Just an opinion

[neepster]

2 hours ago, Vince R. said:

Okay so prove to me how what you're saying is true...

 

How about this:

 

Scott Frost as a HC at UCF is @ 0.61 W/R % through 1.5 years  vs MR's Nebraska record of 0.56 through 2.5yrs.  Note that this is after the previous HC record of 9-3 for Nebraska and 0-12 for UCF.  You can argue which is harder, but I think the UCF rebuild was harder, which is one more piece of evidence that SF is the real deal.

 

SF is TRENDING toward a career 0.66 W/R through 2 years if you assume his team wins the rest of the slate except USF - not unreasonable and he might even beat USF. 

 

MR's OSU record is 0.54 (forget total career because that is so long ago not sure it matters).  So MR is basically performing exactly like he did at OSU.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that will change.  He has certainly shown no evidence that it will.   Past performance is the best predictor of future performance in employees (this is not the stock market).

 

Oregon during SF's OC reign had a very good W/L %, about 0.75 if I remember correctly.  You can argue that he was only the OC, not the HC, but do any of you remember Oregon's defense being a monster?  The offense was the primary reason that team was so good.  So to me, I am willing to throw those games into his total for comparison to MR's college career, which gives us a 0.73 W/L % for SF, and a 0.54 W/L% for MR.  That's almost 20 basis points.    That's a significant difference and that says to me that no matter what, SF will win more games here than Mike Riley.  The data says so. 

 

Now, can things cause the data to go sideways, sure... but  if we stay unemotional and just look at the numbers, SF is objectively a better coach than MR in at least this metric (and likely several others). 

[junior4949]

2 minutes ago, Vince R. said:

I will say this then. If Frost does come here, we as a fan base need to be careful. He should be given ample time to get this right. If he struggles at all, you know what will be said..."Nebraska jumped the gun" "he wasn't ready"...Most importantly, if we get him too early and he fails miserably, " The narrative will become, what does it say about Nebraska if Scott Frost cannot succeed there. A guy who knows the program from its glory days like the back of his hand". We will struggle big time to get out of that hole. 

 

Does this ever really happen?  Name some coaches who went on to be wildly successful who stunk it up at their first gig.  I'm not in the camp that believes a coach is or isn't ready.  They're either a great coach or they are not.  Look at how young some of the NFL head coaches are.

[Vince R.]

1 minute ago, neepster said:

 

How about this:

 

Scott Frost as a HC at UCF is @ 0.61 W/R % through 1.5 years  vs MR's Nebraska record of 0.56 through 2.5yrs.  Note that this is after the previous HC record of 9-3 for Nebraska and 0-12 for UCF.  You can argue which is harder, but I think the UCF rebuild was harder, which is one more piece of evidence that SF is the real deal.

 

SF is TRENDING toward a career 0.66 W/R through 2 years if you assume his team wins the rest of the slate except USF - not unreasonable and he might even beat USF. 

 

MR's OSU record is 0.54 (forget total career because that is so long ago not sure it matters).  So MR is basically performing exactly like he did at OSU.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe that will change.  He has certainly shown no evidence that it will.   Past performance is the best predictor of future performance in employees (this is not the stock market).

 

Oregon during SF's OC reign had a very good W/L %, about 0.75 if I remember correctly.  You can argue that he was only the OC, not the HC, but do any of you remember Oregon's defense being a monster?  The offense was the primary reason that team was so good.  So to me, I am willing to throw those games into his total for comparison to MR's college career, which gives us a 0.73 W/L % for SF, and a 0.54 W/L% for MR.  That's almost 20 basis points.    That's a significant difference and that says to me that no matter what, SF will win more games here than Mike Riley.  The data says so. 

 

Now, can things cause the data to go sideways, sure... but  if we stay unemotional and just look at the numbers, SF is objectively a better coach than MR in at least this metric (and likely several others). 

Totally get it, but again the sample size as a HC is still not large enough. I am also not saying that Scott isn't or couldn't be a better coach than MR, I am just saying that I want the right coach for this job. I want the best guy for the job. I am not overly concerned with comparing the two, especially with insufficient data.

[Vince R.]

3 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

Does this ever really happen?  Name some coaches who went on to be wildly successful who stunk it up at their first gig.  I'm not in the camp that believes a coach is or isn't ready.  They're either a great coach or they are not.  Look at how young some of the NFL head coaches are.

It could happen here. When Nebraska fires someone or is looking to hire someone, we look to a sock for info. Nebraska fans will say anything in the name of the program depending how they feel. I think that narrative could be an absolute reality here.

[Nebhawk]

19 minutes ago, Vince R. said:

Frank got his ass handed to him multiple times with a roster that wasn't too far off from a championship. Callahan had a pretty damn good roster and got torched by everyone. Bo got torched by the big boys and would also have a head scratching loss a year. I am not a MR apologist but at one point do you start to look for something else as the cause and not simply coaches. If you read my last thread you will see that I speak for majority of Husker fans on how I feel about the program. I understand what Riley has done so far. I am just trying to point out a massive theme going on in this program. 

 

Would I love to see Scott come here and win big? Absolutely! My god that would be amazing and then he would be here for decades and then we would cement our legacy back as a blue blood program who can win it all. Still, what blows my mind is this...

 

None of you know what Scott Frost really brings to the table as a HC. You can point to UCF all you want but we all know that is not a good enough of a sample size to warrant an opinion of him. Don't even name the coaches he worked with or played under. That is not good enough. The desire and sheer conveniency to anoint SF as the savior or desired coach reeks of 07 and Bo Pelini. I want Nebraska to get it right. I don't care if he played here or not. I want the best.

If Bo would have been a HC previously, your points would have more validity.  Frost has coached under legends, played for legends, and is coaching right now.  Those things do matter some.  Kirby Smart is in year 2 at Georgia.  They are undefeated.  He is signing talent each day thats top line material.  2nd year HC.  No experience as the head man previously.

[neepster]

1 minute ago, Vince R. said:

Totally get it, but again the sample size as a HC is still not large enough. I am also not saying that Scott isn't or couldn't be a better coach than MR, I am just saying that I want the right coach for this job. I want the best guy for the job. I am not overly concerned with comparing the two, especially with insufficient data.

 

Sure, I don't blame you.  Unfortunately lots of time we have to make do with insufficient data.  I also want the best guy for the job, but at this point I can't come up with someone else who I think will a) want the job at the money we will pay  and b) be a good enough coach for long enough to make it worth throwing the program into turmoil again.

 

As long as we get a good coach I will be happy.  It doesn't have to be SF, but frankly I think he is showing lots and lots of signs of potentially being a great coach and maybe the next Tom Osborne if we take the chance on him (and he wants the job).

[junior4949]

3 minutes ago, Vince R. said:

It could happen here. When Nebraska fires someone or is looking to hire someone, we look to a sock for info. I think that narrative could be an absolute reality here.

 

Anything could happen.  Heck, we could hire Saban and he could be a total flop here.  The point still remains the same.  Typically, coaches don't stink up the place in their first gig only to go on and become wildly successful. 

[NM11046]

3 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

I agree. If I was recruiting against Nebraska, I would ask kids if they wanted to play for a coach who doesn't develop talent, and has been a 500 coach for 40 years. 

And if I was recruiting against them I'd ask if they really want to go to a school where they will likely have at least 2 HC's during their 4-5 year career and probably more position coaches than that.  

 

Do they really want to go where the men recruiting them will not be around when they graduate? Where many of their classmates will transfer out because of multiple coaching changes?  Where there is only a 50% chance the program is running an offense/defense that they were recruited for and have the specific skill sets for?  Where there is no sense of "family" (cuz that is never mentioned now by people visiting as a factor- sarcasm intended)

[MichiganDad3]

14 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

And if I was recruiting against them I'd ask if they really want to go to a school where they will likely have at least 2 HC's during their 4-5 year career and probably more position coaches than that.  

 

Do they really want to go where the men recruitng them will not be around when they graduate? Where many of their classmates will transfer out because of multiple coaching changes?  Where there is only a 50% chance the program is running an offense/defense that they were eecruited for and have the specific skill sets for?  Where there is no sense of "family" (cuz that is nevermentioned now bu people visiting as a factor- sarcasm intended)

I would also use the 2 HC argument, because losers get fired from top programs.

[NM11046]

To that I'd use: "the entire state views their team as losers if they win less than 9 games.  They are not supportive of the team and the amount of focus the team gets is higher than many professional programs.  There is nothing in NE other than college football.  They fire coaches within 2 or 3 years."  

 

The net net of my message would be, "So you could go where the goalposts are moving every year or two with new coaches, new schemes, new players on both sides of the ball, with an entire state that will turn against the program if you have a bad game or if the team has a bad season or you could go to XYZ where we have a plan, a vision and the people here that are committed to getting it done.  We're building something from the bottom up and with continuity and commitment we will get there."  

 

Funny part is ... the last part is what our coaches say now to recruits and what those in this year's class and those committed to next year's class bought into.  Sadly the wanna be coaches and players that post on chat room boards don't understand some of the basics of coaching and mentoring.

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, Vince R. said:

I will say this then. If Frost does come here, we as a fan base need to be careful. He should be given ample time to get this right. If he struggles at all, you know what will be said..."Nebraska jumped the gun" "he wasn't ready"...Most importantly, if we get him too early and he fails miserably, " The narrative will become, what does it say about Nebraska if Scott Frost cannot succeed there. A guy who knows the program from its glory days like the back of his hand". We will struggle big time to get out of that hole. 

Why would you think that "we" would give Scott more years than we've granted our current coach?  They guy who does have the history in this game?

 

And if anybody gives the homer answer of "he gets the history and the culture" I will hit them upside the head.

[junior4949]

21 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Why would you think that "we" would give Scott more years than we've granted our current coach?  They guy who does have the history in this game?

 

And if anybody gives the homer answer of "he gets the history and the culture" I will hit them upside the head.

 

The answer is pretty simple.  Bo got the most years of any coach since TO retired.  Why?  He followed a coach with a losing record.  Riley is going to have accomplished the feat of having two losing records in the span of three seasons following a coach who always won at least nine.  Unless Frost comes in here and posts a Gary Andersen type record, he'll get more time than Riley. 

[InOmaha]

How hard is it to recruit against Nebraska?  Wisconsin can pull any lineman from us by pointing and laughing (running backs too), Ohio State can point to the trophy case, even Penn State has an easier sell since they've won a conference championship in the recruits lifetime.  About the only thing we have going for us now is the pregame/game time experience which has nothing to do with playing the game and the ability to promise true freshmen playing time based on the results on the field.  Most major programs have the same amenities or better.  We have finished at least third in our division a couple times recently.

 

We'll loose more recruits this year because they watch us on play on TV then they will from other coaches talking to them.

[4skers89]

51 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Why would you think that "we" would give Scott more years than we've granted our current coach?  They guy who does have the history in this game?

Are you referring to Riley? If so you probably answered your first question.

[DrunkOffPunch]

1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

To that I'd use: "the entire state views their team as losers if they win less than 9 games.  They are not supportive of the team and the amount of focus the team gets is higher than many professional programs.  There is nothing in NE other than college football.  They fire coaches within 2 or 3 years."  

 

The net net of my message would be, "So you could go where the goalposts are moving every year or two with new coaches, new schemes, new players on both sides of the ball, with an entire state that will turn against the program if you have a bad game or if the team has a bad season or you could go to XYZ where we have a plan, a vision and the people here that are committed to getting it done.  We're building something from the bottom up and with continuity and commitment we will get there."

You're really blowing things out of proportion.