Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[True2tRA]

It's rather simple. Bo and his unqualified band of yes men failed to deliver a conference title, but managed to win at a certain level. Riley brings a staff loaded with experience, and some guys who appear to be good/great assistants. Without any extenuating circumstances, against a very similar schedule to the past 3-4 years, there should be no regression.

What about the other teams? You know.....the ones we are playing against. What if for some strange reason they spent the offseason trying to improve too? Weird concept........

We Husker fans aren't as familiar with coaching changes as some programs but get real man, these kids are starting over. Maybe we give em' a little time to figure it out.

Haha! What am I saying? I sometimes forget where I am.....

 

[The Dude]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

It can say more than two things, Saunders.

Yeah, but that doesn't fit the agenda.

 

[Saunders]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

It can say more than two things, Saunders.

Yeah, but that doesn't fit the agenda.

Pray tell, what agenda?

 

[Saunders]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

So, Iowa?

I'd prefer to win a championship.

This is a pretty stupid reply. I'm comparing 2 things to each other. I'd rather us win the national championship 20 years in a row and have the alternate uniform finally feature the corn helmet. There's my equally stupid reply.

Ok, so you prefer a Ferentz over a Pelini then. Better?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

No....

It could mean that Bo isn't as bad as some thought.

Again, you are making that judgement on an relatively very small sample size for a coach the first year in his position at a program. How can you do that?

And, for the record, I don't think Bo as a "coach" was as bad as what some people seem to think. But, that has absolutely no bearing on if Riley is successful or not.

 

[Saunders]

Again, you are making that judgement on an relatively very small sample size for a coach the first year in his position at a program. How can you do that?

And, for the record, I don't think Bo as a "coach" was as bad as what some people seem to think. But, that has absolutely no bearing on if Riley is successful or not.

Like I said...

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought. It's possible to make a judgment without making the final judgement.

It's perfectly ok to disapprove of Bo's performance and still hold Riley to a high standard.It's also possible that if he doesn't match expectations (for me, at least match Pelini's record) that the season is a failure, without passing judgement on his entire tenure.

 

[Army_Allen]

I've said it a million times here. I will gladly trade away #9wins for a system that NEEDS the right guys to win. So you may go 8-4 and as long as we start to lose without the sense of a blowout if the trade off is that we start to win big games on our on years (conf ships, big bowl games etc)

 

[Mierin]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

So, Iowa?

I'd prefer to win a championship.

This is a pretty stupid reply. I'm comparing 2 things to each other. I'd rather us win the national championship 20 years in a row and have the alternate uniform finally feature the corn helmet. There's my equally stupid reply.

Ok, so you prefer a Ferentz over a Pelini then. Better?

No. That was even worse.

 

[Sargon]

There seems to be some confusion in here so I thought I'd try help out.

1. Bo is a substandard HC.

2. The previous staff at NU was substandard.

3. Mike R is good HC (will get into the top 20-30 HC rankings in 3 years or less)

4. Mike's staff at NU is good (and definitely better than what they replaced)

5. QB performance in 2015 projects to....substandard (meaning not much better than NU's "standard" for the last 2 years)

6. Item 5, will be the top reason NU doesn't get to 10-3, 11-3 or better in 2015.

7. If item 5 turns out to be false, it won't be TA at the helm.

8. Reality never considers anybody's feelings, needs, or desires.

 

[RedSavage]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.
Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.[/size]

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's more about the body of work and not regressing than the win/loss number. I think we can all agree we just want to see this team be competitive and stop losing games to themselves.

Body of work? One season at Nebraska, that being his first season, is hardly a "body of work".

Maybe we could give these guys a coupe seasons to see how things go. Maybe see what they're trying to do with their own players...

I do agree though, some of the stumbling-bumbling and getting in our own way could start to vanish immediately.

When I say "body of work", I meant the season as a whole. I get what people are saying that one season is hardly enough time to make a fair judgement but I will be disappointed if we don't see some sort of improvement this season. Typically that equates to more wins, but sometimes you just have some bad bounces and things don't go your way, I get that. So the total number of wins is not what really matters. Improvement is what matters. Whether that's fewer penalties, less mental errors, fewer turnovers, I don't really care as long as we are moving forward as a team. If these coaches are all they're cracked up to be, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[zoogs]

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So there it is. It is about deciding if "Bo wasn't as bad as we thought" and "Riley isn't as good as we thought", after all.

But if how good Bo was takes eight years to decide -- including a year where his successor gets to work with what he left -- then I find it a little odd that how good Riley is will be known after one year if he doesn't win X number of games.

If regression happens, then it just means that 1) what Bo left isn't as strong a roster as some people are rating it as, or 2) The program culture wasn't going to change without time or some bumps in the process. Both of those things could turn out to be not a big deal at all, but we don't know that. I think it is reasonable to worry that they might be significant issues for Riley (and whomever the new coach would have been) in 2015. On the other hand, maybe the roster Bo left was so strong that Riley will take it to the playoffs this year. It's possible...

 

[alwayshusking]

First seasons aren't indicative of how successful a coach will be at a school. Placing much weight on that 1st season is silly imo.

Bo had a relatively strong 1st season and never really improved much from there. Ron Prince had his best season in year 1. Brady Hoke too.

Plenty of great coaches have struggled in their 1st year at a program. It's tricky to predict.

As long as next year isn't a complete disaster, the focus should be on building a championship level program for the following years.

 

[The Dude]

*progrum

 

[Saunders]

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So there it is. It is about deciding if "Bo wasn't as bad as we thought" and "Riley isn't as good as we thought", after all.

But if how good Bo was takes eight years to decide -- including a year where his successor gets to work with what he left -- then I find it a little odd that how good Riley is will be known after one year if he doesn't win X number of games.

If regression happens, then it just means that 1) what Bo left isn't as strong a roster as some people are rating it as, or 2) The program culture wasn't going to change without time or some bumps in the process. Both of those things could turn out to be not a big deal at all, but we don't know that. I think it is reasonable to worry that they might be significant issues for Riley (and whomever the new coach would have been) in 2015. On the other hand, maybe the roster Bo left was so strong that Riley will take it to the playoffs this year. It's possible...

No. It's about setting expectations and not accepting mediocrity. Outside of a bunch of freak injuries, there's no excuse for regression. Yet, we're already seeing some of that on this very board.

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

 

[BigRedBuster]

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So there it is. It is about deciding if "Bo wasn't as bad as we thought" and "Riley isn't as good as we thought", after all.

But if how good Bo was takes eight years to decide -- including a year where his successor gets to work with what he left -- then I find it a little odd that how good Riley is will be known after one year if he doesn't win X number of games.

If regression happens, then it just means that 1) what Bo left isn't as strong a roster as some people are rating it as, or 2) The program culture wasn't going to change without time or some bumps in the process. Both of those things could turn out to be not a big deal at all, but we don't know that. I think it is reasonable to worry that they might be significant issues for Riley (and whomever the new coach would have been) in 2015. On the other hand, maybe the roster Bo left was so strong that Riley will take it to the playoffs this year. It's possible...

No. It's about setting expectations and not accepting mediocrity. Outside of a bunch of freak injuries, there's no excuse for regression. Yet, we're already seeing some of that on this very board.

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

So, if Riley loses 5 games, it proves Bo was a good coach and anyone who isn't upset and think Riley sucked (no matter what lead to the 5 losses or how they happened) is accepting mediocrity and have way too low of expectations.

After one year in the program.