Temp check: 7-5

[Redux]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

I don't think anyone on this board would call 2015 a success.

Lets be honest here. Mike Riley isn't the guy most of us, hell probably all of us, wanted or expected. But he is who we got and in year 1, we lost a lot of games. Games we easily could have won and should have won.

Had we won 4 of those 5 we should have won, I probably wouldn't use the words transition or rebuild. But we went 6-7, so that's what it is.

It's not an excuse, it's the definition of what we got. We need to win this year.

 

[wanderful]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

None, because only Nebraska (x2) and Georgia (Richt) have fired 9 win coaches for anything that wasn't scandal related.

Wouldn't you say the "new coaches did better than their predecessor 75% of the time" is a bit of a specious argument then, if none of the other teams had fired a coach after a 9 win season? Of course most new coaches are going to do better than their predecessor if their predecessor was fired for going 0-1 or 1-10.

Let's stop calling it a rebuild and go back to calling it a transition. A rebuild takes 5 years, but a transition takes 1-2 at most. And that's what this should take, given our players and our division. I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the 2015 season, and put 100% of my faith behind Riley for 2016. But let's be honest, if we're in this same place next year, Riley's likely going to be gone after year 3.

But again let's call it a transition ( and not have the playground argument, "But EICHORST said REBUILD!?!?!" Eichorst calling it a rebuild was spin in response to a poor season. Any person in a position of power has to spin now and then, and if you disagree, I'd suggest you've never had any real power.) It's been a transition and many of the problems with last season can reasonably be attributed to the transition learning curve. Like any time a new boss shows up at your work, there is a learning curve -- both for the players and the coaches. At the very least, the players had to learn the new language and the coaches had to learn the players' tendencies so they could put them in the best position for victory, etc.

Now, if we're still talking about these same problems next year, then there's a legitimate beef with the coaches, as that would mean they're not learning from their mistakes. But in the mean time, let's just hope the problems from last season will fade away as we exit the transition period.

Because we were some fine-tuning (fewer interceptions, less bad late-game management) away from having a 10 win season, after all. Let's root for them to fix those problems this year, instead of rooting for them to spontaneously combust, which is what it seems like many of you are doing.

 

[Mavric]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

 

[Saunders]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

None, because only Nebraska (x2) and Georgia (Richt) have fired 9 win coaches for anything that wasn't scandal related.

Wouldn't you say the "new coaches did better than their predecessor 75% of the time" is a bit of a specious argument then, if none of the other teams had fired a coach after a 9 win season? Of course most new coaches are going to do better than their predecessor if their predecessor was fired for going 0-1 or 1-10.

Let's stop calling it a rebuild and go back to calling it a transition. A rebuild takes 5 years, but a transition takes 1-2 at most. And that's what this should take, given our players and our division. I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the 2015 season, and put 100% of my faith behind Riley for 2016. But let's be honest, if we're in this same place next year, Riley's likely going to be gone after year 3.

But again let's call it a transition ( and not have the playground argument, "But EICHORST said REBUILD!?!?!" Eichorst calling it a rebuild was spin in response to a poor season. Any person in a position of power has to spin now and then, and if you disagree, I'd suggest you've never had any real power.) It's been a transition and many of the problems with last season can reasonably be attributed to the transition learning curve. Like any time a new boss shows up at your work, there is a learning curve -- both for the players and the coaches. At the very least, the players had to learn the new language and the coaches had to learn the players' tendencies so they could put them in the best position for victory, etc.

Now, if we're still talking about these same problems next year, then there's a legitimate beef with the coaches, as that would mean they're not learning from their mistakes. But in the mean time, let's just hope the problems from last season will fade away as we exit the transition period.

Because we were some fine-tuning (fewer interceptions, less bad late-game management) away from having a 10 win season, after all. Let's root for them to fix those problems this year, instead of rooting for them to spontaneously combust, which is what it seems like many of you are doing.

In no way am I doing that. I'm willing to chalk last year up to "transition" as I stated before.

It takes time to build a program from scratch, but that's not what we're doing here.

This year they need to produce.

 

[wanderful]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

None, because only Nebraska (x2) and Georgia (Richt) have fired 9 win coaches for anything that wasn't scandal related.

Wouldn't you say the "new coaches did better than their predecessor 75% of the time" is a bit of a specious argument then, if none of the other teams had fired a coach after a 9 win season? Of course most new coaches are going to do better than their predecessor if their predecessor was fired for going 0-1 or 1-10.

Let's stop calling it a rebuild and go back to calling it a transition. A rebuild takes 5 years, but a transition takes 1-2 at most. And that's what this should take, given our players and our division. I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the 2015 season, and put 100% of my faith behind Riley for 2016. But let's be honest, if we're in this same place next year, Riley's likely going to be gone after year 3.

But again let's call it a transition ( and not have the playground argument, "But EICHORST said REBUILD!?!?!" Eichorst calling it a rebuild was spin in response to a poor season. Any person in a position of power has to spin now and then, and if you disagree, I'd suggest you've never had any real power.) It's been a transition and many of the problems with last season can reasonably be attributed to the transition learning curve. Like any time a new boss shows up at your work, there is a learning curve -- both for the players and the coaches. At the very least, the players had to learn the new language and the coaches had to learn the players' tendencies so they could put them in the best position for victory, etc.

Now, if we're still talking about these same problems next year, then there's a legitimate beef with the coaches, as that would mean they're not learning from their mistakes. But in the mean time, let's just hope the problems from last season will fade away as we exit the transition period.

Because we were some fine-tuning (fewer interceptions, less bad late-game management) away from having a 10 win season, after all. Let's root for them to fix those problems this year, instead of rooting for them to spontaneously combust, which is what it seems like many of you are doing.

In no way am I doing that. I'm willing to chalk last year up to "transition" as I stated before.

It takes time to build a program from scratch, but that's not what we're doing here.

This year they need to produce.

I didn't mean you specifically -- I think you've done a pretty good job at being rational and fair with your critiques.

And you're right that this year they need to produce.

 

[NUinID]

Man this has turned into the biggest stupidest pissing match in a long time.

It's nothing of the sort.

It's obviously been so long since you've seen people speak honestly that you don't know what it is when you see it.

In fact I will go even further. This particular thread is in every way a sea change... a revolution... in Nebraska football fan discussion.

I am a long time... very long time... Nebraska football fan. I remember the days of listening to the games on the radio... and watching games on tv with a house full of friends and fellow Nebraska fans. The type of discussion happening on this thread is exactly the type of discussions we had for years... decades... in our home. Honesty... everyone allowed to speak their mind... no censorship... ever.

Thank you Huskerboard.com. This honest... real fan... type of discussion has been absent for way too long. Unfortunately it's not happening anywhere else. Fortunately for us, it's happening here.

It's like we can breathe again.

Whatever you think. The whole second page was about whether SE said, inferred, or didn't say Nebraska was rebuilding/ transistioning or what ever. It has finially turned back to a good discusssion. Please don't ever question how big a fan I am.

 

[Saunders]

I did the numbers last year before the season, and of the coaches finishing in the top 25 in 2014, 75% of them finished with a better record than their predecessor in year one.

How many of their predecessors had 9 wins? That's a huge qualifier that puts us in pretty uncharted waters as far as comparison goes.

None, because only Nebraska (x2) and Georgia (Richt) have fired 9 win coaches for anything that wasn't scandal related.

Wouldn't you say the "new coaches did better than their predecessor 75% of the time" is a bit of a specious argument then, if none of the other teams had fired a coach after a 9 win season? Of course most new coaches are going to do better than their predecessor if their predecessor was fired for going 0-1 or 1-10.

Let's stop calling it a rebuild and go back to calling it a transition. A rebuild takes 5 years, but a transition takes 1-2 at most. And that's what this should take, given our players and our division. I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the 2015 season, and put 100% of my faith behind Riley for 2016. But let's be honest, if we're in this same place next year, Riley's likely going to be gone after year 3.

But again let's call it a transition ( and not have the playground argument, "But EICHORST said REBUILD!?!?!" Eichorst calling it a rebuild was spin in response to a poor season. Any person in a position of power has to spin now and then, and if you disagree, I'd suggest you've never had any real power.) It's been a transition and many of the problems with last season can reasonably be attributed to the transition learning curve. Like any time a new boss shows up at your work, there is a learning curve -- both for the players and the coaches. At the very least, the players had to learn the new language and the coaches had to learn the players' tendencies so they could put them in the best position for victory, etc.

Now, if we're still talking about these same problems next year, then there's a legitimate beef with the coaches, as that would mean they're not learning from their mistakes. But in the mean time, let's just hope the problems from last season will fade away as we exit the transition period.

Because we were some fine-tuning (fewer interceptions, less bad late-game management) away from having a 10 win season, after all. Let's root for them to fix those problems this year, instead of rooting for them to spontaneously combust, which is what it seems like many of you are doing.

In no way am I doing that. I'm willing to chalk last year up to "transition" as I stated before.

It takes time to build a program from scratch, but that's not what we're doing here.

This year they need to produce.

I didn't mean you specifically -- I think you've done a pretty good job at being rational and fair with your critiques.

And you're right that this year they need to produce.

Ah, ok!

 

[Elf]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

Anyone with more than 2 or 3 working brain cells knew these coaches were going to install a completely different system on at least the offensive side of the ball and that almost always includes a learning curve, aka, a transition period. Sadly, most fans just want to sit there chugging Budweiser and slamming chicken wings while they b!^@h about the teams misfortunes.

 

[Saunders]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

Anyone with more than 2 or 3 working brain cells knew these coaches were going to install a completely different system on at least the offensive side of the ball and that almost always includes a learning curve, aka, a transition period. Sadly, most fans just want to sit there chugging Budweiser and slamming chicken wings while they b!^@h about the teams misfortunes.

Then it's the coaches fault for doing it wrong.

 

[cm husker]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

Anyone with more than 2 or 3 working brain cells knew these coaches were going to install a completely different system on at least the offensive side of the ball and that almost always includes a learning curve, aka, a transition period. Sadly, most fans just want to sit there chugging Budweiser and slamming chicken wings while they b!^@h about the teams misfortunes.

Your ad hominem attacks aside, great coaches don't typically require "transition" seasons, and certainly don't produce a losing season (and a 50% reduction in production from a previous 7 year average) during a first year.

There's nothing about being upset with the disaster that was 2015 that indicates that the upset person has less than 3 working brain cells, chugs too many budweisers or gobbles too many chicken wings.

 

[teachercd]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

Anyone with more than 2 or 3 working brain cells knew these coaches were going to install a completely different system on at least the offensive side of the ball and that almost always includes a learning curve, aka, a transition period. Sadly, most fans just want to sit there chugging Budweiser and slamming chicken wings while they b!^@h about the teams misfortunes.

Then it's the coaches fault for doing it wrong.

I guess if you really think about it...it was not a transition for Riley. 6 wins is about his norm. ZING

 

[Elf]

But I would contend that the vast majority wouldn't have classified this as a "rebuild" project 18 months ago. We were solid but not spectacular with the coaches being the weakest part. Better coaching was expected to reduce/eliminate the embarrasing losses and push us to the next level - winning a conference title. Better coaching combined with better recruiting would get us back in the national title hunt.

Not in one season.

Nobody expected 5-7, but I don't think many of us expected to win a conference title in year one either. If you've got a decent house built on a cracked foundation, when you start working on the foundation the house doesn't get immediately better.

I didn't say we would see a conference championship in season one. I said new coaches were expected to push us to the next level, not start all over.

I thought 10 wins last year was pretty realistic given our schedule but I thought we'd lose an extra one due to QB play. If we beat four out of five of BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Purdue - all teams we easily could have beaten - that would have been 9 wins with Iowa being the extra game we dropped due to poor QB play. So I think it would have been pretty easy to get the same W-L results we had been getting in season one and then improve from there. Even an 8 win season would have been understandable given all the changes.

But 6-7 really can't be seen any other way that significantly under-achieving.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. New coaches were expected to push us to the level, and they still are. However, "push us to the next level" and "start all over" are not mutually exclusive statements. There is no dichotomy here.

Again, that's the semantics of the whole argument. I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive. But I think most would have said we only needed the former, not the latter.

Anyone with more than 2 or 3 working brain cells knew these coaches were going to install a completely different system on at least the offensive side of the ball and that almost always includes a learning curve, aka, a transition period. Sadly, most fans just want to sit there chugging Budweiser and slamming chicken wings while they b!^@h about the teams misfortunes.

Then it's the coaches fault for doing it wrong.

[sarcasm]Sure thing, since we ALWAYS have to lay blame somewhere.[/sarcasm]

Why does the narrative have to be that someone is at fault? Why is it unreasonable to see the narrative as simply a process that must be gone through? I will agree that some transitions go very smoothly and are barely noticeable by us fans. Others are more difficult and cause much consternation.

We'll never know all the factors that caused this transition to be more difficult than anticipated but to lay it all at the coaches feet is simplistic at best. I'm not saying they didn't make mistakes (show me a coach who doesn't make mistakes and his name is probably Jesus Christ) because they did and a couple of them were pretty egregious clock management errors. The players also made mistakes but that is all part of the learning curve and not everyone learns at the same pace.

 

[cm husker]

Blame?

Some would call it responsibility.

These coaches have a responsibility to max out the experience for their student athletes, and they failed.

I don't think anyone questions there would be growing pains. It's one of the reasons I believe coaching changes shouldn't be made unless there's clear consensus that they must be made.

But 5-7 regular season is well beyond growing pains. And responsibility should be taken for that.

A second season of similar results would be disasterous for the program, but I don't see that happening against this schedule and with our roster.

 

[wanderful]

Blame?

Some would call it responsibility.

These coaches have a responsibility to max out the experience for their student athletes, and they failed.

I don't think anyone questions there would be growing pains. It's one of the reasons I believe coaching changes shouldn't be made unless there's clear consensus that they must be made.

But 5-7 regular season is well beyond growing pains. And responsibility should be taken for that.

A second season of similar results would be disasterous for the program, but I don't see that happening against this schedule and with our roster.

You're acting like they haven't taken responsibility for it -- 2016 is where they demonstrate whether they've taken responsibility for it or not. It's not like they can go winning games in June to convince you that they've got things under control.

I don't understand why you say in one breath that they're not taking responsibility for it and that they've failed, while in the next breath you say you don't think 2016 will be as bad as 2015.

 

[cm husker]

I never said that the coaches haven't taken responsibility for 2015.

It's actually a certain segment of fans that can't seem to come to grips with the coaches' failure.

But to your last sentence, although it's not what I said, why would it be unreasonable to say that they failed to take responsibility in 2015, but I don't expect them to similarly fail in 2016?