Riley Supporters Are Wrong

[GBRedneck]

Truth, but it might sting:

Swallow the pride, admit you were wrong, open the checkbook and go get your coach. Florida did it. Michigan did it. Ohio State did it. Notre Dame did it.

It’s time Nebraska does it, and it’s time you dropped the exhausting charade that is throwing every fiber of your being behind a losing football coach in the name of not having to admit that you are wrong.

I don't necessarily agree that you have to open the checkbook and buy the biggest, hottest name. But you need to do better than Sub500. A lot better.

 

[GBRedneck]

He got blown out in some games

Some games include: 52-17 against Missouri, 62-28 against Oklahoma, 31-10 against Texas Tech, (let's not forget 9-7 against Iowa State), 48-17 against Wisconsin, 45-17 against Michigan, 30-13 against South Carolina, 63-38 against Ohio State, 70-31 against Wisconsin (again), 41-21 against UCLA (after being up 21-0), 38-17 against Iowa, and 59-24 against Wisconsin (again).

The way the author put that is to discount those blowouts like there weren't that many, which is completely false. 11 blowouts in 7 years, that's a little over 1.5 a year, I don't think you'll find another Power 5 program who got blown out more during that time frame. Winning doesn't erase that.

Furthermore, perhaps Bo was right for outting the fans, and perhaps he's right about the administration (who knows?). But being right isn't always good (i.e., people who doubted the Mike Riley hire), and there was no person more responsible for creating a divide between fans and team than Bo and a few coaches on his coaching staff.

It's funny that if you look at Bo's years at Nebraska, from a qualitative perspective, 2010--Bo's 3rd year--was his best year at Nebraska, that 3rd year that I've been saying is so pivotal for figuring out what kind of coach you have. Mike Riley's went 5-6 in his 3rd year at Oregon State, which isn't a good sign of what he might do here (and has been documented and accepted as a legitimate criticism of the hire), and it's no surprise that his overall record at Oregon State hovered around that win percentage. It's also been documented and accepted that Nebraska is a little more advantageous place than Oregon State and perhaps Mike Riley will be able to do here what he couldn't do at OSU.

It's going to take patience, so if you have none, it might be more advantageous for you to spend time fishing rather than on the board.

Still in the denial phase. Only four more to go!

 

[GBRedneck]

I'll pass on entertaining drivel from a guy who thought what Bo did was appropriate.

Did he really say it was "appropriate"? He just said Bo was correct. If I tell a fat ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, I would be correct but not appropriate

And if you tell a fat, ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, you're going to have to pay for the consequences of your actions.

Agreed. That's a deadhorse and it's over. You can lay down the bullhorn. Bo ain't coming back.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

He got blown out in some games

Some games include: 52-17 against Missouri, 62-28 against Oklahoma, 31-10 against Texas Tech, (let's not forget 9-7 against Iowa State), 48-17 against Wisconsin, 45-17 against Michigan, 30-13 against South Carolina, 63-38 against Ohio State, 70-31 against Wisconsin (again), 41-21 against UCLA (after being up 21-0), 38-17 against Iowa, and 59-24 against Wisconsin (again).

The way the author put that is to discount those blowouts like there weren't that many, which is completely false. 11 blowouts in 7 years, that's a little over 1.5 a year, I don't think you'll find another Power 5 program who got blown out more during that time frame. Winning doesn't erase that.

Furthermore, perhaps Bo was right for outting the fans, and perhaps he's right about the administration (who knows?). But being right isn't always good (i.e., people who doubted the Mike Riley hire), and there was no person more responsible for creating a divide between fans and team than Bo and a few coaches on his coaching staff.

It's funny that if you look at Bo's years at Nebraska, from a qualitative perspective, 2010--Bo's 3rd year--was his best year at Nebraska, that 3rd year that I've been saying is so pivotal for figuring out what kind of coach you have. Mike Riley's went 5-6 in his 3rd year at Oregon State, which isn't a good sign of what he might do here (and has been documented and accepted as a legitimate criticism of the hire), and it's no surprise that his overall record at Oregon State hovered around that win percentage. It's also been documented and accepted that Nebraska is a little more advantageous place than Oregon State and perhaps Mike Riley will be able to do here what he couldn't do at OSU.

It's going to take patience, so if you have none, it might be more advantageous for you to spend time fishing rather than on the board.

Still in the denial phase. Only four more to go!

Point out what I'm denying.

 

[zoogs]

It's disappointing that a confrontational "You're Wrong" article targeted at anybody that wants to see a body of work of at least a few years, has become a rallying cry for some.

Ah, to each their own.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'll pass on entertaining drivel from a guy who thought what Bo did was appropriate.

Did he really say it was "appropriate"? He just said Bo was correct. If I tell a fat ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, I would be correct but not appropriate

And if you tell a fat, ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, you're going to have to pay for the consequences of your actions.

Agreed. That's a deadhorse and it's over. You can lay down the bullhorn. Bo ain't coming back.

We'll stop mentioning Bo when Bo stops getting brought up.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I get that he's telling the truth on a lot of stuff, but Bo had a habit of losing the games that mattered the most. Right when we were ready to take that next step, he'd lose and lose big! I don't like that he had to be fired, but I see why he was. Bo wasn't going to work in the long run and Mike Riley may not work either. So how do we fix that from here?

 

[GBRedneck]

He got blown out in some games

Some games include: 52-17 against Missouri, 62-28 against Oklahoma, 31-10 against Texas Tech, (let's not forget 9-7 against Iowa State), 48-17 against Wisconsin, 45-17 against Michigan, 30-13 against South Carolina, 63-38 against Ohio State, 70-31 against Wisconsin (again), 41-21 against UCLA (after being up 21-0), 38-17 against Iowa, and 59-24 against Wisconsin (again).

The way the author put that is to discount those blowouts like there weren't that many, which is completely false. 11 blowouts in 7 years, that's a little over 1.5 a year, I don't think you'll find another Power 5 program who got blown out more during that time frame. Winning doesn't erase that.

Furthermore, perhaps Bo was right for outting the fans, and perhaps he's right about the administration (who knows?). But being right isn't always good (i.e., people who doubted the Mike Riley hire), and there was no person more responsible for creating a divide between fans and team than Bo and a few coaches on his coaching staff.

It's funny that if you look at Bo's years at Nebraska, from a qualitative perspective, 2010--Bo's 3rd year--was his best year at Nebraska, that 3rd year that I've been saying is so pivotal for figuring out what kind of coach you have. Mike Riley's went 5-6 in his 3rd year at Oregon State, which isn't a good sign of what he might do here (and has been documented and accepted as a legitimate criticism of the hire), and it's no surprise that his overall record at Oregon State hovered around that win percentage. It's also been documented and accepted that Nebraska is a little more advantageous place than Oregon State and perhaps Mike Riley will be able to do here what he couldn't do at OSU.

It's going to take patience, so if you have none, it might be more advantageous for you to spend time fishing rather than on the board.

Still in the denial phase. Only four more to go!

Point out what I'm denying.

The entire point of the article. (Hint: It wasn't about Bo.)

 

[GBRedneck]

I'll pass on entertaining drivel from a guy who thought what Bo did was appropriate.

Did he really say it was "appropriate"? He just said Bo was correct. If I tell a fat ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, I would be correct but not appropriate

And if you tell a fat, ugly girl that she's fat and ugly, you're going to have to pay for the consequences of your actions.

Agreed. That's a deadhorse and it's over. You can lay down the bullhorn. Bo ain't coming back.

We'll stop mentioning Bo when Bo stops getting brought up.

Nobody here brought up Bo before you did. The article mentioned him in passing, but it wasn't the point of the article.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

He got blown out in some games

Some games include: 52-17 against Missouri, 62-28 against Oklahoma, 31-10 against Texas Tech, (let's not forget 9-7 against Iowa State), 48-17 against Wisconsin, 45-17 against Michigan, 30-13 against South Carolina, 63-38 against Ohio State, 70-31 against Wisconsin (again), 41-21 against UCLA (after being up 21-0), 38-17 against Iowa, and 59-24 against Wisconsin (again).

The way the author put that is to discount those blowouts like there weren't that many, which is completely false. 11 blowouts in 7 years, that's a little over 1.5 a year, I don't think you'll find another Power 5 program who got blown out more during that time frame. Winning doesn't erase that.

Furthermore, perhaps Bo was right for outting the fans, and perhaps he's right about the administration (who knows?). But being right isn't always good (i.e., people who doubted the Mike Riley hire), and there was no person more responsible for creating a divide between fans and team than Bo and a few coaches on his coaching staff.

It's funny that if you look at Bo's years at Nebraska, from a qualitative perspective, 2010--Bo's 3rd year--was his best year at Nebraska, that 3rd year that I've been saying is so pivotal for figuring out what kind of coach you have. Mike Riley's went 5-6 in his 3rd year at Oregon State, which isn't a good sign of what he might do here (and has been documented and accepted as a legitimate criticism of the hire), and it's no surprise that his overall record at Oregon State hovered around that win percentage. It's also been documented and accepted that Nebraska is a little more advantageous place than Oregon State and perhaps Mike Riley will be able to do here what he couldn't do at OSU.

It's going to take patience, so if you have none, it might be more advantageous for you to spend time fishing rather than on the board.

Still in the denial phase. Only four more to go!

Point out what I'm denying.

The entire point of the article. (Hint: It wasn't about Bo.)

Except I'm not. I understand the point of the article is to say "Mike Riley sucks and we need to open up the checkbook and hire a proven commodity". I'm just disagreeing with it, as I am allowed to, and as you are allowed to disagree with me.

 

[GBRedneck]

He got blown out in some games

Some games include: 52-17 against Missouri, 62-28 against Oklahoma, 31-10 against Texas Tech, (let's not forget 9-7 against Iowa State), 48-17 against Wisconsin, 45-17 against Michigan, 30-13 against South Carolina, 63-38 against Ohio State, 70-31 against Wisconsin (again), 41-21 against UCLA (after being up 21-0), 38-17 against Iowa, and 59-24 against Wisconsin (again).

The way the author put that is to discount those blowouts like there weren't that many, which is completely false. 11 blowouts in 7 years, that's a little over 1.5 a year, I don't think you'll find another Power 5 program who got blown out more during that time frame. Winning doesn't erase that.

Furthermore, perhaps Bo was right for outting the fans, and perhaps he's right about the administration (who knows?). But being right isn't always good (i.e., people who doubted the Mike Riley hire), and there was no person more responsible for creating a divide between fans and team than Bo and a few coaches on his coaching staff.

It's funny that if you look at Bo's years at Nebraska, from a qualitative perspective, 2010--Bo's 3rd year--was his best year at Nebraska, that 3rd year that I've been saying is so pivotal for figuring out what kind of coach you have. Mike Riley's went 5-6 in his 3rd year at Oregon State, which isn't a good sign of what he might do here (and has been documented and accepted as a legitimate criticism of the hire), and it's no surprise that his overall record at Oregon State hovered around that win percentage. It's also been documented and accepted that Nebraska is a little more advantageous place than Oregon State and perhaps Mike Riley will be able to do here what he couldn't do at OSU.

It's going to take patience, so if you have none, it might be more advantageous for you to spend time fishing rather than on the board.

Still in the denial phase. Only four more to go!

Point out what I'm denying.

The entire point of the article. (Hint: It wasn't about Bo.)

Except I'm not. I understand the point of the article is to say "Mike Riley sucks and we need to open up the checkbook and hire a proven commodity". I'm just disagreeing with it, as I am allowed to, and as you are allowed to disagree with me.

It ain't a river in Egypt.

 

[Sargon]

Quite possibly the best article I've read on the subject. Ever.

The article is crap.

 

[Kruzu]

I, like many of you scratched my head at the hire and have all the same doubts. But this article is written in the style of an angry 16 yo "You were wrong Mom!"

Our program is hurting, has been for a long time and Mike Riley may or may not have any answers.

 

[GBRedneck]

Quite possibly the best article I've read on the subject. Ever.

The article is crap.

This is a good sign. You've advanced from Denial to Anger.

 

[zoogs]

Are you quite done trolling people with whom you disagree?