What is this year about?

[Saunders]

Initial lack of success means nothing.

No but it's a much more accurate predictor of future success than initial struggles. Off of this years top 10 in the coaches poll, each of these coaches improved on the previous years record.

1. OSU - Urban Meyer

2. TCU - Gary Patterson

3. Bama - Nick Saban• (Sanctions removed wins)

4. Baylor - Art Briles

5. Oregon - Mark Helfrich

6. MSU - Mark Dantonio

7. Auburn - Guz Malzahn

8. FSU - Jimbo Fisher

9. Georgia - Mark Richt

10. USC - Steve Sarkisian

7 out of 10 had better records than their predecessor, 1 was a tie (Rich) and Helfrich and Sark each had 1 less win. While year one success isn't the be all, end all, it's a pretty good indicator.

 

[Enhance]

What people are saying (myself included), is that we need more than just "looking better" in year one. We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

That's flawed and unfair logic for a first year head coach, imo. Riley was brought in to do more than just win - he was brought in to change the culture and feeling around the program, too. Winning is what he'll ultimately be judged by, but there are a lot of things the program needs fixed outside of just winning more games. knapplc put it pretty well, but, I'll reiterate - getting rid of the embarrassments on national T.V. (both on the sidelines and on the field), better developing players and for once being able to out-coach an opponent would be a refreshing change of pace, even if we only have 9 wins again.

Urban Meyer could've won 8 games his first year at tOSU and I don't think a lot of people would've batted an eye - people understand. You're bringing in a new culture, new coaching, new schemes, new knowledge... it's a hell of a lot of changes. VERY rarely do new coaches come in and just blow the doors off the program, and even then, that's no guarantee of future success. Hoke's tenure at Michigan proves that.

 

[knapplc]

Initial lack of success means nothing.

No but it's a much more accurate predictor of future success than initial struggles. Off of this years top 10 in the coaches poll, each of these coaches improved on the previous years record.
1. OSU - Urban Meyer

2. TCU - Gary Patterson

3. Bama - Nick Saban• (Sanctions removed wins)

4. Baylor - Art Briles

5. Oregon - Mark Helfrich

6. MSU - Mark Dantonio

7. Auburn - Guz Malzahn

8. FSU - Jimbo Fisher

9. Georgia - Mark Richt

10. USC - Steve Sarkisian

7 out of 10 had better records than their predecessor, 1 was a tie (Rich) and Helfrich and Sark each had 1 less win. While year one success isn't the be all, end all, it's a pretty good indicator.

That's an erroneous conclusion based on a sample of teams that are, by being in the top ten, successful. Try the same exercise with teams currently ranked in the bottom ten and see how their most-recent coaching changes went. I'm guessing the picture won't look so rosy.

 

[Saunders]

What people are saying (myself included), is that we need more than just "looking better" in year one. We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

That's flawed and unfair logic for a first year head coach, imo. Riley was brought in to do more than just win - he was brought in to change the culture and feeling around the program, too. Winning is what he'll ultimately be judged by, but there are a lot of things the program needs fixed outside of just winning more games. knapplc put it pretty well, but, I'll reiterate - getting rid of the embarrassments on national T.V. (both on the sidelines and on the field), better developing players and for once being able to out-coach an opponent would be a refreshing change of pace, even if we only have 9 wins again.

Urban Meyer could've won 8 games his first year at tOSU and I don't think a lot of people would've batted an eye - people understand. You're bringing in a new culture, new coaching, new schemes, new knowledge... it's a hell of a lot of changes. VERY rarely do new coaches come in and just blow the doors off the program, and even then, that's no guarantee of future success. Hoke's tenure at Michigan proves that.

Right, but 8 wins would be an improvement over 6-7.

 

[Saunders]

Initial lack of success means nothing.

No but it's a much more accurate predictor of future success than initial struggles. Off of this years top 10 in the coaches poll, each of these coaches improved on the previous years record.
1. OSU - Urban Meyer

2. TCU - Gary Patterson

3. Bama - Nick Saban• (Sanctions removed wins)

4. Baylor - Art Briles

5. Oregon - Mark Helfrich

6. MSU - Mark Dantonio

7. Auburn - Guz Malzahn

8. FSU - Jimbo Fisher

9. Georgia - Mark Richt

10. USC - Steve Sarkisian

7 out of 10 had better records than their predecessor, 1 was a tie (Rich) and Helfrich and Sark each had 1 less win. While year one success isn't the be all, end all, it's a pretty good indicator.

That's an erroneous conclusion based on a sample of teams that are, by being in the top ten, successful. Try the same exercise with teams currently ranked in the bottom ten and see how their most-recent coaching changes went. I'm guessing the picture won't look so rosy.

I would think, we're closer to the top 10 than the bottom ten. Plus, isn't that what we're aiming for? Look at what the formula is for success, then try to replicate it?

We have resources that the bottom feeders do not, and even Bo out recruited our divisional peers by a fair margin. We have facilities, fan support, and more money than we need. Riley and the staff are showing that Bo's whining about recruiting wasn't as big of a deal as he made it out to be.

I can continue going through the top 25, and document it, but by looking over that list, very few coaches in the top 25 regressed in year one over their predecessor. Obviously, our threshold is higher than most of those teams, but it statistically, if the new guys match or exceed the win total, the chances of them being successful is greater.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What happens if we lose to BYU and Miami due to the team just not clicking right with the new staff from the start. But, by conference time, they start clicking, the better coaching is starting to kick in and we so undefeated in conference play beating Wisconsin and MSU to get to the CCG only to lose a close game to OSU and lose another very close game in a major bowl against a top 10 team. Is that the exact same type of year as marching through the non-con, getting blown out by Wisconsin and MSU, lose to Iowa and then lose a bowl game?

Both seasons end up with 4 losses. The first example I would feel much better about than the last example with the same number of losses.

Point is, there is just way too many variables to put in play to decide right now a win-loss record that is acceptable and what isn't acceptable.

 

[knapplc]

I would think, we're closer to the top 10 than the bottom ten. Plus, isn't that what we're aiming for? Look at what the formula is for success, then try to replicate it?

We have resources that the bottom feeders do not, and even Bo out recruited our divisional peers by a fair margin. We have facilities, fan support, and more money than we need. Riley and the staff are showing that Bo's whining about recruiting wasn't as big of a deal as he made it out to be.

I can continue going through the top 25, and document it, but by looking over that list, very few coaches in the top 25 regressed in year one over their predecessor. Obviously, our threshold is higher than most of those teams, but it statistically, if the new guys match or exceed the win total, the chances of them being successful is greater.

Yeah, I want to be in that company, too. But if we're asking ourselves how a coach's first year translates to future success, we can't only look at currently successful teams (ie: teams in the top 25 where we'd like to be). We'd have to go back five-ten years and look at all coaching changes, and see if initial success more often than not showed long-term success. My guess is the answer would be "no," simply because coaching by its very nature is a terminable job. More coaches get fired from a school than retire at that school, as we well know.

Brady Hoke is a good recent example of a coach whose first year was more successful than his predecessor's last year, but who ultimately failed. Bo Pelini is another (sadly).

My spiel here is "patience." I'm taking this season with a huge grain of salt, even if we have 11 wins. Riley has much to prove.

 

[Enhance]

What people are saying (myself included), is that we need more than just "looking better" in year one. We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

That's flawed and unfair logic for a first year head coach, imo. Riley was brought in to do more than just win - he was brought in to change the culture and feeling around the program, too. Winning is what he'll ultimately be judged by, but there are a lot of things the program needs fixed outside of just winning more games. knapplc put it pretty well, but, I'll reiterate - getting rid of the embarrassments on national T.V. (both on the sidelines and on the field), better developing players and for once being able to out-coach an opponent would be a refreshing change of pace, even if we only have 9 wins again.

Urban Meyer could've won 8 games his first year at tOSU and I don't think a lot of people would've batted an eye - people understand. You're bringing in a new culture, new coaching, new schemes, new knowledge... it's a hell of a lot of changes. VERY rarely do new coaches come in and just blow the doors off the program, and even then, that's no guarantee of future success. Hoke's tenure at Michigan proves that.

Right, but 8 wins would be an improvement over 6-7.

I'm just not sure I understand the persistent reliance on X number of wins for a first year head coaching taking over a team that's perennially flirted with being ranked/unranked in the last decade. Do I want to see us win more than 9 games and no less? Of course. Am I expecting it in year one? Absolutely not. Would I be happy if we won nine games and did the things I mentioned? Absolutely.

This isn't Ohio State, nor are we really a Top 10 program right now. If some fans' happiness is dependent upon winning more games this year I think they're going to be disappointed and are putting unfair pressure on a coach who has a lot of things to fix in the program outside of just wins and losses. For starters, I feel like he has already done a great job reconnecting the fan base to the team and vice versa. That in and of itself is a huge improvement for the program, and important to me in the same way a win is.

Will that matter as much three years from now? No, but three years from now is three years from now.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What people are saying (myself included), is that we need more than just "looking better" in year one. We need a tangible thing we can point to and say "see, we knocked of this top 10 team, or "we won 10 games in year one" kind of progress.

That's flawed and unfair logic for a first year head coach, imo. Riley was brought in to do more than just win - he was brought in to change the culture and feeling around the program, too. Winning is what he'll ultimately be judged by, but there are a lot of things the program needs fixed outside of just winning more games. knapplc put it pretty well, but, I'll reiterate - getting rid of the embarrassments on national T.V. (both on the sidelines and on the field), better developing players and for once being able to out-coach an opponent would be a refreshing change of pace, even if we only have 9 wins again.

Urban Meyer could've won 8 games his first year at tOSU and I don't think a lot of people would've batted an eye - people understand. You're bringing in a new culture, new coaching, new schemes, new knowledge... it's a hell of a lot of changes. VERY rarely do new coaches come in and just blow the doors off the program, and even then, that's no guarantee of future success. Hoke's tenure at Michigan proves that.

Right, but 8 wins would be an improvement over 6-7.

Do I want to see us win more than 9 games, and lose no less than 9? Of course.

Might want to rethink that

 

[QMany]

"I'm not going to lower our standards," Eichorst said. "I don't think Nebraskans want that."

"We have high standards and expectations, and that’s to play championship football. Whatever record puts us in position to win a championship, I’m good with.”

 

[knapplc]

"I'm not going to lower our standards," Eichorst said. "I don't think Nebraskans want that."

"We have high standards and expectations, and that’s to play championship football. Whatever record puts us in position to win a championship, I’m good with.”

"And our new coach is going to do it in his first year or there'll be hell to pay."

 

[QMany]

"And our new coach is going to do it in his first year or there'll be hell to pay."

I don't think anyone is saying that. I just refuse to lower my standards and expectations for Nebraska Football because it is Riley's first year. As mentioned in another thread:

I read that we should have vast improvements in the program, including:

• Better head coach.
• Ridding of culture/mentality problem that some feel we have.
• Better WR coach (read: not golf). Kenny Bell came back to work with him. Before one game, saying we need to open the checkbook.
• No more Coach Kaz.
• "Aggressive/attacking" defense.
• More coaching experience across the board.
• QB Whisperer.
• No more Tim Beck or getting Beck'd.
• Dedicated special teams coach.
• Recruiting "effort."
• Less WR option routes = less confusion.
• Better "player development."
• Better strength and conditioning program.
• All of our tough conference games are at home, not away like last year.

Did I miss anything?

On the other hand:

• We lost Ameer and Randy (who allegedly took plays off).
• We have to play BYU (home). They are experienced and good.
• We have to play Miami away, while they lost more talent to the NFL than we did. Zero players on ACC preseason team.

If all of the above is true, I think we should win more than nine games.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I am a bit shocked with the moral victory stuff...

It's not just a moral victory to play competitively and not get embarrassed. That is a very real, tangible, good thing. It is just as important, if not moreso, than hanging a W on some nobody.

I feel sorry for anybody who can't grasp this. If that W is the ultimate thing, why even watch the games? You can get all you need by checking the scores Saturday night.

Ahhhhh, I get your point now. You mean it more from an "entertainment" point of view, yes, I agree with that. Close games (either way, win or loss) are usually more entertaining.

But, I feel sorry for any fan of a team that doesn't think the W is the ultimate thing. That is why they keep score.

Again, the Holiday Bowl is the perfect example.

The Nebraska football program is in chaos. Players mourning the loss of Pelini. The fans' least favorite Husker coach -- Barney Cotton -- taking the helm, and the team has four weeks to prepare for USC, one of the most physically talented teams in the nation. For a notoriously fragile Husker team and their vilified OC it's a recipe for another nationally televised disaster.

But the team comes out focused, prepared and creative. The offense runs thirty (30!) more plays than their season average in a crisp, no-huddle offense we we told they weren't capable of. Tommy Armstrong has his best passing game, there's a sharp decline in turnovers and penalties, and a notable increase in emotion and enjoyment on the Nebraska sideline. Not only was it an entertaining game, it could easily have been a win. The defense just wasn't there yet.

It went on the record as an L, but it felt a lot different than the other Ls. I was proud of the team.

Sure, a W would always be better than a L.

Or would it?

McNeese State still shows up as a W.

Southern Cal still shows up as an L.

But I like the team from the Holiday Bowl better.

 

[Joe_5700]

If we go 9 and 4, have 3 close losses, and get blown out in 1 game, then what?

If our head coach doesn't embarrass us on live national TV, our players play hard through the blowout loss and don't look like they've given up, if the coaches keep battling and striving to make adjustments and don't look totally lost, even that scenario will be an improvement over last year.

100% agree. Our image needs to be repaired first and foremost. Many of these coaches have not worked together before as well as all of the players being new to them. It could be ugly in year one or we could have a surprisingly quick adjustment. Who knows. (Lets all) Be patient and get behind the coaches/players for what is sure to be a fun season.

 

[NebraskaShellback]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde