Giving a coach the boot after 3 'Riley-esque' seasons? yay or nay, depending on what?

Sparker said:
Riley's age and Scott Frost's success are the reasons for the short leash. If Riley was under ~55 years old and Frost's record was .500, Riley would has 1-3 more years depending on his records.

Why give him time to right the ship just so he can retire anyway?
Click to expand...
Good post. This is a good summary.

Riley could have been what might be called a "bridge hire." He really had that potential. The problem was bringing his average-to-bad staff with him. 

I still think our final record this season should technically dictate whether or not he is retained. But it probably won't. I would assume we've reached out to Frost in some way to put out a feeler for his interest in the job.

And I believe that if Frost reports back that he's interested, it's probably almost a done deal. If he's not interested, then Riley's record at the end of the regular season plays even heavier into whether or not he's retained. But let's say we lose by two scores to Penn State and go 7-5. That makes Riley's first three seasons' regular season records consist of:

-2015: 5-7

-2016: 9-3

-2017: 7-5

He'd have a 58% winning percentage, but he'd have failed to even just win his division. I just don't see any indication that he'll actually be competitive at winning this conference because he hasn't even been competitive at winning his own division.

 
TGHusker said:
So all of this begs these questions :dunno : 

1. HOW MANY YEARS WOULD YOU GIVE SCOTT TO TURN THE PROGRAM AROUND BEFORE WE DISCUSS HIS REPLACEMENT?

2. HOW DO YOU DEFINE: TURN THE PROGRAM AROUND - WHEN DO YOU CONSIDER IT 'TURNED'?

Me:

1.  I say we give Scott a 6 year contract - to show confidence & patience upfront & that we believe he will be successful here. We offer significant upgrades in pay for his OC and DC.

2.  Turn around = consistently having 10-12 win seasons (a sub par 8-9 season thrown in), CCG, Playoff contender. 

Wishful Goal - play in CCG by 2 year, win the CCG and a playoff team year 3 or 4  (Year 1 may not be all that great regardless of coach - but under Frost or other good coach I expect we could get to 7 win minimum and maybe 8)
Click to expand...
1. I think we would give him at least 5 years as long as we continue to show progress and start to become competitive with teams that we feel are traditionally on the same level as a program that we think we are/should be. 

2. Again I feel like the program will be turned around when the later part of my #1 answer comes to fruition. Until then we may be trending upward but not turned around

 
Yay.

Depending on the fact that the teams under Riley play like poo, get thoroughly blown out by the good teams, set new record stat lows, and has devolved us to the Purdues and Rutgers of the world being our new peer group.

 
Nebfanatic said:
Disagree. I would argue similar to a little better. 
Click to expand...
I'm with you. Talent is solid. Good enough to win the division like it was when Mike took over. We are are just a really bad team in respects to fundamentals and scheme. Things a new coach can address within a a year or two.

 
Undone said:
Good post. This is a good summary.

Riley could have been what might be called a "bridge hire." He really had that potential. The problem was bringing his average-to-bad staff with him. 

I still think our final record this season should technically dictate whether or not he is retained. But it probably won't. I would assume we've reached out to Frost in some way to put out a feeler for his interest in the job.

And I believe that if Frost reports back that he's interested, it's probably almost a done deal. If he's not interested, then Riley's record at the end of the regular season plays even heavier into whether or not he's retained. But let's say we lose by two scores to Penn State and go 7-5. That makes Riley's first three seasons' regular season records consist of:

-2015: 5-7

-2016: 9-3

-2017: 7-5

He'd have a 58% winning percentage, but he'd have failed to even just win his division. I just don't see any indication that he'll actually be competitive at winning this conference because he hasn't even been competitive at winning his own division.
Click to expand...


Husker from Kansas said:
1. I think we would give him at least 5 years as long as we continue to show progress and start to become competitive with teams that we feel are traditionally on the same level as a program that we think we are/should be. 

2. Again I feel like the program will be turned around when the later part of my #1 answer comes to fruition. Until then we may be trending upward but not turned around
Click to expand...


Enhance said:
I agree. Specifically, this has been discussed in the Scott Frost megathread. I know because I took part in it.

I'm going to leave it open for now but I'd like to request everyone stop discussing specific replacement coaches or candidates. I know Frost was mentioned in the OP, however, his name has been mentioned 33 times so far in this thread. That's almost a one per post average. Every thread about Riley doesn't also have to include Frost.
Click to expand...


Saying it for the final time, ladies and gents - there are other threads for discussing Scott Frost. Please keep that conversation there.

 
For the month of October, NE was beaten out only ny KU for the worst rushing ave/game at 64 yds.

Keep Riley for more record setting statistical lows.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top