.500

[Landlord]

Oregon only being good for the last 7 years is also a myth. Neither program was any good in the 70's and 80's, but Oregon has been a top 25 level program since the 90's.

[Pedro Guerrero]

Mike Leach is 30-34 at WSU and has a career winning percentage of .596. So technically he is a .500 coach.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, California Husker said:

I know you want to win this discussion, but suggesting that Oregon is in a WAY better position that OSU geographically, really is a bit disingenuous. Perhaps Eugene is a bit bigger city, but by West Coast standards, it's a tiny little burg too. Those guys up north are all trying to recruit in California...that's the real target. As a person who grew up here in So Cal, let me tell you that the perception of Eugene, Oregon is absolutely no different to a California kid that the perception of Corvallis, Oregon. I live in an area that is technically considered part of the greater L.A. metro (even though we are 60 miles away from Downtown L.A.). Where we are, when you get on the freeway, you pass through one town with a population of 175,000 then another, then another...you pass through 10 of them on your way to Downtown and there is no space between them. The only way you know that you left one and went on to the next is the little sign on the side of the Freeway that says: Welcome to__________

So for any recruit who is being courted to head north to Oregon, I will tell you right now from experience, to that kid, Eugene is in the middle of freaking nowhere, just as much as Corvallis. So the only thing that has been drawing talent to Eugene was the way they were recruiting the kids. The whole Nike thing, the image, the system....Riley could have done that in Corvallis. I just don't think he cared enough, or he didn't know how.

But, if you still want to suggest that location and budget are such an overwhelming advantage for U of O, then consider this. Corvallis isn't anywhere near as isolated as Pullman, freaking, Washington. Yet, Mike Leech has turned that program around and they have made steady improvement since he got there. They have not won a conference title, the competiton in the North are Oregon and U-dub so Leech started with a built in disadvantage, partly because U-dub in in an ACTUAL large metropolitan city (unlike U. of Oregon) and that's Wash. State's biggest competition for recruiting. But they are improving and somehow Leech is getting kids to come to a school that is really, truly in the middle of nowhere...Pullman is half the size of Corvallis and the next biggest city is freaking Moscow, Idaho. 

You can win or you can make excuses. I just don't think the "you can't win in Corvallis" argument is valid. When Riley first got to Oregon State (and when he went back in `03) it was prior to the University of Oregon being a winning program. Some people forget that Oregon has only been really good for about the last 7 years...before that they were a 6 or 7 wins per year team. Riley had a chance to establish his teams as the dominant teams in the state. But he was only able to put together one ten-win season.  A good coach can win anywhere. Riley just isn't that good a coach. At least that's what his record would indicate. 

For as passionately as you disregard the "you can't win in Corvallis" argument, you put an incredible amount of weight in the clear opposite viewpoint that Riley is just a bad coach.

 

The truth, as with many things, is probably far less polarizing than your argument suggests.

[California Husker]

32 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Oregon only being good for the last 7 years is also a myth. Neither program was any good in the 70's and 80's, but Oregon has been a top 25 level program since the 90's.

Oregon Ducks

1990 = 8-4

1991 = 3-8

1992 = 6-6

1993 = 5-6

1994 = 9-4  #11

1995 = 9-3  #18

1996 = 6-5

1997 = 7-5

1998 = 8-4

1999 = 9-3  #19

2000 = 10-2  #7 (Oregon State was ranked higher at #5, but Riley was not the coach at that time...so Dennis Erickson was able to produce a top 5 team in Corvallis)

2001 = 11-1 #2

2002 = 7-6

2003 = 8-5

2004 = 5-6

2005 =10-2 #13

2006 = 7-6

From about 2008 Oregon began a run of highly ranked finishes that lasted until 2014. I'm not sure I would say that being ranked once @ #11 and twice @ #18/19 in the 1990s and being ranked 3 times from 2000 to 2006 would qualify them as "top 25 level program since the `90s. But I will say that Oregon did have more success in the 90s and early 200s than I had remembered. However, as I said earlier, their real run of success was from 2008 - 2014.

I guess what I am saying here is that I see your point, but I don't totally agree with it. There are a lot more poor outcomes mixed in there between 1990 and 2007 than really good highly ranked finishes. This is just my opinion, but usually, when you think of a "top 25 program" you are indicating more consistent winning. 

 

[California Husker]

4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

For as passionately as you disregard the "you can't win in Corvallis" argument, you put an incredible amount of weight in the clear opposite viewpoint that Riley is just a bad coach.

 

The truth, as with many things, is probably far less polarizing than your argument suggests.

I think my position here is very clear and consistent. You can try to wax philosophical and come in with the "the truth lies in the middle" statement blah, blah, blah.

My point is that I am tired of the excuses that are constantly made for Riley suggesting that the reason he couldn't win consistently when he coached at Oregon State was that it's nearly impossible to win in Corvallis. Being in Corvallis, or being at a second level Pac12 school can explain not playing in the Rose Bowl consistently or not playing for a National Title. It doesn't explain why he was a .500 coach there. It's not like he wasn't given a chance to get his program in place. 

[Enhance]

The clearness and consistency of your position is part of the problem.

[Landlord]

15 minutes ago, California Husker said:

However, as I said earlier, their real run of success was from 2008 - 2014.

 

 

Except that's not what you said. You said that they have only been really good the last seven years. 

 

Certainly the last 10 years have been the best in the history of their program, and they have been much better over the last decade than they ever have been historically. If that's what you meant, then understood, but say that instead 

 

Where's the response re: your poor Mike Leach argument, btw?

[California Husker]

21 minutes ago, Pedro Guerrero said:

Mike Leach is 30-34 at WSU and has a career winning percentage of .596. So technically he is a .500 coach.

When Riley took over (for the second time) at OSU, they were coming off some pretty successful seasons under Dennis Erickson. 
When Leach took over at WSU the program was coming off seasons of: 5-7, 2-11, 1-11, 2-10, 4-8

Leach's first couple of seasons were tough at 3-9, 6-7, and 3-9, but the last two seasons his teams have gone 9-4 and 8-5.
And it's not like he took over a team that had won 9 or more games for 7 straight seasons like Riley did at Nebraska.

[California Husker]

4 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Except that's not what you said. You said that they have only been really good the last seven years. 

 

Certainly the last 10 years have been the best in the history of their program, and they have been much better over the last decade than they ever have been historically. If that's what you meant, then understood, but say that instead 

 

Where's the response re: your poor Mike Leach argument, btw?

Dude, seriously, I conceded your point. I said that Oregon was a little better in the 90s and early 2000s than I had remembered....but certainly not good enough to garner a "top 25 program" description. 

and as for my Leach argument; see the above post.

[Landlord]

10 minutes ago, California Husker said:

Being in Corvallis, or being at a second level Pac12 school can explain not playing in the Rose Bowl consistently or not playing for a National Title. It doesn't explain why he was a .500 coach there. It's not like he wasn't given a chance to get his program in place. 

 

Again, as I said to skersfan or whoever it was, this is just a baseless accusation without any actual evidence.

 

It'd be one thing if there were other coaches tenured for a long while at the same school who had much better success, but there isn't. There is no data whatsoever to support your premise, except for Dennis Erickson's single amazing year with all Riley's players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, California Husker said:

When Riley took over (for the second time) at OSU, they were coming off some pretty successful seasons under Dennis Erickson. 
When Leach took over at WSU the program was coming off seasons of: 5-7, 2-11, 1-11, 2-10, 4-8

Leach's first couple of seasons were tough at 3-9, 6-7, and 3-9, but the last two seasons his teams have gone 9-4 and 8-5.
And it's not like he took over a team that had won 9 or more games for 7 straight seasons like Riley did at Nebraska.

 

 

Are you just like.... saying things? Just to say them? You're not making any kind of an argument.

 

When Riley took over the 2nd time at OSU, he went 8-5, 7-5, 5-6, 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. What kind of point are you trying to make? You're essentially proving yourself wrong regarding propping up Leach as an example of Riley being bad.

[TheSker]

Mike Riley is not having the success he was hired to have at Nebraska.  He was brought in to win the games that matter.  Immediately.

 

His resume is his key indicator that this should not be surprising.

[teachercd]

I am not a good looking guy...and no matter how much my mom argues that I am handsome...I know that I look like a Gremlin.  

 

 

[California Husker]

4 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Again, as I said to skersfan or whoever it was, this is just a baseless accusation without any actual evidence.

 

It'd be one thing if there were other coaches tenured for a long while at the same school who had much better success, but there isn't. There is no data whatsoever to support your premise, except for Dennis Erickson's single amazing year with all Riley's players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you just like.... saying things? Just to say them? You're not making any kind of an argument.

 

When Riley took over the 2nd time at OSU, he went 8-5, 7-5, 5-6, 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. What kind of point are you trying to make? You're essentially proving yourself wrong regarding propping up Leach as an example of Riley being bad.

Are you just like....disagreeing just to disagree? Riley is a career .500 coach and was not trending in any direction that would indicate he was ever going to be anything more than a career .500 coach. 

I was just pointing out that Leach, in Pullman Washington,  is at an even bigger disadvantage than Riley was at in Corvallis. But Leach has taken a truly bad team and had much greater success than the team had been having before he arrived.  

With your list of Riley's seasons, you kinda cherry-picked his best years and those came after he took over for Erickson. When Nebraska hired him, HIS program had been trending in a much less successful direction. The years that came after the ones you listed his teams went 5-7, 3-9, 9-4, 7-6, and 5-7 (with only the one bright spot in his last 5 seasons).

So what I am saying is, what I have said since he was hired...I don't think he is the right man for the job at Nebraska. 

[California Husker]

29 minutes ago, Enhance said:

The clearness and consistency of your position is part of the problem.

The pointlessness of your comment is also a problem.

[Enhance]

25 minutes ago, California Husker said:

The pointlessness of your comment is also a problem.

I think its relevancy got lost in your interpretation. Perhaps it's hard to win in Corvallis and perhaps Riley isn't that great of a coach. Both of those things can be true to some degree instead of harnessing an all or nothing approach.