So why did we hire Mike Riley?

lo country

lo country

Moderator
Staff member
Serious question, I know that there are numerous threads on what he is/did do wrong, but I want to know what makes/made him the tight choice.

I'll admit I wasn't a fan of the hire, I had to google his name and then read some about him and was even less inthused. His record, scheme etc.... With that in mind, I figured support him and the team until I'm proven otherwise.

Flash back to the hiring and firing. With all of the "big time" guys available what made Riley stand out? Was it his demeanor (the Anti-Bo)?

Was it his experience?

Was it the cost of hiring him?

His style of offense?

Ability to do more with less?

West coast recruits?

I'm asking as I really didn't see anything then they made me say "great hire". For full disclosure, I bought into the idea of more experience equaled another win or two. I believed the "more with less" and the scheming to the talent and abilities of the guys...

So what made him the guy? I really have no idea.

 
lo country said:
Serious question, I know that there are numerous threads on what he is/did do wrong, but I want to know what makes/made him the tight choice.

I'll admit I wasn't a fan of the hire, I had to google his name and then read some about him and was even less inthused. His record, scheme etc.... With that in mind, I figured support him and the team until I'm proven otherwise.

Flash back to the hiring and firing. With all of the "big time" guys available what made Riley stand out? Was it his demeanor (the Anti-Bo)?

Was it his experience?

Was it the cost of hiring him?

His style of offense?

Ability to do more with less?

West coast recruits?

I'm asking as I really didn't see anything then they made me say "great hire". For full disclosure, I bought into the idea of more experience equaled another win or two. I believed the "more with less" and the scheming to the talent and abilities of the guys...

So what made him the guy? I really have no idea.
Click to expand...
I don't think our A.D. understood Husker football when he hired Riley. Maybe he "gets it" now, but the damage has been done (Riley and staff should never have been hired)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lo country said:
Serious question, I know that there are numerous threads on what he is/did do wrong, but I want to know what makes/made him the tight choice.

I'll admit I wasn't a fan of the hire, I had to google his name and then read some about him and was even less inthused. His record, scheme etc.... With that in mind, I figured support him and the team until I'm proven otherwise.

Flash back to the hiring and firing. With all of the "big time" guys available what made Riley stand out? Was it his demeanor (the Anti-Bo)?

Was it his experience?

Was it the cost of hiring him?

His style of offense?

Ability to do more with less?

West coast recruits?

I'm asking as I really didn't see anything then they made me say "great hire". For full disclosure, I bought into the idea of more experience equaled another win or two. I believed the "more with less" and the scheming to the talent and abilities of the guys...

So what made him the guy? I really have no idea.
Click to expand...
I believe SE had his eye on Riley from a while back. I think he was an assistant or something at another school who tried to lure Riley away from OSU and failed. He probably had it in his mind that he would be a great hire if he ever had an AD position. Then again, why did he pick Golden instead of Riley? Or did he hire Golden?

 
DomiNUs said:
lo country said:
Serious question, I know that there are numerous threads on what he is/did do wrong, but I want to know what makes/made him the tight choice.

I'll admit I wasn't a fan of the hire, I had to google his name and then read some about him and was even less inthused. His record, scheme etc.... With that in mind, I figured support him and the team until I'm proven otherwise.

Flash back to the hiring and firing. With all of the "big time" guys available what made Riley stand out? Was it his demeanor (the Anti-Bo)?

Was it his experience?

Was it the cost of hiring him?

His style of offense?

Ability to do more with less?

West coast recruits?

I'm asking as I really didn't see anything then they made me say "great hire". For full disclosure, I bought into the idea of more experience equaled another win or two. I believed the "more with less" and the scheming to the talent and abilities of the guys...

So what made him the guy? I really have no idea.
Click to expand...
I believe SE had his eye on Riley from a while back. I think he was an assistant or something at another school who tried to lure Riley away from OSU and failed. He probably had it in his mind that he would be a great hire if he ever had an AD position. Then again, why did he pick Golden instead of Riley? Or did he hire Golden?
Click to expand...
He didn't hire Golden at Miami. I think you are right about having his eye on Riley since his days at South Carolina.

The hire met his criteria, he wanted an older coach, similar to the hire he made for Miami's basketball program in Jim Larranaga.

 
Simply put, Riley was hired because he was the exact opposite of Bo. He was experienced, older, well-spoken, and a NICE guy. He also wouldn't require a large paycheck, which had to help.

 
Here's an answer in riddle format:

Riley has a picture of Pederhorst. Riley has a picture of some farm animals. Riley only has one picture.

How does Riley get hired?

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Simply put, Riley was hired because he was the exact opposite of Bo. He was experienced, older, well-spoken, and a NICE guy. He also wouldn't require a large paycheck, which had to help.
Click to expand...
This.

And all the things he did at Oregon State with "lesser" talent and resources. The big excitement was to see what he could do with more resources at Nebraska and with top level talent.

He's so far 2-3. He is truly the exact opposite of Pelini. Pelini with no experience managed to get at least 9 wins every year.

Now that Riley is failing miserably, the answer is he needs the 3-4 years to get his recruits and his system in place.

Well, with Riley's age and his experience I would have had to imagine this hire was intended for Nebraska to start winning immediately.

 
I'm sure Eichorst hated having to work with Bo his last couple of years at NU, maybe that's why he avoided Bo so much. That's just a guess.

With Riley, I think Eichorst was getting a man who would be easy to work with, would be a good representative of the University, and would do good enough winning games at NU. I think Eichorst was hoping Riley would bring some stability at NU for 4-6 years before Riley retires.

Of course, when Riley doesn't win games, it all blows up in Eichorst's face.

 
He was hired because he's the exact polar opposite of Bo Pelini, and Eichorst wanted someone who would represent the university and the state well. Unfortunately, coaching acumen was apparently not high on the list of necessary qualifications.

#RICHT2016

 
aUyEn.jpg


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top