked and have disappointed, some I didn't like and have done nothing to change that opinion. A couple I didn't like should be given another year or two to prove their worth.

 

Well your statement that "many" coaches on this staff are question marks, implies you don't think they are capable.

 

I am not saying you dislike them on a personal level

 

You do realize that we have scholarship limitation right? And can only sign the number of players +3 that leave the following year. So if we have 20 open scholarships for the '17 class, then the max we can sign is 23. Even then, that number will have to come down to 20 through attrition. Nebraska's lack of depth was so bad, for several games this year, we had as many as 4 walk-ons starting along the OL. Factor in literally no backup QB, no depth at DT, DE, or LB.

 

Furthermore, our strength and conditioning program under Pelini and Dobson was so weak, that Boyd Epley commented that it would take 2-3 years of improved S&C to begin to get our players where they need to be.

 

Point is, you're asking for the kind of miracle turnaround that isn't realistic at all given the plethora of issues this program is currently facing.

 

In my opinion, Mike Riley should get at the minimum 2 more years.

Holy flippin' cow.... Not wanting to see the second worst loss in program history, and or avoid getting thumped by an average Iowa team is not "asking for a miracle."

 

And good lord your exaggerations are hyperbolic.

How did I exaggerate anything? Am I exaggerating our lack of depth? What about the media reports where Boyd Epley stated when he came back to Nebraska the players weren't even close, physically, to what was needed, did I exaggerate that also? I know, perhaps I exaggerated Bo Pelini's completely unprofessional conduct, petulant blowups, and utterly lazy recruiting. Yes, I "exaggerated" that has to be the answer.

 

And ya, nobody wants to see Nebraska lose by 30, 59, etc.

 

But there are a segment of fans who have the "just win to my satisfaction" regardless if what they're demanding is actually possible.

 

I think Mike Riley is on track and the program is trending in the right direction.

 

Now, if huge blow-out losses continue in season 3, then the seat will definitely start to warm up.

 

But dang, we gave Bo Pelini 7 seasons and all he did was: a) go 0-3 in conference championship games, b) embarrass the university publically, and c) basically taunted his his boss to try and get fired.

 

The absolute least we can do is give Mike Riley another 2 years.

Nobody is really saying to fire Riley now. But the excuses being used are the same one's we've heard for awhile. The depth issues aren't great, but they're nowhere near what you said. Nebraska still outrecruits it's divisional peers (by a fair margin) but some people refuse to believe it ('member the "purdue has more talent" garbage?).

 

And people are already hedging next year. The schedule won't get any easier over the next few years, so the team is going to have to make a big jump just to stay afloat.

 

Also, just because we gave Bo 7 seasons, doesn't mean every coach automatically should get that.

 

I didn't see the 2nd year jump I was hoping for. Yes we won more games, but last year Nebraska vastly underachieved, and this team wasn't that much better, we simply got the breaks.

 

It doesn't take 5 years to "build" a program, especially when this one didn't need built. I've posted the numbers before, but the tl;dr is the top coaches start hitting their stride in years 2-3. Next year is the make or break year IMO.

Excellent post.

[hskrfan4life]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He can do great at YSU, it doesn't matter cause he is playing competition that is worse right now. If he wins good for him, he can win at one level but not the other. Give him credit for getting them really far in year two and I wonder how long he can continue to get Youngstown this far.

The top of the FCS is no joke.

True statement. NDSU beat Iowa who has owned NU since Riley has been here.

 

But Mike is nice.

We would beat every team at the fcs level, outside of a few slip ups. Yes he is playing great fcs teams but its not like hes playing great teams from non p5 schools, hes playing fcs foes. I hope he does well and wish him the best, but the competition is a step down. Mike is nice and he will do well here and the competition we will play in the next few years is the top competition in the country. So I hope we do well and win some big games instead of watch Bo win big games at the fcs level.

He is also playing with FCS talent. It isn't like he has FBS talent playing in the FCS.

 

It is OK to say he is a good coach but not the right coach for Nebraska.

Didn't he get a couple defects from Nebraska and a few other places.. so no he wasn't playing with fcs talent.

Alexander and Moss followed him to YSU. Moss didn't have many other options.

Not to mention that YSU is hardly the only FCS team to have at least a couple FBS castoffs.

But he still had them and they played. He also had the fact that he Coached at a power 5 school to help in recruiting so I'm sure he got a few guys that wouldn't have gone to YSU.

Not that it matters at this point, but Alexander didn't play in the semi-final game (suspension: go figure ) and Avery Moss got injured in the 2nd quarter I think and not sure if he returned (no defensive stats credited to him).

 

I'm not claiming Bo should be the coach at NU, but I do think he should get more credit for his coaching ability than he is given by some Husker fans.

What if we had Callahan recruiting and Pelini coaching... Those first couple years man...

[Guy Chamberlin]

I don't think next year is make or break for Riley. It will really be the first season of getting his pieces in place.

 

But if that's not paying off in 2018....yeah, the seat's hot.

[Enhance]

I don't think next year is make or break for Riley. It will really be the first season of getting his pieces in place.

 

But if that's not paying off in 2018....yeah, the seat's hot.

I agree - I'm personally not ready to say it's a "make or break" type year, which to me has always suggested either he reaches an important goal or gets fired.

 

The question will be how much leeway the coaches are given. Do they receive a considerable amount of slack given they're breaking in a brand new starting quarterback, have some questions on the lines, lose WR depth and have to replace Nate Gerry? Or, do people end up looking at those thing as just excuses rather reasons?

 

I do know most of the starters next year will either be Riley recruits or will have spent just as much time (if not more) training under Riley than they did Pelini.

[jjamuss]

Seriously... Is winning them all asking too much? If the answer is yes, then we have the wrong guy. I don't understand what happened in the past 20 years except that losing has become part of the way and I think that is just plain weak.