We're #1

[gossamorharpy]

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Actually, college hoops and the Final Four Tournament is huge around the country, and tons of fun for alums of the 64 schools that get into the tournament every year. Generates s#!tloads of money, too.

 

But you do end up saying "meh" when you are the only major conference school never to win an NCAA Tournament game. 

 

You could also say nobody cares about Women's College Volleyball. But for some reason we do. 

No doubt its huge but for the large majority (prolly 99% of fans) really only relevant starting around conf tourney time and going into march madness.  So perhaps I'll expand my original comment and say beginning of march to early april.  Maybe for big time hoops programs its big year round but for the casual fan, bball truly pales in comparison to college football in terms of mainstream coverage and hype (6 months for football- not counting recruiting hype, vs maybe 4-6 weeks of basketball hype)

 

Specially when you consider the trend of bball hoops that last statement becomes even more true.  Couldn't even pick out a Kansas player in a crowd right now and they ended the season #1... For the sake of college bball, really hope they institute a rule similar to baseball where you can go to the pros immediately out of high school or you're committing to 2-3 years in a college program.  Would add an incredible amount of depth, cohesity and storylines to the college game while hopefully leading to more nba ready players for the pros.

[gossamorharpy]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

 

Yeah, even Riley.  Don't get me wrong.  I thought Scott Frost would be a great hire.  But I thought Riley could be fixed. 

 

Instead of paying SF's rather large salary plus Riley's buyout we could have spent an extra $1.5 million on each side of the ball to hire the best offensive and defensive coordinators and assistant coaches that money can buy.  We would have gotten a top OC and DC for that kind of coin.  

 

Riley was fairly low paid for a Power Five head coach.  We were paying him $2.9 million.  Riley could have taken the lead in recruiting and media relations as a CEO type coach.  And we could have afforded a very high paid staff of assistants to do the coaching.  

 

But instead we're paying Riley buyout money which costs the taxpayers of Nebraska a small fortune and does our program absolutely zero good.    

 

/jmho

I think it would have been interesting if we did this right.  Feel like the Diaco move was up this alley and due to circumstances and other factors was a debacle.

 

That being said, the bigger theme is at a progrum like ours with high expectations you want a candidate with upside and a chance to really propel the progrum.  Riley was a good hire in the PR aspect but the upside just wasn't there compared to say a coach in his 40's who's had great success at lower progrums and gets their first opp at a big time progrum.

[gossamorharpy]

53 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Firing Bo was the right decision. Hiring Riley wasn't...., but then again, most coaching hires end up failing. And despite the new lows on the field, I won't ever hold anything against Riley. He came in to do his best, he tried making aggressive moves, he handled himself and his program with integrity and kindness and embodied "not the victory; but the action" and he led us very well through the passing of Foltz. 

For sure, I mean no disrespect to riley.  I know a few people who took official visits to oregon state and all say the guy was a total class act through and through- whether you were a player on his team or some random recruit dropping by on campus.

 

The big f up on Shawn's part was the Riley decision really being a pick by a committee of one.  While I love the Moos hire, I'll be the first one to tell you that Frost kind of fell in his lap circumstances wise.  Sure, Moos needed to demonstrate the dumpster fire was put out and clear the road, but its not like Shawn had a choice of a top flight coach, that everyone wanted, who happened to be from Nebraska to chose from.  That being said, at least Moos gave the impression he was working his network and took his time to get the right guy.  The way Shawn let the story play out was as if this was his decision and his decision alone.

[NUance]

1 hour ago, N is for nowledge said:

It actually cost the taxpayers zero dollars.  The football program is self sustaining, even carrying water for all but 3-4 other sports teams at Nebraska.  Men’s bb, I believe men’s baseball, and the volleyball team was just added a yr or two ago carry their own.  Not only that but the football revenue actually gives back to the university in a form of an academic scholarship or at least did at one time.  Again, ZERO public funding or taxpayer dollars.  Academic and athletic departments are managed 100% separately.

 

Would the donors who funded the buyout have given UNL donations anyway?  If so then it did cost the taxpayers.  If those donors only gave one-time donations in order to fire Mike Riley then you are correct.  

[BigRedBuster]

37 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

The big f up on Shawn's part was the Riley decision really being a pick by a committee of one.  While I love the Moos hire, I'll be the first one to tell you that Frost kind of fell in his lap circumstances wise.  Sure, Moos needed to demonstrate the dumpster fire was put out and clear the road, but its not like Shawn had a choice of a top flight coach, that everyone wanted, who happened to be from Nebraska to chose from.  That being said, at least Moos gave the impression he was working his network and took his time to get the right guy.  The way Shawn let the story play out was as if this was his decision and his decision alone.

 

Yes, Frost sort of fell into his lap and he was brought in specifically to get him hired (my opinion).  However, Hoiberg wasn't the same situation and I'm just as excited about that hire as Frost.

 

Moos has shown he knows how to go through the process and hire a coach the majority of fans are going to get behind. 

NOW....let's just hope that both prove to be great choices.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Would the donors who funded the buyout have given UNL donations anyway?  If so then it did cost the taxpayers.  If those donors only gave one-time donations in order to fire Mike Riley then you are correct.  

 

No...it didn't.  You can try to play gymnastics with it...but it didn't cost the tax payers anything.  In fact, the athletic program helps fund the academic side.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Firing Bo was the right decision. Hiring Riley wasn't...., but then again, most coaching hires end up failing. And despite the new lows on the field, I won't ever hold anything against Riley. He came in to do his best, he tried making aggressive moves, he handled himself and his program with integrity and kindness and embodied "not the victory; but the action" and he led us very well through the passing of Foltz. 

Good post.  I think Riley also represented us well after the Baylor sexual assault allegations came out. He brought in the lady who had been assaulted by Org State players while he was there. It was a real standup move for his to do so and to bring awareness to his current players. So while Riley was a very poor choice from a football performance perspective, he did bring some moral respectability back to the program's image after our image was that of Bo swinging his hat and cursing at the ref.

[NUance]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

No...it didn't.  You can try to play gymnastics with it...but it didn't cost the tax payers anything.  In fact, the athletic program helps fund the academic side.

 

Okay, let's say it's mid November 2017 and I'm going to donate $20,000 to UNL eartagged for athletics.    But I really, really hate what Mike Riley has done to our football team.  So I donate $12,000 to UNL UNL eartagged for athletics, and another $8,000 to help fund Mike Riley's buyout.   Did that cost UNL (owned by the taxpayers of Nebraska) $8,000.    If the answer is "no" then you are correct.   

[N is for nowledge]

26 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Would the donors who funded the buyout have given UNL donations anyway?  If so then it did cost the taxpayers.  If those donors only gave one-time donations in order to fire Mike Riley then you are correct.  

I guess I don’t see your point.  “0” ZERO taxpayer dollars are used in our AD dept.  not for current salaries, buildings, buyouts or anything else for that matter.  If a donor gives $$ to our AD for any reason it does not cost the taxpayer anything.

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Okay, let's say it's mid November 2017 and I'm going to donate $20,000 to UNL eartagged for athletics.    But I really, really hate what Mike Riley has done to our football team.  So I donate $12,000 to UNL UNL eartagged for athletics, and another $8,000 to help fund Mike Riley's buyout.   Did that cost UNL (owned by the taxpayers of Nebraska) $8,000.    If the answer is "no" then you are correct.   

Please provide evidence this happened.  Until then, you're just making up scenarios to fit your incorrect comment.

 

And...still....the answer would be no, it didn't cost the tax payers anything.  No money went from the legislature, to the Athletic department to pay for these coaches.  The money didn't even go from the legislature, to UNL to the athletic department.

The legislature has been defunding the University for years.  If anything, it cost the students in tuition.  But....to that even....the answer is NO.

[NUance]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Please provide evidence this happened.  Until then, you're just making up scenarios to fit your incorrect comment.

 

And...still....the answer would be no, it didn't cost the tax payers anything.  No money went from the legislature, to the Athletic department to pay for these coaches.  The money didn't even go from the legislature, to UNL to the athletic department.

The legislature has been defunding the University for years.  If anything, it cost the students in tuition.  But....to that even....the answer is NO.

 

Sure.  Just provide me the names and phone numbers of the boosters who funded Mike Riley's buyout.  I'll get the NUance Useless Information Secretarial Pool to call them up and inquire as to whether they made special one-time donations, or reduced their expected donations to give buyout money instead.  We'll get right on it and have an answer for you shortly!  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

 

Sure.  Just provide me the names and phone numbers of the boosters who funded Mike Riley's buyout.  I'll get the NUance Useless Information Secretarial Pool to call them up and inquire as to whether they made special one-time donations, or reduced their expected donations to give buyout money instead.  We'll get right on it and have an answer for you shortly!  

So, you don't have evidence that tax payers paid for any of this.  But, you express it as though it's fact.

 

Thanks.

[N is for nowledge]

6 hours ago, NUance said:

 

Sure.  Just provide me the names and phone numbers of the boosters who funded Mike Riley's buyout.  I'll get the NUance Useless Information Secretarial Pool to call them up and inquire as to whether they made special one-time donations, or reduced their expected donations to give buyout money instead.  We'll get right on it and have an answer for you shortly!  

It still doesn’t matter.  People can choose to send THEIR $$ wherever they want.  It cost taxpayers nothing.  

[HUSKER 37]

18 hours ago, NUance said:

I was against nearly every firing.  Mostly because I thought we could "fix" the fault(s) of each coach.  I guess I'm one of those guys who thinks it's easier to fix something than to burn it down and start over.  

 

That said, even though I opposed the firings, I liked each coaching hire we ended up making.  

 

I've admitted this before, and still a little ashamed of myself..But it got to the point where I found myself rooting against my favourite team just in the hope we'd get rid of Callihan sooner. 

[NUance]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, you don't have evidence that tax payers paid for any of this.  But, you express it as though it's fact.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm not sure whether you don't understand the point I was making, or you are just arguing for the sake of argument. 

 

Answer me this:  If regular donors shifted their donations away from the athletic dept to Riley's buyout, who would make up the difference?   Who?  (Hint:  It rhymes with "Ax Slayers".)   Or perhaps you think the people who funded Riley's buyout were one-time givers who would not have otherwise donated to DONU.  Is that what you think?   

 

Which of those two scenarios was it?  Or can you think of another source of funding for Riley's buyout?        

 

I'm not sure how to explain it differently.