Would Riley Have Survived Past Season One If He Started 0-6?

LaunchCode said:
That's about as insightful as saying SF has had six full games to show what he can do and .000 is it.

When you consider a new coaches first full class of recruits for his system usually comes a season after he's hired, it isn't until year 3 his first full class is even in the system and they are only freshman with a mix of his and previous coaches guys from the previous class being sophs or redshirt frosh.  Teams don't win many games with underclassman.
Click to expand...


The bolded... :facepalm:  

The rest: Mike Riley had three seasons.  In season two he managed a 9-4 mark.  If he would have maintained 9-4 or even 7-5, in year three, he would have been given a 4th year.  Instead he tanked to 4-8 and was canned.  Bottom line: he had plenty of time and failed.

No idea why you're so vigorously defending him.  He is a crappy, sub-standard coach who literally doesn't care if he loses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
And yet there you were, trying to compare two coaches who have nothing anywhere close to those similarities.  

Admitting your agenda is the first step.
Click to expand...
My agenda was simple, point out how easy it is to paint a misleading picture with stats when context is ignored.  I pointed that out clearly(I thought) in the second and third sentence.  Guess it didn't come across that way.  

LaunchCode said:
SF is 2-7 all time vs Power 5 opponents .222.  MR's win percentage actually improves vs Power 5 only. 

In both cases there's a lot more context to consider.  Judging either purely by win % absent context appears to be more agenda driven than actual insight. 
Click to expand...

 
Nebfanatic said:
Its also one thing to start 0-6 after an abysmal 4-8 season the year before. But when the last coach got canned after a 9 win season 0-6 would have felt much, much different.
Click to expand...




Yeah they're certainly different things, but let's be honest about how both are really bad and poor.

 
Landlord said:
Yeah they're certainly different things, but let's be honest about how both are really bad and poor.
Click to expand...
Both are terrible but the fact of the matter is we are reacting pretty mildly to Frost going 0-6. If this happened back in 2015 with Riley the mood would not be even close to as optimistic. There are alot of reasons for this and not all of them are justified, but it is the reality.

 
Nebfanatic said:
Both are terrible but the fact of the matter is we are reacting pretty mildly to Frost going 0-6. If this happened back in 2015 with Riley the mood would not be even close to as optimistic. There are alot of reasons for this and not all of them are justified, but it is the reality.
Click to expand...




Agreed. And the mild reaction is probably disproportionate, the way that the meltdown reaction in 2015 was also maybe disproportionate? idk man, sports fans aren't really rational in general (me included). We can find ways to feel good or feel bad about pretty much anything we want to :P

 
ScottyIce said:
Absolutely.

However, if he started last year 0-6, he wouldve been fired immediately rather than getting to finish the season.





 
Click to expand...
anyone who says "super random", loses all credibility with me

 
Nebfanatic said:
Both are terrible but the fact of the matter is we are reacting pretty mildly to Frost going 0-6. If this happened back in 2015 with Riley the mood would not be even close to as optimistic. There are alot of reasons for this and not all of them are justified, but it is the reality.
Click to expand...


I agree and there are some on here who would have been all over Riley and his staff and are reluctant to criticize Frost as a coach as a result of their experience with Frost as a player.  I think as fans we just need to be consistent in how we praise or criticize the coaching staffs.

 
The Dude said:
  

Or if this happened this year with any other realistic coaching candidate.
Click to expand...




What if that coach had gone undefeated the year before?

I think more people would be upset than with Frost, but I think there'd still be those who were willing to give the coach a chance.

 
HuskerNation1 said:
I agree and there are some on here who would have been all over Riley and his staff and are reluctant to criticize Frost as a coach as a result of their experience with Frost as a player.  I think as fans we just need to be consistent in how we praise or criticize the coaching staffs.
Click to expand...
I somewhat agree but I error on the side of giving Frost a longer leash than Riley based off of track record. I myself wasn't too hard on Riley anyway so I've been pretty consistent at least :P

 
Nebfanatic said:
Both are terrible but the fact of the matter is we are reacting pretty mildly to Frost going 0-6. If this happened back in 2015 with Riley the mood would not be even close to as optimistic. There are alot of reasons for this and not all of them are justified, but it is the reality.
Click to expand...


If this 0-6 had happened in 2015 the mood wouldn't be nearly as optimistic because Mike Riley was (and still is) a terrible, crappy, football coach who has no idea what it takes to win, let alone be a champion.  His lifetime .500 +/- record demstrates his inadequacies.

Here is the reality:

1. Scott Frost is a conference and national championship winning QB during his playing days here.

2. He played 7 years in the league.

3. While in the NFL he was coached and learned from: Bill Belichek, Jon Gruden, Mike Tomlin, and others.  Not to memtion being coached in college by Bill Walsh and Tom Osborne.

4. Frost took over for an 0-12 team and in two years they were 13-0.

Mike Riley NEVER had success even remotely close to that as a sub-par backup player or in 40 years of coaching. That is why Coach Frost is being given far greater latitude than Mike Riley--he's earned it.

 
For those saying Frost is getting more latitude simply because of history I do think that's true to an extent. However, I think there's more of a realization among the fan base and boosters that you can't fire a guy every year and get anywhere. So, yes Riley would have taken more grief for this start than Frost has, but whoever this coach was I think was going to get some leeway to make it work. Frost just gets the most because of his history. 

 
I think the question being asked is using the wrong coaches.  Clownahan's final season was really similar to Riley's final season.  Therefore, the question should have been would Bo have survived past season one if he started 0-6?  The answer would be yes. 

 
Riley yes. Nothing short of a scandal sees him not get a full season with his own QB at the helm.

Eichorst on the otherhand, very likely would have been fired within a few weeks.

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