Landlord
Banned
Nobody likes that we're 2-4. You don't like it, I don't like, our players and coaches especially don't like it. But here we are. A lot of people seem to think we've seen enough, this isn't working, this can't work, this will not work, and also seem to paint anyone who doesn't hold this absolute end of the spectrum position as being ignorant, uninformed or ignoring the evidence.
But my guess is that there is a lot of nuance and at least a few shades of grey here that are worth looking at with a cool head, and chewing on for a while without going into a maniacally frustrated pessimistic world view.
First of all, the idea that a career ~.500 coach can't become good or great. Is this true? I don't think so. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Riley, for a long time, was content on finishing out his career at Oregon State, his "home" school. He intentionally chose to stay at a school with poor resources, and that shouldn't be counted against him. Especially when he was offered the head coaching jobs at the #7 and #10 all-time in wins schools, USC and Alabama. Also when he was voted as the second most underrated coach in FBS by a poll of his peers. Regardless of numbers, the opinions of those who know more than we do about him, and about the profession, hold him in very high regard. His all-time record would certainly be better if he would have kept climbing the ladder to a place like one of these schools, instead of sticking around what essentially would equate to a D1 school in Grand Island trying to compete with UNL down the road.
But let's look at numbers. Have other coaches been able to have a career turnaround like this? In short, "kind of". Gary Barnett, Kirk Ferentz, Gary Pinkel, Rich Rod (at Michigan), Nick Saban, Mark Dantonio, David Cutcliffe, Ron McBride, Bill Snyder, and Art Briles can all loosely fit into this category in one way or another. They each have their own unique circumstances, so none of these situations are the same, but it should be obvious by now that our program is in fairly uncharted waters. It always has been.
On a related note, the negativity towards Riley is because of a quick 2-4 record. Which goes to show that there is an implied presupposition that if we would have had a 6-0 record, that is proof that he is a good/great coach and it was a great hire. That isn't true either.
Conversely,
There are plenty more examples like this, but the problem remains - none of these coaches were coming off of 9 win seasons. If you want to see comparisons of successful coaches following on that kind of performance, you won't find them. Not because they couldn't exist, but because schools don't fire coaches with 9 win seasons. But, Tressel is pretty close.
Prior to Tressel arriving, Ohio State had gone 8-3 (#19), 10-1 (#11), 9-4 (#9), 11-2 (#8), 11-1 (#2), 10-3 (#12), 11-1 (#2), 6-6 and 8-4. Then Tressel comes in, underperforms for a season, then explodes. So it can maybe be done! Woohoo!
ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY THE FOLLOWING:
Don't put so much stock in the numbers. Don't have your mind made up yet. History is FULL of nearly every single scenario involving programs and coaches, and it's also full of the opposite scenarios.Yes, be patient and give it some time. Or don't, but the only thing you're doing is making yourself miserable.
The two options are to stay patient, extend some grace, and enjoy the ride, or just be angry, upset, and b!^@h. One is helpful to yourself and to the people around you, one isn't.
But my guess is that there is a lot of nuance and at least a few shades of grey here that are worth looking at with a cool head, and chewing on for a while without going into a maniacally frustrated pessimistic world view.
First of all, the idea that a career ~.500 coach can't become good or great. Is this true? I don't think so. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Riley, for a long time, was content on finishing out his career at Oregon State, his "home" school. He intentionally chose to stay at a school with poor resources, and that shouldn't be counted against him. Especially when he was offered the head coaching jobs at the #7 and #10 all-time in wins schools, USC and Alabama. Also when he was voted as the second most underrated coach in FBS by a poll of his peers. Regardless of numbers, the opinions of those who know more than we do about him, and about the profession, hold him in very high regard. His all-time record would certainly be better if he would have kept climbing the ladder to a place like one of these schools, instead of sticking around what essentially would equate to a D1 school in Grand Island trying to compete with UNL down the road.
But let's look at numbers. Have other coaches been able to have a career turnaround like this? In short, "kind of". Gary Barnett, Kirk Ferentz, Gary Pinkel, Rich Rod (at Michigan), Nick Saban, Mark Dantonio, David Cutcliffe, Ron McBride, Bill Snyder, and Art Briles can all loosely fit into this category in one way or another. They each have their own unique circumstances, so none of these situations are the same, but it should be obvious by now that our program is in fairly uncharted waters. It always has been.
On a related note, the negativity towards Riley is because of a quick 2-4 record. Which goes to show that there is an implied presupposition that if we would have had a 6-0 record, that is proof that he is a good/great coach and it was a great hire. That isn't true either.
- Brady Hoke led Michigan to an 11-2 record and a Sugar Bowl win in his first year, and was fired three years later getting worse and worse.
- Kevin Sumlin lit the world on fire with his 11-2 debut as Texas A&M's coach, and they've gotten worse the two years following.
- Gus Malzahn played for the national championship his first season, and again, Auburn seems to be getting worse by the year.
- Frank Solich started his career 9-4, 12-1, 10-2, 11-2 with a national championship game appearance, and was fired two years later.
- Will Muschamp led the Gators to an 11-2 season and BCS bowl in his second year, then followed up with 4-8 and 6-5. Fired.
Conversely,
- Bronco Mendenhall went 6-6 in his first year at BYU following a 5-6 season, and followed up with 11-2, 11-2, 10-3, 11-2, 7-6, 10-3, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5.
- Howard Schnellenberger went 5-6 his first year at Miami following a 6-5 season, and then went 9-3, 9-2, 7-4, and 11-1 with a national championship.
- Pete Carroll went 6-6 in his first year at USC following a 5-7 season, and followed up with 11-2, 12-1, 13-0, 12-1, 11-2, 11-2, 12-1.
- Bob Stoops went 7-5 in year one following a 5-6 season, followed by 13-0, 11-2, 12-2, 12-2, 12-1, 8-4, 11-3, 11-3, 12-2.
- Nick Saban went 7-6 in year one following a 6-7 season, followed by 12-2, 14-0, 10-3, 12-1, 13-1, 11-2, 12-2.
- Jim Tressel went 7-5 in year one following an 8-4 season, followed by 14-0, 11-2, 8-4, 10-2, 12-1, 11-2.
There are plenty more examples like this, but the problem remains - none of these coaches were coming off of 9 win seasons. If you want to see comparisons of successful coaches following on that kind of performance, you won't find them. Not because they couldn't exist, but because schools don't fire coaches with 9 win seasons. But, Tressel is pretty close.
Prior to Tressel arriving, Ohio State had gone 8-3 (#19), 10-1 (#11), 9-4 (#9), 11-2 (#8), 11-1 (#2), 10-3 (#12), 11-1 (#2), 6-6 and 8-4. Then Tressel comes in, underperforms for a season, then explodes. So it can maybe be done! Woohoo!
ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY THE FOLLOWING:
Don't put so much stock in the numbers. Don't have your mind made up yet. History is FULL of nearly every single scenario involving programs and coaches, and it's also full of the opposite scenarios.Yes, be patient and give it some time. Or don't, but the only thing you're doing is making yourself miserable.
- There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between previous head coaching success and future success.
- There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between previous head coaching failure and future failure.
- There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between previous head coaching experience and future success.
- There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early success at a school and sustained future success at that school.
- There is no evidence that shows a direct correlation between early failure at a school and sustained failure at that school.
The two options are to stay patient, extend some grace, and enjoy the ride, or just be angry, upset, and b!^@h. One is helpful to yourself and to the people around you, one isn't.
