So you want to get rid of Riley

[lincoln84]

It's weird, because for 40 solid years of Devaney, Osborne and Solich, we had no idea how desirable the head coaching job at Nebraska was to the college football world.

I suppose we could pony up the money and test the waters of the big name, can't miss coaches, of which there are maybe what? Five or six? How will we feel and what is our leverage if they reject the offer?

Back when this first happened, in 2003, we were spurned by Houston Nutt. Apparently our first choice and considered a hot property at the time. Things didn't work out so well for us, but it didn't work out well for Houston Nutt, either. Demanding a "top tier" coach is no guarantee of a top tier program. If there are other attractive openings at the time, a hot coach may not want to come to cold Nebraska, where you have six full games to prove yourself.

Still, we can absolutely get a great coach. We just don't know who it is. It will involve a risk. He will be an innovative offensive or defensive coordinator, but we will have to trust his transition to HC. He will be a head coach with a short but excellent track record in a conference considered less competitive than the Big 10. He will be a coach with a longer but rockier cumulative record, but who might thrive in the right setting with the right resources. He could turn things around overnight, like Bob Devaney, or he might take a four straight years of mediocrity, like Nick Saban at Michigan State. But the Nick Saban who becomes a hot property at Michigan State is going to go to the SEC, not to Nebraska. We may not have wanted Bret Bielema, but he also didn't want us, and that is an issue.

I don't think anyone is content with mediocrity at Nebraska. Nobody. But the notion that Nebraska had a chance at greatness and went for Riley instead makes no sense.

Unless you know something I don't. Who did we pass up? Any indication they would have taken the job? Because public rejection during a coaching search is a killer. See 2003.

We should be grateful for Riley because he wanted to be here. That's not nothing. And a mere 12 months ago, Mike Riley was voted the second most underrated coach by his college football coaching peers. That's not nothing either. I know TheSker will be quick to point out it was aeons ago, but Mike Riley was approached by Alabama, USC and UCLA for their HC jobs. There were actually professional and objective college football analysts who considered the Riley hire a bit of a coup. The national recruiting director at Rivals.com tweeted that the Riley hire was a "home run" and "I don't think Husker fans realize what a well-respected game coach Riley is and how hard it is to win in Corvallis."

Considering that recruiting was considered Riley's strong suit, we may want to let him give it a go before burying him.

Riley may still surprise you. He may not. But I don't think we "settled" for mediocrity. We took one of the many calculated risks Nebraska has to make to hire a new head coach.

Its the way we have lost that have so many people upset.

That's what everyone said last year too.

 

[alexhortdog95]

For the record, I wasn't for a Riley hire - I'd have made a play at David Shaw at Stanford. I love the style of play he coaches, and his players bring it. Anybody watching the game last night knows what I'm talking about.

That being said - after finding out that the previous coaching staff is SABOTAGING this current staff, one must take that into consideration when passing judgment on Riley.

I just don't like boneheaded play or questionable play calling, that's my beef with both the players and the coaches. Each of these games lost was winnable, and you can lay blame on both the coaching staff for play calling and the players for their lack of execution. There's plenty of blame to go around here.

Riley DOES have an eye for talent, nobody can question that. He just needs some things to get over this ginormous hump he's run into. But if he doesn't get it together soon.....watch out....

 

[Bowfin]

Quit trolling, people think that you are serious

I am serious.

Seven years is a body of work that will replace theory and conjecture with history. It gives Riley several years of having 100% his own players and enough years with his people, philosophies and plays in place, rather than dealing with transition. It means he will have had 100% control over all the facets a coach can control, except for injuries. Whether or not that translates into success, we will at least have plenty of time and opportunity to see enough information to make a more informed judgment.

Seven years will also give time for the dust to settle on the history of all previous coaches and Riley might be ready to retire by then anyhow, giving lie to the assertion that Nebraskans are never happy with their coaches.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, Texas....pretty much every college football powerhouse has had stretches of multiple losing seasons and NCAA sanctions before dusting themselves off and returning to power. When it came time to recruit, they could always recruit. Even when sanctions blacked out television coverage and bowl eligibility, they could recruit. Even when they were visibly sucking, a coach could come in and tell a high school hotshot that he was the player who was going to help Alabama, etc. return to greatness.

In the last 50 years Nebraska hasn't had as long or as deep of a trough as its fellow college football powerhouses. I hope we don't ever suffer that, but nothing that is happening now suggests the sun is about to set on Nebraska football.

We are exactly one reliable quarterback away from being 6-0.

Either that, or we're one reliable Head Coach away from being 6-0...hmm...maybe the university shouldn't have fired Pelini?

You contradicted yourself in that post.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, Texas....pretty much every college football powerhouse has had stretches of multiple losing seasons and NCAA sanctions before dusting themselves off and returning to power. When it came time to recruit, they could always recruit. Even when sanctions blacked out television coverage and bowl eligibility, they could recruit. Even when they were visibly sucking, a coach could come in and tell a high school hotshot that he was the player who was going to help Alabama, etc. return to greatness.

In the last 50 years Nebraska hasn't had as long or as deep of a trough as its fellow college football powerhouses. I hope we don't ever suffer that, but nothing that is happening now suggests the sun is about to set on Nebraska football.

We are exactly one reliable quarterback away from being 6-0.

Either that, or we're one reliable Head Coach away from being 6-0...hmm...maybe the university shouldn't have fired Pelini?

Just so you know, Bo Pelini was very reliable at not starting a season 6-0. He was 7-0 at not starting 6-0.

 

[NUinID]

For the record, I wasn't for a Riley hire - I'd have made a play at David Shaw at Stanford. I love the style of play he coaches, and his players bring it. Anybody watching the game last night knows what I'm talking about.

That being said - after finding out that the previous coaching staff is SABOTAGING this current staff, one must take that into consideration when passing judgment on Riley.

I just don't like boneheaded play or questionable play calling, that's my beef with both the players and the coaches. Each of these games lost was winnable, and you can lay blame on both the coaching staff for play calling and the players for their lack of execution. There's plenty of blame to go around here.

Riley DOES have an eye for talent, nobody can question that. He just needs some things to get over this ginormous hump he's run into. But if he doesn't get it together soon.....watch out....

You know I really like the way Stanford plays also, and I think Shaw is a good coach. With that being said I don't think he is coming to Nebraska for several reasons even if you throw a boat load of money at him.

1. Stanford is the where he played. That is a huge draw to guys.

2. He is a west coast guy, been there his whole life.

3. The pressure to perform on a national stage year in and year out is not there at Stanford. I am sure they like winning as much as anyone, but he is not going to here a bunch of grumbling from the fan base if he has a 6-6 or 7-5 year mixed into his records.

4. Say what ever you want, but it is easier to recruit to Stanford than Nebraska

5. I may be really wrong about this, but his personality and the way he presents himself in interviews tells me he is not really driven by a huge pay check.

 

[MichiganDad3]

Quit trolling, people think that you are serious

I am serious.

Seven years is a body of work that will replace theory and conjecture with history. It gives Riley several years of having 100% his own players and enough years with his people, philosophies and plays in place, rather than dealing with transition. It means he will have had 100% control over all the facets a coach can control, except for injuries. Whether or not that translates into success, we will at least have plenty of time and opportunity to see enough information to make a more informed judgment.

Seven years will also give time for the dust to settle on the history of all previous coaches and Riley might be ready to retire by then anyhow, giving lie to the assertion that Nebraskans are never happy with their coaches.

You don't need a large sample size to prove a big difference. It wouldn't take seven years to prove Lebron James is a better basketball player than me.

 

[Bowfin]

You don't need a large sample size to prove a big difference. It wouldn't take seven years to prove Lebron James is a better basketball player than me.

LOL Probably!

But at seven years, we could all agree that Mike Riley was given enough time and he and his coaching would be a known quantity. We certainly don't have any consensus now, we won't next year, and neither will we the year after.

Less than seven years, a case could still be made that he didn't have complete ownership of the process long enough. I sincerely believe that having seven years under our present coach is a need that trumps the win-loss record garnered during that time frame.

Also, things will probably have changed in positions above the head coach by then. I don't believe Eichorst or Perlman will have a hand in the next coaching pick seven years from now.

 

[alexhortdog95]

For the record, I wasn't for a Riley hire - I'd have made a play at David Shaw at Stanford. I love the style of play he coaches, and his players bring it. Anybody watching the game last night knows what I'm talking about.

That being said - after finding out that the previous coaching staff is SABOTAGING this current staff, one must take that into consideration when passing judgment on Riley.

I just don't like boneheaded play or questionable play calling, that's my beef with both the players and the coaches. Each of these games lost was winnable, and you can lay blame on both the coaching staff for play calling and the players for their lack of execution. There's plenty of blame to go around here.

Riley DOES have an eye for talent, nobody can question that. He just needs some things to get over this ginormous hump he's run into. But if he doesn't get it together soon.....watch out....

You know I really like the way Stanford plays also, and I think Shaw is a good coach. With that being said I don't think he is coming to Nebraska for several reasons even if you throw a boat load of money at him.

1. Stanford is the where he played. That is a huge draw to guys.

2. He is a west coast guy, been there his whole life.

3. The pressure to perform on a national stage year in and year out is not there at Stanford. I am sure they like winning as much as anyone, but he is not going to here a bunch of grumbling from the fan base if he has a 6-6 or 7-5 year mixed into his records.

4. Say what ever you want, but it is easier to recruit to Stanford than Nebraska

5. I may be really wrong about this, but his personality and the way he presents himself in interviews tells me he is not really driven by a huge pay check.

Good points, but I slightly disagree with a few:

The pressure to perform on a national stage year in and year out is not there at Stanford. I am sure they like winning as much as anyone, but he is not going to here a bunch of grumbling from the fan base if he has a 6-6 or 7-5 year mixed into his records.

First, about the grumbling. He was 8-5 last year, started this year off with an ugly loss to Northwestern, and the Stanford faithful said the following:

"Looks my days of being a fan are numbered."

"Embarrassment for Shaw. Humbling for team. We will lose recruits from this loss. Very bad. Very bad. No love here."

"Hate to go there, but how much leeway does Shaw have? I think it would take, two, maybe three, 2 or 3 win seasons before he gets let go."

"I feel like a sucker for having bought all the hype. I am not delusional. I did not harbor expectations of unimpeded success. I did expect to witness athletic prowess (some, but very little), organizational discipline, bold strategic thinking and courage and effort. This game is among the biggest letdowns I have ever experienced watching Stanford football. The disparity between what I thought was reasonable to expect versus what I actually saw is greater (in the negative direction) than any time I can ever recall."

"I want Condoleezza Rice to be a member of the coaching staff. At least sheʻs bolder and not afraid to take chances."

The last one was my favorite, LOL....

On to the next point:

Say what ever you want, but it is easier to recruit to Stanford than Nebraska

Not a problem. I'll let the guy who recruits to that school state my case for me. Coach?

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/stanfords-david-shaw-half-this-recruiting-stuff-is-crap/

David Shaw owns a 42-12 record as the head coach of the Stanford Cardinal. It isn’t easy to win football games on “The Farm” because of the school’s stringent academic standards.

In the five recruiting classes Shaw and his staff cobbled together, only one of them were considered a Top 10 class, according to Rivals.com.

Shaw’s approach to recruiting is very different from other schools, though. He places a much higher priority on loyalty and development than blanketing the country with offers.

“This is not meant to offend anybody, but I’m sure it will. I want the Stanford offers to be real,” Shaw told the Cardinal Sports Report’s Andy Drukarev. “I want them to hold weight. We give an offer to a kid, it’s an offer. It’s a real offer. There’s no time expiration on it. We’re not dangling it between you and three other guys (saying), ‘Hey, first one to jump gets it.’ We just don’t operate that way.

“Does it matter that you meet your wife a month later than you thought you should have? It doesn’t matter. Half this recruiting stuff is crap. It’s all crap. It’s all flashing lights, it’s all emotion. When it comes down to it…here’s what Stanford has to offer. Does it fit what you’re looking for? We cut through all the other stuff. Other people can talk, and that’s great. And some people out there are great recruiters. They’re a great recruiter at one school, become a great recruiter at another school. I have no problem with that.”

Lastly:

I may be really wrong about this, but his personality and the way he presents himself in interviews tells me he is not really driven by a huge pay check.

Well, since Stanford doesn't publish what it pays out to its coaches and staff, we will never know, will we? But I tend to disagree on this one as the Palo Alto area is the most expensive college football town in 117 other schools out there that play big boy football.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/10stanford.html?_r=0

Stanford purchased a home for them to live in that cost nearly $2 million. The university also purchased a similar home for the new offensive coordinator, David Shaw, and his wife, Kori, and their two children. The rest of the Stanford football coaching staff receives a $3,000-a-month housing allowance.

It is all part of a new effort to lure top coaches in all sports to campus. The plan is being spearheaded by Bob Bowlsby, the athletic director, and backed in part financially by John Arrillaga, a billionaire Stanford booster. Bowlsby said the university had already purchased six residences and could end up owning 20 to 40 homes and apartments, all to help the coaches live near campus.

Bowlsby said the university considers the real estate to be a good investment.

Bowlsby said coordinators at Stanford made a nationally competitive salary of about $200,000 a year.

Because of the school’s high academic standards, Jim Harbaugh said there were 100 to 150 players Stanford could recruit each year who will both be admitted and play at the Bowl Championship Series level. That puts a premium on staff continuity. Coaching and teaching the players they get is critical for Stanford to compete in the Pac-10. A typical B.C.S. college may recruit from a pool of more than 1,000 athletes.

“We found that people that came here didn’t stay,” Bowlsby said. “And more often than not, they didn’t come at all once they looked at housing and thought about what it would do to their lifestyle.”

Never underestimate the things a man will go through to provide for his family. If you make it lucrative enough for him and his staff, he'll come here. Besides:

"Money is no object"

-Shawn Eichorst

 

[StPaulHusker]

For those that thought Jim Mora would have been a great, splash, money-is-no-object hire

Quote


I believe @CFBMatrix has been saying for awhile that Mora couldn't get this team to the next level. Evidence is overwhelming at this point

— Sen Sogah (@eastcoastdog) October 16, 2015

 

[alexhortdog95]

For those that thought Jim Mora would have been a great, splash, money-is-no-object hire

Quote



I believe
https://twitter.com/CFBMatrix@CFBMatrix
https://twitter.com/CFBMatrixhas been saying for awhile that Mora couldn't get this team to the next level. Evidence is overwhelming at this point
— Sen Sogah (@eastcoastdog)
https://twitter.com/eastcoastdog/status/655042842033790976October 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/eastcoastdog/status/655042842033790976

 

[StPaulHusker]

For those that thought Jim Mora would have been a great, splash, money-is-no-object hire

Quote



I believe
https://twitter.com/CFBMatrix@CFBMatrix
https://twitter.com/CFBMatrixhas been saying for awhile that Mora couldn't get this team to the next level. Evidence is overwhelming at this point
— Sen Sogah (@eastcoastdog)
https://twitter.com/eastcoastdog/status/655042842033790976October 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/eastcoastdog/status/655042842033790976

Jr....

 

[junior4949]

Is everyone really convinced David Shaw is that great of a coach? His first three seasons were pretty good, but it was with all Harbaugh recruits. His last year wasn't very good at all considering he inherited a team that finished 12-1 and fourth in the country from Jim Harbaugh. The season is early, and we have no way of knowing how he finishes out. However, I'd like to see a couple of more seasons under his belt at Stanford before I anoint him a good/great coach.

 

[BigRedBuster]

For the record, I wasn't for a Riley hire - I'd have made a play at David Shaw at Stanford. I love the style of play he coaches, and his players bring it. Anybody watching the game last night knows what I'm talking about.

That being said - after finding out that the previous coaching staff is SABOTAGING this current staff, one must take that into consideration when passing judgment on Riley.

I just don't like boneheaded play or questionable play calling, that's my beef with both the players and the coaches. Each of these games lost was winnable, and you can lay blame on both the coaching staff for play calling and the players for their lack of execution. There's plenty of blame to go around here.

Riley DOES have an eye for talent, nobody can question that. He just needs some things to get over this ginormous hump he's run into. But if he doesn't get it together soon.....watch out....

You know I really like the way Stanford plays also, and I think Shaw is a good coach. With that being said I don't think he is coming to Nebraska for several reasons even if you throw a boat load of money at him.

1. Stanford is the where he played. That is a huge draw to guys.

2. He is a west coast guy, been there his whole life.

3. The pressure to perform on a national stage year in and year out is not there at Stanford. I am sure they like winning as much as anyone, but he is not going to here a bunch of grumbling from the fan base if he has a 6-6 or 7-5 year mixed into his records.

4. Say what ever you want, but it is easier to recruit to Stanford than Nebraska

5. I may be really wrong about this, but his personality and the way he presents himself in interviews tells me he is not really driven by a huge pay check.

Good points, but I slightly disagree with a few:

The pressure to perform on a national stage year in and year out is not there at Stanford. I am sure they like winning as much as anyone, but he is not going to here a bunch of grumbling from the fan base if he has a 6-6 or 7-5 year mixed into his records.

First, about the grumbling. He was 8-5 last year, started this year off with an ugly loss to Northwestern, and the Stanford faithful said the following:

"Looks my days of being a fan are numbered."

"Embarrassment for Shaw. Humbling for team. We will lose recruits from this loss. Very bad. Very bad. No love here."

"Hate to go there, but how much leeway does Shaw have? I think it would take, two, maybe three, 2 or 3 win seasons before he gets let go."

"I feel like a sucker for having bought all the hype. I am not delusional. I did not harbor expectations of unimpeded success. I did expect to witness athletic prowess (some, but very little), organizational discipline, bold strategic thinking and courage and effort. This game is among the biggest letdowns I have ever experienced watching Stanford football. The disparity between what I thought was reasonable to expect versus what I actually saw is greater (in the negative direction) than any time I can ever recall."

"I want Condoleezza Rice to be a member of the coaching staff. At least sheʻs bolder and not afraid to take chances."

The last one was my favorite, LOL....

On to the next point:

Say what ever you want, but it is easier to recruit to Stanford than Nebraska

Not a problem. I'll let the guy who recruits to that school state my case for me. Coach?

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/stanfords-david-shaw-half-this-recruiting-stuff-is-crap/

David Shaw owns a 42-12 record as the head coach of the Stanford Cardinal. It isn’t easy to win football games on “The Farm” because of the school’s stringent academic standards.

In the five recruiting classes Shaw and his staff cobbled together, only one of them were considered a Top 10 class, according to Rivals.com.

Shaw’s approach to recruiting is very different from other schools, though. He places a much higher priority on loyalty and development than blanketing the country with offers.

“This is not meant to offend anybody, but I’m sure it will. I want the Stanford offers to be real,” Shaw told the Cardinal Sports Report’s Andy Drukarev. “I want them to hold weight. We give an offer to a kid, it’s an offer. It’s a real offer. There’s no time expiration on it. We’re not dangling it between you and three other guys (saying), ‘Hey, first one to jump gets it.’ We just don’t operate that way.

“Does it matter that you meet your wife a month later than you thought you should have? It doesn’t matter. Half this recruiting stuff is crap. It’s all crap. It’s all flashing lights, it’s all emotion. When it comes down to it…here’s what Stanford has to offer. Does it fit what you’re looking for? We cut through all the other stuff. Other people can talk, and that’s great. And some people out there are great recruiters. They’re a great recruiter at one school, become a great recruiter at another school. I have no problem with that.”

Lastly:

I may be really wrong about this, but his personality and the way he presents himself in interviews tells me he is not really driven by a huge pay check.

Well, since Stanford doesn't publish what it pays out to its coaches and staff, we will never know, will we? But I tend to disagree on this one as the Palo Alto area is the most expensive college football town in 117 other schools out there that play big boy football.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/10stanford.html?_r=0

Stanford purchased a home for them to live in that cost nearly $2 million. The university also purchased a similar home for the new offensive coordinator, David Shaw, and his wife, Kori, and their two children. The rest of the Stanford football coaching staff receives a $3,000-a-month housing allowance.

It is all part of a new effort to lure top coaches in all sports to campus. The plan is being spearheaded by Bob Bowlsby, the athletic director, and backed in part financially by John Arrillaga, a billionaire Stanford booster. Bowlsby said the university had already purchased six residences and could end up owning 20 to 40 homes and apartments, all to help the coaches live near campus.

Bowlsby said the university considers the real estate to be a good investment.

Bowlsby said coordinators at Stanford made a nationally competitive salary of about $200,000 a year.

Because of the school’s high academic standards, Jim Harbaugh said there were 100 to 150 players Stanford could recruit each year who will both be admitted and play at the Bowl Championship Series level. That puts a premium on staff continuity. Coaching and teaching the players they get is critical for Stanford to compete in the Pac-10. A typical B.C.S. college may recruit from a pool of more than 1,000 athletes.

“We found that people that came here didn’t stay,” Bowlsby said. “And more often than not, they didn’t come at all once they looked at housing and thought about what it would do to their lifestyle.”

Never underestimate the things a man will go through to provide for his family. If you make it lucrative enough for him and his staff, he'll come here. Besides:

"Money is no object"

-Shawn Eichorst

Sooooo.....let me get my brain wrapped around this.

You start off your post with fan comments basically showing they aren't thrilled with his performance and really questioning the decision to hire him as Stanford's coach.

Then...you spend the rest of the post claiming that....if we would throw enough money at this guy, you think we can get him.

What am I missing here?

 

[alexhortdog95]

What am I missing here?

You neglected to read NUinID's comment that I was answering, which stated that:

- David Shaw doesn't get the grumblings he would get here

- Stanford is an easier place to recruit

- David Shaw doesn't care about the money like other coaches.

My post shows that yes, he gets grumblings just like any other coach, Stanford is technically a harder place to recruit because of their academics, and Shaw has had to worry about the money.