Last 10 games

[RedDenver]

So you think that because his entire

coaching career was spent coaching at .500 that it means nothing? Facts are facts, and they don't care about your feelings, just saying.

Riley's previous record has absolutely no influence on his performance at Nebraska. I'm not sure what my feelings have to do with anything here. If it makes you feel better, then know that I'm not far from thinking Riley should go, but his previous record isn't a compelling argument.

 

[ebohnart]

Not putting words in Red's keyboard but I think he is saying that he is more focused on what Riley accomplishes here rather than OSU. Just saying.... (can we agree to knock off using that dumbass phrase?)

All I'm saying is it's better to be a realist than overly optimistic. 

I guess meaning that his record attests to what he has been capable of, doesn't mean it's a limiter of his ability, but a good measuring stick for what to expect, at least in these starting years. 

 

[Spooky Tooth]

All I'm saying is it's better to be a realist than overly optimistic. 

Or, one could say that it's better to be fair than reactionary.

 

[ebohnart]

Or, one could say that it's better to be fair than reactionary.

Hey I realized I wasn't done talking and edited a smidge. Lol

 

[Spooky Tooth]

Hey I realized I wasn't done talking and edited a smidge. Lol

 

[marko polo]

Nope. Let me say it another way: If I get to point of wanting to fire/retire Riley, it will have nothing to do with his record before he was Nebraska's coach.

So your present skill level has nothing to do with your future ability.

hmmmmmm well I am a bogey golfer, but tommorow if things go right I will be on the pro tour

Not! because I have limits and will never be a pro you are either getting better or you are not to some degree or another

History is a very good indicator of future events

 

[Nebfanatic]

Riley's previous record has absolutely no influence on his performance at Nebraska. I'm not sure what my feelings have to do with anything here. If it makes you feel better, then know that I'm not far from thinking Riley should go, but his previous record isn't a compelling argument.

It's the worst argument against Riley. I can tgink a few regular posters point out many flaws Riley and the staff have but stay away from this and for good reason. Their arguments tend to have a Ilittle more depth.

 

[ebohnart]

I haven't lost faith, but I'm certainly looking at the schedule less favorably than I did before seeing the first 2 games. I think there's a lot of underdeveloped talent and it remains to be seen if they can pull it out of the players. Potential unfortunately doesn't always equal production.

 

[RedDenver]

So your present skill level has nothing to do with your future ability.

hmmmmmm well I am a bogey golfer, but tommorow if things go right I will be on the pro tour

Not! because I have limits and will never be a pro you are either getting better or you are not to some degree or another

His previous record isn't his skill level. His skill level can't actually be measured and is constantly changing throughout his life.

And your logic fails because past results do not guarantee future results as can be seen by examining TO's career as a coach. His teams regressed from 1983 to 1992. But TO found ways to improve after that. If your logic were true, then no one wound ever improve at anything in life.

 

[Nebfanatic]

So your present skill level has nothing to do with your future ability.

hmmmmmm well I am a bogey golfer, but tommorow if things go right I will be on the pro tour

Not! because I have limits and will never be a pro you are either getting better or you are not to some degree or another

Shooting bogeys at Augusta is different than shooting bogeys at top golf 

 

[marko polo]

His previous record isn't his skill level. His skill level can't actually be measured and is constantly changing throughout his life.

And your logic fails because past results do not guarantee future results as can be seen by examining TO's career as a coach. His teams regressed from 1983 to 1992. But TO found ways to improve after that. If your logic were true, then no one found ever improve at anything in life.

I didn't say it was a guarantee but a very good predictor and do you see where I said you are either getting better or the same ( maybe worse) well Mike is not getting better like you all said he would

he is right about there at bogey golf

 

[Whistlepig]

Wow- I love the discussions, very insightful.

attempts to rationalize through circular logic and repeated flawed comparisons are fascinating.

This isn't meant to diss anyone, just an observation, as one poster put it. 

 

[RedDenver]

Wow- I love the discussions, very insightful.

attempts to rationalize through circular logic and repeated flawed comparisons are fascinating.

This isn't meant to diss anyone, just an observation, as one poster put it. 

That's... very self-aware of you.

 

[marko polo]

His previous record isn't his skill level. His skill level can't actually be measured and is constantly changing throughout his life.

And your logic fails because past results do not guarantee future results as can be seen by examining TO's career as a coach. His teams regressed from 1983 to 1992. But TO found ways to improve after that. If your logic were true, then no one found ever improve at anything in life.

and even if TO struggled "some" he was able to stay relevant because he had a much higher baseline from the get go

 

[marko polo]

I haven't lost faith, but I'm certainly looking at the schedule less favorably than I did before seeing the first 2 games. I think there's a lot of underdeveloped talent and it remains to be seen if they can pull it out of the players. Potential unfortunately doesn't always equal production.

I think they call that coaching