.500

[junior4949]

He was also pretty good at maintaining the violations while at Miami.

[junior4949]

When you take into consideration that those two NCs and the bulk of that winning percentage came from Miami where he was breaking multiple NCAA rules, I think it's laughable you think he is top tier.   

[Landlord]

8 minutes ago, unlfan said:

One has multiple National Championships and career winning percentage of 65% The other has never even won conference title and career winning percentage of 54%.

 

 

One coached a pre-made, fully loaded program who finished the previous six years ranked #1, #18, #8, #2, #1, #2. Essentially, the equivalent of taking over Bama after Saban.

 

One resurrected the bottomest of bottom dwellers while turning down USC and Alabama jobs. 

 

If you poll fans, maybe they think Erickson is a better coach. But what do fans know? Poll the coaches, and there's no chance. Poll the coaches, who actually know a thing or two about coaching, and Mike Riley gets named the 2nd most underrated coach in all of America. 

[junior4949]

1 minute ago, unlfan said:

 

Then we simply disagree.

 

However, if you polled the average college football fans, I feel very confident that vast majority would say Dennis Erickson is a better coach than Mike Riley. And, I think everybody here knows that as well. Obviously can't prove that, but everybody knows.

 

Would this same poll also conclude that Barry Switzer is a better coach than TO?  I mean Switzer did win three NCs in considerably less time than it took TO.  Plus, Switzer has a Super Bowl ring.  If we're going to throw out that both Switzer and Erickson cheated, then it's easy to put Switzer over TO every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

[Xmas32]

So using this thread's logic Larry Coker is one of the greatest coaches of all time.  

[Xmas32]

3 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

64% winning percentage plus National Title, he is not a chump. Who ever said anything about best of all time?

 

He is higher on that list than Mike RIley, to be sure.

 

I dunno...it's hard for me to take Coker seriously.  His only job at Miami after Butch Jones got hired by the Browns was not crash the keys to the Ferrari he was handed.  After Butch's recruits left, Miami started to slide pretty quickly.

 

[marko polo]

why does any of this back and forth even matter.

question= Is Mike going to bring nebr back to relevancy

yes or no

for some it is a big deal and for some well not so much

time will tell

[GBRFAN]

38 minutes ago, unlfan said:

 

Then we simply disagree.

 

However, if you polled the average college football fans, I feel very confident that vast majority would say Dennis Erickson is a better coach than Mike Riley. And, I think everybody here knows that as well. Obviously can't prove that, but everybody knows.

Damn - I feel left out, thought I was part of "everybody"  now I have been told otherwise - does that mean that I am part of "nobody" ?

[StPaulHusker]

46 minutes ago, unlfan said:

No unbiased fan truly believes Mike Riley is better than Dennis Erickson. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

That wasn't your argument.  Your argument is that DE is a better coach than Riley. 

 

Which people disagree with you and they have valid reasons

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, marko polo said:

why does any of this back and forth even matter.

question= Is Mike going to bring nebr back to relevancy

yes or no

for some it is a big deal and for some well not so much

 

 

It matters because you're trying to convince other people that you're right. Otherwise, why post at all? A yes or no conversation doesn't last and no one is convinced, therefore it's pointless.

 

The last line is B.S., just like it was the previous time(s) you posted it.

[California Husker]

17 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

And why did you bring up Pullman?

 

I'll repeat myself. Mike Leach, someone you are propping up as a better version of Riley or a really good coach or something, hasn't accomplished anything in his six years at WSU that Riley hadn't in his first six years at OSU.

 

So again. Why bring it up? He hasn't done any better...

 

Wow....just....WOW. Read it. If it isn't clear why I brought it up, then you aren't paying attention, or you have a much bigger problem that I can't help you with. 

I will respond to your question about Leach (not that he is a great coach or anything...which actually supports my point even more).

He has only been at Pullman for 5 seasons (this is his 6th). What he has done is taken a program that was 9 - 40 the previous four seasons before he arrived, and taken that team to three bowl games in 5 years. He is 30 - 34 overall, but he is 18 - 9 over the last two seasons (+ one game this year). I brought up Leach because someone tried to suggest that Corvallis, Oregon is unlike any other place in Division One (or FBS, because I know you'll try to correct me on that) and I was just pointing out another place that is not only comparable but quite possibly has a more difficult set of circumstances for a head coach, and that Leach has the program trending in a positive direction.

Mike Riley had every opportunity to make Oregon State competitive but was not capable. I see people point to the good years he had when he went back to OSU in 2003, but Oregon State had a record of 31 - 17 in the four years that he was gone including a top 5 finish in the polls one year. Riley was never able to match that success and the farther he got from the Erickson years, the worse the outcome for his teams. In fact, in the 5 years previous to his hire at Nebraska, Riley's Oregon State teams were 29 - 33.

 

The reason I brought up Pullman was because, in a conversation where someone questions Riley as a hire at NU and points to his long career of mediocrity, I am really growing tired of the "You can't win in Corvallis" excuses.  I don't think it's impossible to win at Corvallis....I just don't think Riley could win there consistently. I fear that will be what happens at NU for the next couple of years. 

[Huskerchussetts]

Mike Riley has a winning percentage of 1000.00 this year. The past doesn't matter, the next game does. Take the "which coach can win where and who's better" to the semantics dome e.b. white..riley has upgraded his staff and has some talent on this roster, that he could ride to a great season. You can't judge the current state of the program on his past with a completely different school and set of circumstances. There are plenty of coaches on all levels that have won despite their short coming bc they got out of their own way, had excellent coordinators and got the mlst out of the talent they have. MR can do the same. 

[StPaulHusker]

1 hour ago, unlfan said:

 

Did anyone provide one reason why MR is a better coach than DE? If so I missed it.

 

im truly curious. What is the argument that MR is better?

I didn't say Riley is better.  I'm just not convinced that a coach who broke the rules and has a similar record record as Riley as a whole aside from where he broke the rules is better than Riley.

 

 

[GBRFAN]

Your biggest argument seems to be the NC and record.  Do you really think that Miami and Corvallis are equal.  You can go look at any level of sports (HS, college, Pro) and find coaches that didn't get similar results but were looked at by the industry as equal or better.  You don't think the talent in certain cities have helped coaches at all levels or the bank roll of the NY Yankees didn't provide an edge?

[California Husker]

25 minutes ago, Huskerchussetts said:

Mike Riley has a winning percentage of 1000.00 this year. The past doesn't matter, the next game does. Take the "which coach can win where and who's better" to the semantics dome e.b. white..riley has upgraded his staff and has some talent on this roster, that he could ride to a great season. You can't judge the current state of the program on his past with a completely different school and set of circumstances. There are plenty of coaches on all levels that have won despite their short coming bc they got out of their own way, had excellent coordinators and got the mlst out of the talent they have. MR can do the same. 

Yes, the Huskers are 1 - 0 in 2017. I guess when we see the coaches do a really bad job in a game against Ark. State, it worries people. In the past, Riley has shown that he has no idea how to handle clock management. His O-coordinator has shown questionable play calling ability. And the Ark. State game was yet another example of traits as well as an example of a team that quite frankly didn't look ready to play (which is of course on the coaches). With games coming up against Oregon, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, and even Minnesota and Iowa...it just doesn't look good for NU unless things go very differently from now on. All we can hope is that this was an anomaly and not indicative of what the season will be like. The problem is, the way the coaching staff performed on Saturday pretty much matches Riley's reputation. It's what people at OSU complained about before he left for NU.