I think part of his job once he got here was to get rid Bo but I don't think that was the sole purpose of bringing him here. And who knows, he might have known that before he accepted the job. Regardless, we needed a new Athletic Director and it wouldn't matter who was brought in, people would be calling him/her The Axeman. /shrugI think he was brought here just for that. Anyone with common sense knows that,and he is not the bad guy for that. He is what he is, an over paid axeman. This is Harvey's fart in the elevator.IF, Eichorst was brought in specifically for firing Bo...how does that make him the bad guy for doing what his bosses wanted? Just to be clear, I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that Eichorst was brought here specfically for that reason.I didn't read that at all in his post.
Why can't it be both?
He's the bad guy for being a liar and being incompetent while searching for the next coach.
Eichorst Statement About Football Program
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
LAblackshirt
New member
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.
That was wrong of you, but I laughed anyway....I wonder why?Edited, *not acceptable, attack the post, not the poster*I think he was brought here just for that. Anyone with common sense knows that,and he is not the bad guy for that. He is what he is, an over paid axeman. This is Harvey's fart in the elevator.IF, Eichorst was brought in specifically for firing Bo...how does that make him the bad guy for doing what his bosses wanted? Just to be clear, I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that Eichorst was brought here specfically for that reason.I didn't read that at all in his post.
Why can't it be both?
He's the bad guy for being a liar and being incompetent while searching for the next coach.
Last edited by a moderator:
ColoradoHusk
Donor
So, let me get this straight. Riley is a good hire for NU because of his years of experience at the major college football level, but we should only compare his record at NU with some of the best college coaches in their first 2 years at major college football. That makes perfect sense.
ColoradoHusk
Donor
But to say that Riley has had better records his first 2 years at NU compared to Saban at Michigan State and Harbaugh at Stanford is flawed in so many ways. While factually correct, the comparisons don't hold water.
Ratt Mhule
Active member
Unfortunately he will we talked about until Riley wins a championship. If Riley cant, him and Riley will be talked about until the next coach wins a championship. Thats the way things go. If Pelini had won a title, I dont think we would ever hear the name Solich or Callahan again. Unfortuantely we havent, so those names are still even brought up from time to time.
Saunders
Administrator
teachercd
Well-known member
Wait...Riley took over a team that was winning 9 and 10 games a season. None of those other teams even come close to that average when those other coaches took over.
Riley actually took over a program and regressed the two year average. I don't think those other guys did that, they might have, but I don't know.
Riley actually took over a program and regressed the two year average. I don't think those other guys did that, they might have, but I don't know.
Redux
Donor
teachercd
Well-known member
BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
LAblackshirt
New member
I cant tell if this was a response to my post or another, I definitely didn't mention anything about Riley's experience making him a good hire. I do stand by the point I made, Riley's first two year record in no way means we should be freaking out right now. It's in line with the first two years of some of the greatest coach's of all time, that's a fact.ColoradoHusk said:
Teachercd, Riley definitely took over a team with a better winning average than any of the other Coach's I mentioned. I'm not sure what that is supposed to change about my point though, the first two years are a rebuilding and changing time for every coach regardless of the previous years for the program. All these coaches had the same job, to tear down the previous regimes culture and install their own. A difficult task indeed. I simply wanted to show you how some of the greatest coach's around had fared in their first two years, to point out Mike Riley isn't far off the mark.
We can talk wins and losses all day and end up with the same argument over and over again. The fact is Mike Riley's first two year record does not bare any significant evidence he is an incapable coach. Next year will certainly be different though.