Eichorst Statement About Football Program

[Elf]

 

 

 

 

Lee Barfknecht pointed out that Eichorst was on the sidelines in the middle of the players during the entire game, and would often pat the players on the back. Lee said he's never seen an AD do this stuff in 37 years of covering college football.

 

I understand the AD wanting to support the coaching staff and players, but this is something he never would have done under Bo. The amount of public appearances Eichorst seems to do shows me that he's desperate for Riley to succeed at NU.

Of course it is. Because if Riley fails, he fails and he is likely out of a job.

 

Rarely do you see AD's get two chances to hire a head football coach if the first one fails.

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. If Eichorst refuses to fire Riley when called upon to do so, then I could see him being fired. If Eichorst were to fire Riley because expectations are not being met, or because we regress, then I don't see Eichorst being fired, he'll get to hire another coach.

 

Maybe, I guess it depends on the new chancellor if he wants to keep Eichorst around to try yet again.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Eichorst hire Al Golden at Miami?

 

Golden was not hired by Eichorst.

 

Riley is Eichorst's first hire as a head coach in football at the D1 level.

 

It appears Eichorst was more concerned if Riley was a guy that he could get along with rather than focusing on his win-loss record.

 

I guess I should have read down a bit farther before responding to Boneyard.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lee Barfknecht pointed out that Eichorst was on the sidelines in the middle of the players during the entire game, and would often pat the players on the back. Lee said he's never seen an AD do this stuff in 37 years of covering college football.

 

I understand the AD wanting to support the coaching staff and players, but this is something he never would have done under Bo. The amount of public appearances Eichorst seems to do shows me that he's desperate for Riley to succeed at NU.

Of course it is. Because if Riley fails, he fails and he is likely out of a job.

 

Rarely do you see AD's get two chances to hire a head football coach if the first one fails.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If Eichorst refuses to fire Riley when called upon to do so, then I could see him being fired. If Eichorst were to fire Riley because expectations are not being met, or because we regress, then I don't see Eichorst being fired, he'll get to hire another coach.

Maybe, I guess it depends on the new chancellor if he wants to keep Eichorst around to try yet again.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Eichorst hire Al Golden at Miami?

Golden was not hired by Eichorst.

 

Riley is Eichorst's first hire as a head coach in football at the D1 level.

 

It appears Eichorst was more concerned if Riley was a guy that he could get along with rather than focusing on his win-loss record.

I think there is a lot of truths to that, and to get a guy completely opposite of Bo.

 

Again, I am not ready to give up on Riley. There were glimpses of great things this season and he did a heckuva job early on. He is also a guy you want traveling the country recruiting players and representing your university. I think it is silly to think Riley's job is in any jeopardy right now.

I think it's fair that Riley and the staff have to show some progress next year. They need to show the fans that the thing that was holding the offense back the past 2 seasons was talent not fit for the system. Banker has to get the D to play better, especially against the better offenses.

[cornstar]

 

Gotta stop bringing up Bo and the reasons he was fired. Most who do care and bring it up seem to be defending Riley. Me personally, I'm not defending either of them at this point. This is about x's and o's and Riley never talks about that. I seriously question his work effort when it comes to game planning for other teams and actually coaching his team. His team.

It'll stop being brought up when people stop blaming depth issues on the current staff. When folks stop claiming it was his W/L record that got him fired, other folks will stop correcting them. When folks accept that Mike Riley is here for at least the next two years whether they like it or not, this board will be a lot more fun.

 

Like Callahan, Solich, Osborne, Devaney and all the other coaching predecessors at Nebraska, Bo will always be brought up in our discusions of Nebraska football simply because they are all part of the history of the team we all love so much.

I could have swore that they were hired to do.......

 

.......something.

 

I guess not.

 

2 years later and still worse than the last idiot.

[BoNeyard]

Year 3 I think you can throw out that the players aren't your coaches guys. Are some of the players not recruited by Riley and Co? Sure, absolutely, but they will have had 3 years with those coaches and should have been developed for and by those coaches. They would have most likely been under Riley and Co longer then Bo.

 

Each passing year the window of excuses gets smaller and smaller. Year 3 we should start to see a major uptick with the new staff, but it seems from what I am hearing is year 3 is somehow a rebuild year. That won't be acceptable.

[Elf]

 

 

Gotta stop bringing up Bo and the reasons he was fired. Most who do care and bring it up seem to be defending Riley. Me personally, I'm not defending either of them at this point. This is about x's and o's and Riley never talks about that. I seriously question his work effort when it comes to game planning for other teams and actually coaching his team. His team.

It'll stop being brought up when people stop blaming depth issues on the current staff. When folks stop claiming it was his W/L record that got him fired, other folks will stop correcting them. When folks accept that Mike Riley is here for at least the next two years whether they like it or not, this board will be a lot more fun.

 

Like Callahan, Solich, Osborne, Devaney and all the other coaching predecessors at Nebraska, Bo will always be brought up in our discusions of Nebraska football simply because they are all part of the history of the team we all love so much.

 

I could have swore that they were hired to do.......

 

.......something.

 

I guess not.

 

2 years later and still worse than the last idiot.

 

In another thread I posted how I would fix the depth issue on the offensive line, how would you do it?

 

The game is won and lost in the trenches and we haven't consistently won those battles in well over a decade. Maybe longer.

 

So, how do YOU fix it?

[Elf]

Year 3 I think you can throw out that the players aren't your coaches guys. Are some of the players not recruited by Riley and Co? Sure, absolutely, but they will have had 3 years with those coaches and should have been developed for and by those coaches. They would have most likely been under Riley and Co longer then Bo.

 

Each passing year the window of excuses gets smaller and smaller. Year 3 we should start to see a major uptick with the new staff, but it seems from what I am hearing is year 3 is somehow a rebuild year. That won't be acceptable.

This February will mark Riley's second class that is all his own. I think Bo and Riley share responsibility for the "transition" class. Incoming head coaches don't generally get much time at all to salvage a recruiting class. With dead periods, I'm not even sure how many days Riley had to recruit before signing day. That said, I think Riley did a pretty good job of saving the class and even adding to it.

 

Eichorst said we had the talent to compete for championships right now, I think he was wrong and if you watch the Ohio St game again the talent gap is glaringly obvious. Somehow, we need to fix that.

[roadrat]

I'm not sure Eichworst knows a whole lot about football. So why do we look to him for answers

[California Husker]

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

 

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

 

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

 

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

 

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

 

 

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

 

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

 

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

 

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

 

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

 

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

 

 

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

 

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

 

You do realize that Harbaugh only played 4 games outside the state of Michigan this year and went 1-3 with his only win at Rutgers. He lost at Iowa, tOSU, and against FSU. Let's see how he does next year when all of Hoke's kids leave after this year.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

 

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

 

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

 

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

 

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

 

 

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

 

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

 

You do realize that Harbaugh only played 4 games outside the state of Michigan this year and went 1-3 with his only win at Rutgers. He lost at Iowa, tOSU, and against FSU. Let's see how he does next year when all of Hoke's kids leave after this year.

 

I am not totally sure but hasn't he recruited better than Hoke?

[junior4949]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

 

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

 

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

 

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

 

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

 

 

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

 

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

 

You do realize that Harbaugh only played 4 games outside the state of Michigan this year and went 1-3 with his only win at Rutgers. He lost at Iowa, tOSU, and against FSU. Let's see how he does next year when all of Hoke's kids leave after this year.

 

 

I'm glad you brought this up. It should also be pointed out that he may not even be at Michigan next year. Now that the season is coming to a close, it really is time to reflect how teams really did. Who exactly did Michigan beat? Was it that stellar CU team that got taken behind the woodshed by Oklahoma State? They did beat Penn State, so I will give them that. It's really no different than Wisconsin. Who exactly did they beat this year? Don't get me wrong, we didn't beat anybody either. However, I'm getting rather annoyed when people start putting coaches on a pedestal who really haven't done squat.

[LAblackshirt]

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

 

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

 

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

 

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

 

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

 

 

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

 

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

 

 

You aren't choosing reality, I just showed you in reality that amazing coaches have started off worse than Riley and it obviously all worked out. You are choosing to say Mike Riley has no chance without acknowledging that Riley has done some great things in his career and even here. That's pessimism my friend.

[BRV920]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

You aren't choosing reality, I just showed you in reality that amazing coaches have started off worse than Riley and it obviously all worked out. You are choosing to say Mike Riley has no chance without acknowledging that Riley has done some great things in his career and even here. That's pessimism my friend.

Only problem with your theory is tha Riley has been a head coach for 30 years and coached in the NFL. I'd expect more from someone with his experience. The reality is that he has been a average to below average coach at every stop. Now I know you will come back with his Grey Cup team in Canada but the league is a perfect fit for the kind of offense he wants to run and is a far cry from American football.

[cornstar]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

 

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

 

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

 

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year.

 

"He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer.

 

Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program.

• Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60%
• Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50%
• Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5%
• Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92%
• Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62%

So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season.

 

So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here.

Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them.

 

Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it.

 

Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy.

You aren't choosing reality, I just showed you in reality that amazing coaches have started off worse than Riley and it obviously all worked out. You are choosing to say Mike Riley has no chance without acknowledging that Riley has done some great things in his career and even here. That's pessimism my friend.

Riley may end up being successful here, only time will tell. If I were forced to wager on it, I'd bet against it.

 

But he really hasn't done anything great, especially not in his time in Lincoln.

[BoNeyard]

This team started off very hot at 7-0. Things were looking great, then came Wisconsin where we were shown we don't have the muscle to beat them. I was happy with Nebraska's performance in that game and the fact we had a chance to win it. The problem was we all knew the following week was a loss at Ohio State, and boy did it get bad. Then came Iowa, and now Tennessee.

 

After the great 7-0 start, Nebraska reverted back to their old ways. Beat the bad teams, lose to any team with a pulse, and lose badly on the big stage.

 

Next season will be very telling with this staff. It'll be year 3 under this system, it should be the year things get going in the direction the staff wants it to, their handprints should be on the team/program moreso then the previous staff anymore.Their excuse window (or the fans excuse window) will be narrower to blame the previous staff for mishaps and failure.

 

Nebraska has an extremely tough schedule next year, but we were told Riley was brought here to win championships, and to win championships you have to win seasons with tough schedules. Regardless of how tough NU's schedule is next year, I think the expectations should remain high.

 

I'm not giving up on Riley, and think this upcoming season will be very telling of what he is capable of doing at Nebraska.