Temp check: 7-5

[Guy Chamberlin]

Idk, I guess I always thought it was an unspoken understanding that we were in a rebuild. We fired a guy that consistently won 9 games but hit his ceiling and hired a guy that consistently won 6 games or so at a bad place with a higher ceiling and a different system.

I mean, yeah I was drinking the kool aid pretty hard by August and even believed that we had the players in place to make a run. After BYU that dream got put into check. It wasn't until we let Wisconsin win that I let go complete hope of 2015 being anything more than a transition.

There really isn't anything to argue here. Regardless of what ADSE's statement implied, we are in a rebuild. So I guess if some want to view that original press statement and 2015's results as a huge failure on ADSE's implied promises, then be my guest. I'm not implying my logic or expectations were any better than anyone elses, just giving my opinion.

LOL

"Transition"... was the first excuse churned out by the excuse making machine.

But that was only good for one year and they needed a longer term excuse. So they had the excuse making machine spit out "rebuilding".

The "transition" excuse will last for several years because "program was more toxic than expected from previous coach" and "players aren't buying in" so we need to "wait until new coach gets his own recruits"

Unfortunately you are correct. That's why I used the term "litany" and "endless" to describe the excuses.

So lets review the list of excuses churned out by the excuse making machine so far...

1. Transition

2. Program was more toxic then expected from previous coach

3. Players aren't buying in

4. We need to wait until new coach gets his own recruits

5. Blame the players

6. Blame the assistant coaches

7.Rebuilding

Oh heck why even count... the list is endless.

Endless?

I would expect some improvement this season, but it's hard to imagine all the pieces falling into place, especially on defense.

Next season the Riley recruits will outnumber the previous regime's, and systems will be solidified.

That's three seasons to see if the Huskers are Big 10 contenders under Riley. I would expect your particular list of excuses to end there.

I think the excuses for this past season, including the coach blaming himself, were about right.

No they aren't. They're the same regurgitated excuses that have been used to escape responsibility by those in charge for the last 18 years.

We need responsibility... accountability...

NO MORE EXCUSES

I think you're being psycho.

I don't care what you think.

Your inability to deal with honesty and reality is your problem not mine.

Check your screen name.

Honestly.

BTW....which part of giving Mike Riley three seasons before declaring Armageddon strikes you as unrealistic?

 

[cm husker]

Riley could go 8-16 over the next two seasons, and I'd be in favor of giving him a 4th if that was required to allow time for a new AD to be put in place.

Here's an interesting idea... what if Riley became AD and, if things went well for Frost, he came back as HC in 2018/2019?

I actually think they could be a great pair, because Frost is a little unpolished (borderline abrasive) in some of his public speaking engagements (e.g., he told some awkward jokes at Mariotta award ceremonies).

I would LOVE to have a former coach in the AD chair again.

 

[wanderful]

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 in 2015, but I don't expect them to similarly fail in 2016?

That would be completely reasonable, and I think it's the opinion that most fans in Huskerdom share. The impression I got (and I could have been wrong -- as we all know it's very easy to misinterpret things here in internet land) was that you were saying that they didn't take responsibility for their failures in 2015, yet were still going to somehow do better in 2016. I was just implying that if they didn't take responsibility for the missteps in 2015 (which I believe they have) then they likely won't do any better in 2016.

 

[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.

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.

Fortunately I could use my 3 working brain cells to look at other schools that had new coaches last year.

School - 2014 record - 2015 record

Schools that got 2+ more wins

Houston - 8-5 - 13-1
Michigan - 5-7 - 10-3
Tulsa - 2-10 - 6-7

Florida - 7-5 - 10-4
Pittsburgh - 6-7 - 8-5


Schools that stayed the same (+/- 1 win)

Troy - 3-9 - 4-8

UNLV - 2-11 - 3-9
SMU - 1-11 - 2-10
Central Michigan - 7-6 - 7-6
Buffalo - 5-6 - 5-7

Wisconsin - 11-3 - 10-3


Schools won 2+ fewer games

Colorado State - 10-3 - 7-6

Kansas - 3-9 - 0-12

Nebraska - 9-4 - 6-7

Oregon State - 5-7 - 2-10
So five schools got better in their "transition year", five were basically the same and four got worse. Out of the schools that got worse, Colorado State didn't fire their coach, he got a huge promotion. You may know some of the coaches that left Oregon State. And Nebraska tied for the worst change in record of all of those schools.

So - as I've said for quite awhile - there is definitely going to be some transition, but that doesn't mean that things have to get worse. In fact, judging by that list, it's actually more likely that things get better.

And that's before you take into account that our schedule included two schools (Wisconsin and Illinois) who were also in a transition year one school (Miami) that was in such good shape that they fired their coach later that year. We lost to all of them.

But I've got to take a break now. All that research and that last Budweiser might have me down to 2 brain cells now.

 

[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 in 2015, but I don't expect them to similarly fail in 2016?

That would be completely reasonable, and I think it's the opinion that most fans in Huskerdom share. The impression I got (and I could have been wrong -- as we all know it's very easy to misinterpret things here in internet land) was that you were saying that they didn't take responsibility for their failures in 2015, yet were still going to somehow do better in 2016. I was just implying that if they didn't take responsibility for the missteps in 2015 (which I believe they have) then they likely won't do any better in 2016.

I never remotely stated that these coaches didn't take responsibility. And it's a bit surprising you'd read that into my post.

 

[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.

Fortunately I could use my 3 working brain cells to look at other schools that had new coaches last year.

School - 2014 record - 2015 record

Schools that got 2+ more wins

Houston - 8-5 - 13-1
Michigan - 5-7 - 10-3
Tulsa - 2-10 - 6-7

Florida - 7-5 - 10-4
Pittsburgh - 6-7 - 8-5


Schools that stayed the same (+/- 1 win)

Troy - 3-9 - 4-8

UNLV - 2-11 - 3-9
SMU - 1-11 - 2-10
Central Michigan - 7-6 - 7-6
Buffalo - 5-6 - 5-7

Wisconsin - 11-3 - 10-3


Schools won 2+ fewer games

Colorado State - 10-3 - 7-6

Kansas - 3-9 - 0-12

Nebraska - 9-4 - 6-7

Oregon State - 5-7 - 2-10
So five schools got better in their "transition year", five were basically the same and four got worse. Out of the schools that got worse, Colorado State didn't fire their coach, he got a huge promotion. You may know some of the coaches that left Oregon State. And Nebraska tied for the worst change in record of all of those schools.

So - as I've said for quite awhile - there is definitely going to be some transition, but that doesn't mean that things have to get worse. In fact, judging by that list, it's actually more likely that things get better.

And that's before you take into account that our schedule included two schools (Wisconsin and Illinois) who were also in a transition year one school (Miami) that was in such good shape that they fired their coach later that year. We lost to all of them.

But I've got to take a break now. All that research and that last Budweiser might have me down to 2 brain cells now.

 

[GBRFAN]

I don't get all this talk about "they need to produce THIS year" or else. First off what is produce? is it W-L ratio, recruiting, building a brand, hopefully it's seen as a blend of all. It seems like it needs to be looked at as: are we improving or not improving - what is the ceiling of this program?

Past staff had B+ for W-L ratio (however no key wins) C+ for recruiting and D- for building a brand -- seems that the ceiling had been hit

Current staff D- for W-L ratio (however could have been B+) B for recruiting (looking to be B+ or A for this class) B for building a brand -- to early to know the trajectory.

This is not a race where there is a finish line - it's like life there is no finish line. Your either making yourself better for tomorrow or you have packed it in and getting passed by everybody.

 

[GSG]

THIS GUY THOUGHT THAT A TALL COOL BUDWEISER WAS OK!

(Jump to 2:05)

 

[cm husker]

NU's current roster is around 20th in the nation.

So sick of the arguments that NU has been averaging a C+ in recruiting.

If that's the case we had a phenomenal group of coaches that we sh#t canned because some folks had their feelings hurt by a mean face.

More realistically, NU has consistently been in the top of "tier 2" recruiting and will continue to perform about that well (eg, currently ranked 24th or whatever on 247).

As to your question, production means wins and losses. Recruiting championships are for Georgia fans.

 

[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.

Fortunately I could use my 3 working brain cells to look at other schools that had new coaches last year.

School - 2014 record - 2015 record

Schools that got 2+ more wins

Houston - 8-5 - 13-1

Michigan - 5-7 - 10-3

Tulsa - 2-10 - 6-7

Florida - 7-5 - 10-4

Pittsburgh - 6-7 - 8-5

Schools that stayed the same (+/- 1 win)

Troy - 3-9 - 4-8

UNLV - 2-11 - 3-9

SMU - 1-11 - 2-10

Central Michigan - 7-6 - 7-6

Buffalo - 5-6 - 5-7

Wisconsin - 11-3 - 10-3

Schools won 2+ fewer games

Colorado State - 10-3 - 7-6

Kansas - 3-9 - 0-12

Nebraska - 9-4 - 6-7

Oregon State - 5-7 - 2-10

So five schools got better in their "transition year", five were basically the same and four got worse. Out of the schools that got worse, Colorado State didn't fire their coach, he got a huge promotion. You may know some of the coaches that left Oregon State. And Nebraska tied for the worst change in record of all of those schools.

So - as I've said for quite awhile - there is definitely going to be some transition, but that doesn't mean that things have to get worse. In fact, judging by that list, it's actually more likely that things get better.

And that's before you take into account that our schedule included two schools (Wisconsin and Illinois) who were also in a transition year one school (Miami) that was in such good shape that they fired their coach later that year. We lost to all of them.

But I've got to take a break now. All that research and that last Budweiser might have me down to 2 brain cells now.

Need help resuscitating that 3rd brain cell?

In all seriousness, nice research. Isn't each situation unique though? Do you think Riley and Co. had to deal with the exact same list of issues that Harbaugh dealt with at Michigan? We all wanted Harbaugh's results or better, heck I think most of us were at least hopeful we'd see that. It just didn't happen though. We've had a rougher transition that any of us would have wanted. What gives me hope for the future is how we finished the season winning 3 of our last four and we looked good doing it, mostly....heh

Side note: Good job running with the 2 or three working brain cells thing.

 

[Elf]

I don't get all this talk about "they need to produce THIS year" or else. First off what is produce? is it W-L ratio, recruiting, building a brand, hopefully it's seen as a blend of all. It seems like it needs to be looked at as: are we improving or not improving - what is the ceiling of this program?

Past staff had B+ for W-L ratio (however no key wins) C+ for recruiting and D- for building a brand -- seems that the ceiling had been hit

Current staff D- for W-L ratio (however could have been B+) B for recruiting (looking to be B+ or A for this class) B for building a brand -- to early to know the trajectory.

This is not a race where there is a finish line - it's like life there is no finish line. Your either making yourself better for tomorrow or you have packed it in and getting passed by everybody.

I don't get that either. Really, what are these people going to do if this staff doesn't "produce this year"? They will do the only thing they can do, complain to their friends, families and message board acquaintances. Maybe I'm taking that statement all wrong but it sure seems like a "produce or else" statement.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Best case scenario 8-4, but realistically, I think it's going to be 6-6...

But 6-6 is still an improvement over last year! Woohoo! One step at a time, baby!

 

[Mavric]

In all seriousness, nice research. Isn't each situation unique though? Do you think Riley and Co. had to deal with the exact same list of issues that Harbaugh dealt with at Michigan? We all wanted Harbaugh's results or better, heck I think most of us were at least hopeful we'd see that. It just didn't happen though. We've had a rougher transition that any of us would have wanted. What gives me hope for the future is how we finished the season winning 3 of our last four and we looked good doing it, mostly....heh

Each situation is definitely different. But when there are that many to compare it to, it seems kind of telling that we were clear at the bottom of the list. Especially when we had almost exactly the same schedule between those two years. Why did we have so much trouble when other teams didn't? I don't know, but at the least I think it shows that the "transition year" idea really don't hold that much water (small sample size but still). There are always challenges. Some teams are able to overcome them better than others.

And it's kind of ironic (hopefully ONLY ironic) that two of the four teams in that bottom group directly involved the same set of coaches.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

If this is rebuilding, what are we rebuilding to?

2016 shapes up to be the easiest path to a CCG since the inception of the B12, save maybe some down years in the B12N of the mid-00s.

If this ends up being a < 9 win season, what the heck is Riley going to accomplish before he's up for retirement? By the time the "rebuild" is complete, we'll be buying a new house anyway.

2012 was far and away an easier path to the CCG than this season.

You know fellas, this making excuses thing works both ways.

 

[wanderful]

So just to try and distill this argument a bit--

Everyone agrees 2015 was a bad year. The argument beyond that seems to be boiled down to the following:

The team was bad because --

1) they had bad luck and transition-year growing pains that are likely to get fixed by year 2

or

2) the coaching staff is incompetent and can't be expected to do better than they did in 2015

I think most of us think and/or hope it was #1. But even if it is #2, the only way we can determine this for sure is to give Riley and assistant coaches full throated support again this year. And then if the results end up the same as 2015, we'll know it was #2 and can start acting accordingly.