So let's say Riley stays ...

This thread got me thinking about that cow that can jump over the moon. Why are we shooting rockets up there if we can just load up that cow?

 
Hayseed said:
This thread got me thinking about that cow that can jump over the moon. Why are we shooting rockets up there if we can just load up that cow?
Click to expand...
I don't know.  Its kinda like the elephant and seal taking a bath together and the elephant asked the seal to pass the soap and the seal said, " what do I look like, a typewriter".

 
Stumpy1 said:
I don't know.  Its kinda like the elephant and seal taking a bath together and the elephant asked the seal to pass the soap and the seal said, " what do I look like, a typewriter".
Click to expand...
I don’t know what this means but it sounds porn and we’re not supposed to be putting porn on here according to the new guidelines.

 
One of the biggest problems for quite some time has been lack of stability.  How does continually changing coordinators and position coaches address this? 

 
The OC and the DC have to be on the same page.  If the offense continually goes three and out, it puts too much pressure on the defense.  If the defense continually lets the opponent score, it puts too much pressure on the offense having to always come from behind or win a shootout.  I don't understand what would be accomplished by allowing year four and bringing in a new coordinator and position coach. 

 
Blackshirt_Revival said:
1. It's not about what expectations get the fans, it's about what meeting them or not meeting them gets the coach. Meeting expectations: more time, raises, prestige, etc. Not meeting expectations: scrutiny, hot seat talks, possibly fired. That's what is meant here by expectations

2. Outlier meaning trying to find some rare situation somewhere out there and presenting it as some equivalent situation as evidence that Moos might or should retain Riley, because Mike Leach went 3-9 his 3rd year at Washington State, which is not at all the same thing as RIley being 4-5 in year 3 at Nebraska because...

3. Washington State went 9-40 under their previous head coach in 4 years, 30-28 under their coach prior to that in his 5 years there, with his only winning season occuring in his first year which was 2003.  Compare this to Nebraska who went 67-27 in 7 years under their previous head coach (no defense of Bo, mind you), which leads to

4. The fact that Leach had a history of making teams consistent winners and competing for conference titles, where Riley has not, and in spite of his bad year there, still had the Cougars performing at a level in year 3 that was at least on-par to where they had before.

I see one that trended up, and one that is very clearly trending down with no logical indication at all it will reverse course.  
Click to expand...
Looking at what Moos did at his prior job is the exact opposite of a "rare situation somewhere out there".

Leach at TT 47 conference wins in 10 years 2000-2009

MR at OSU 52 conference wins his first 10 years(apples to apples)2003-2012

I think we have different ideas of what "trending up" means.  Leach's first three seasons at WSU:

3-9

6-7

3-9

MR 2-1 vs Leach

Both very good coaches who have proven they can beat more talented teams when their systems and the players to run them are in place.

 
LaunchCode said:
Looking at what Moos did at his prior job is the exact opposite of a "rare situation somewhere out there".

Leach at TT 47 conference wins in 10 years 2000-2009

MR at OSU 52 conference wins his first 10 years(apples to apples)2003-2012

I think we have different ideas of what "trending up" means.  Leach's first three seasons at WSU:

3-9

6-7

3-9

MR 2-1 vs Leach

Both very good coaches who have proven they can beat more talented teams when their systems and the players to run them are in place.
Click to expand...
Once again, the situations and expectations at each program were and are completely different. 

Stating that Leach took a dip in year 3 of his tenure at Washington State as some sort of evidence that Moos might or should retain Riley at Nebraska simply because he happened to be the AD there at the time is a spectacular reach at best 

Moos hired Mike Leach, for one, so had a vested interest in his success, and their program improved under him the first 2 years of his tenure.  In spite of a dip in year 3 (which still had the team performing at least at or still above the level they had under the previous coach), he has improved since, and evidence existed he would do so, thus the continued faith Moos (correctly) had in Leach.

It is a rare situation in that a coach had a setback in year 3 of his tenure (relative to what he had accomplished in years 1 and 2), but still ended up improving the team greatly in succeeding years.  Mike Leach did, but once again, he also had greater success in his first 2 years there than the program had for many years prior.

Comparing coaching records is fun, but Mike Riley won 43 conference games in his first 10 years at Oregon State to Mike Leach's 47.  You're (conveniently?) excluding his first 2 years at the program, 1997-1998, where he won 2 conference games total.  Mike Riley also had the benefit of playing one more conference game a year than Mike Leach did from years 6-10 in this specified 10 year window, so he played 5 more conference games than did Mike Leach.  

And then there is Mike Riley's 53% win percentage at Oregon State compared to Mike Leach's 66% win percentage at Texas Tech.

Washington State has progressed substantially under Mike Leach, while Nebraska has regressed under Mike Riley.

There really isn't much more to discuss here.

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: GSG
Blackshirt_Revival said:
Once again, the situations and expectations at each program were and are completely different. 

Stating that Leach took a dip in year 3 of his tenure at Washington State as some sort of evidence that Moos might or should retain Riley at Nebraska simply because he happened to be the AD there at the time is a spectacular reach at best 

Moos hired Mike Leach, for one, so had a vested interest in his success, and their program improved under him the first 2 years of his tenure.  In spite of a dip in year 3 (which still had the team performing at least at or still above the level they had under the previous coach), he has improved since, and evidence existed he would do so, thus the continued faith Moos (correctly) had in Leach.

It is a rare situation in that a coach had a setback in year 3 of his tenure (relative to what he had accomplished in years 1 and 2), but still ended up improving the team greatly in succeeding years.  Mike Leach did, but once again, he also had greater success in his first 2 years there than the program had for many years prior.

Comparing coaching records is fun, but Mike Riley won 43 conference games in his first 10 years at Oregon State to Mike Leach's 47.  You're (conveniently?) excluding his first 2 years at the program, 1997-1998, where he won 2 conference games total.  Mike Riley also had the benefit of playing one more conference game a year than Mike Leach did from years 6-10 in this specified 10 year window, so he played 5 more conference games than did Mike Leach.  

And then there is Mike Riley's 53% win percentage at Oregon State compared to Mike Leach's 66% win percentage at Texas Tech.

Washington State has progressed substantially under Mike Leach, while Nebraska has regressed under Mike Riley.

There really isn't much more to discuss here.
Click to expand...
Again, Leach's success at WSU didn't start until year 4 and beyond.  Year three was a 3-9 nightmare with no evidence the fans could see things would turn around the following year, but they were wrong and things did improve in a big way.

Mark Dantonio's 3rd season produced a 6-7 record, he had back to back 11 wins seasons in years 4 and 5.  Kirk Ferentz won 11 games total over his first three years combined.  He won 11 in year four alone.

As for win percentage comparison, you answered that yourself.  MR only played 3 OOC games a year and happened to have the toughest OOC schedule in the country vs multiple top 10 teams over that time period.  Leach played 4 OOC games every year generally against inferior opponents.  Much easier to boost win percentage playing more games against lessor opponents.  

Before you attempt to suggest that doesn't matter, even now that WSU is playing well, Leach has lost OOC games in the past few years to; Portland State, Nevada, Eastern Washington, Boise, and Rutgers.  None of those teams were ranked.

 
LaunchCode said:
Again, Leach's success at WSU didn't start until year 4 and beyond.  Year three was a 3-9 nightmare with no evidence the fans could see things would turn around the following year, but they were wrong and things did improve in a big way.

Mark Dantonio's 3rd season produced a 6-7 record, he had back to back 11 wins seasons in years 4 and 5.  Kirk Ferentz won 11 games total over his first three years combined.  He won 11 in year four alone.

As for win percentage comparison, you answered that yourself.  MR only played 3 OOC games a year and happened to have the toughest OOC schedule in the country vs multiple top 10 teams over that time period.  Leach played 4 OOC games every year generally against inferior opponents.  Much easier to boost win percentage playing more games against lessor opponents.  

Before you attempt to suggest that doesn't matter, even now that WSU is playing well, Leach has lost OOC games in the past few years to; Portland State, Nevada, Eastern Washington, Boise, and Rutgers.  None of those teams were ranked.
Click to expand...
Leach went 6-7 in Year 2, and had a bowl trip by going 6-6 in the regular season.  That's progress and enabled him to get a year 4, when year 3 was terrible.

Mark Dantonio took over MSU after they had won 5, 5, and 4 games the previous 3 years.  His first 2 years resulted in 7 and 9 wins.  That's another example of progress, so it's reasonable for him to be retained after a rough 3rd year.

Please tell me how Riley has shown any progress at NU with on the field results.  How has he improved things ON THE FIELD?

 
LaunchCode said:
Again, Leach's success at WSU didn't start until year 4 and beyond.  Year three was a 3-9 nightmare with no evidence the fans could see things would turn around the following year, but they were wrong and things did improve in a big way.

Mark Dantonio's 3rd season produced a 6-7 record, he had back to back 11 wins seasons in years 4 and 5.  Kirk Ferentz won 11 games total over his first three years combined.  He won 11 in year four alone.

As for win percentage comparison, you answered that yourself.  MR only played 3 OOC games a year and happened to have the toughest OOC schedule in the country vs multiple top 10 teams over that time period.  Leach played 4 OOC games every year generally against inferior opponents.  Much easier to boost win percentage playing more games against lessor opponents.  

Before you attempt to suggest that doesn't matter, even now that WSU is playing well, Leach has lost OOC games in the past few years to; Portland State, Nevada, Eastern Washington, Boise, and Rutgers.  None of those teams were ranked.
Click to expand...
One difference in your scenarios is that Leach and Dantonio took over losing teams.  Mike Riley took over a very consistent 9 win team.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top