grandpasknee
New member
Oh my goodness....we had it all figured out. Don't you remember the epic "sock puppet" thread on the next coach!? God that was a wonderful thread...heh heh...tempted to go kick it to the top again just for the memories...
What is this year about?
- Thread starter grandpasknee
- Start date
Enhance
Administrator
See, I just don't think a lot of people share your perspective. What I think we can both agree on is there has to be a balance between not only competitiveness but also culture. Mike Riley was NOT hired just to win more football games than Bo Pelini, nor do I think most people are expecting him to win and win big within the first season or two. Pelini was fired because of his team's inconsistencies and his attitude. Much like after the Bill Callahan era, this program needed a culture change and a mindset change. Riley provided that.
Now, obviously, winning is what will matter eventually with Riley. But, again, I don't think most people (especially the people whose opinions matter - the boosters and decision-makers in the program) are expecting Riley to win and win quick. It's counter-productive, under-mining one of the foundational principles Riley was hired upon - his personality. Turning that against him and telling him 'hey, you better win a lot and win fast' is not a realistic expectation when you make a coaching change.
You may not be meaning to do this, but, it's almost like you're saying Mike Riley needs to come in like a white knight and win like Urban Meyer did at tOSU. People would've understood if Meyer only won maybe 8 games his first season. It's a transition year - people get it. The fact that he was that successful is a testament to how great he is and should in no way be a standard applied elsewhere. Again, I'm not saying this is what you're eluding to, but it feels like you are.
Mavric
Yoda
That doesn't mean it's the only thing but it's most of it. I don't think the being more competitive is much of a moral victory. I think we improved a lot last year from the year before but the record was still the same so it didn't really seem any better. If we win 9 and don't get blown out in the one game ... eh, that's nice but it doesn't change a lot. If we win less but don't get blown out once, it's understandable but that doesn't mean it's better. If we win more but still get blown out once, I'd say it's still a good improvement. I'm not going to shrug off the next year or two just because I'm hoping it will be better down the road.
As far as the this year/five years, it almost has to be about 3-5 years down the road. I don't see us winning a conference championship this year (there's that winning again) so hopefully we're laying the ground work to get to that next level.
This is so true, I don't think many really look at it like this. I don't think the local or the national media look at it like this. Nebraska has had the talent to win 9+ games for 7 straight years. The talent is still here to do it. I think more consistent coaching will take this team to at least 1 more win.
I have said this many time already. I really think Mike Riley likes what he has here, this is more talent than he has ever had on a college football team. I think he is very quietly confident.
DomiNUs
New member
Maybe I overstated a little. I don't expect Riley to go out and win the conference or even the division this year. It would be nice if he did though. I think he has to at least perform at the same level as Bo. Which IMO should not be that difficult with our schedule. I think a lot of people expect at least 8 or 9 wins, myself included. A 7-6 or 6-7 season would send the fan base into meltdown. Especially considering half of them wanted to keep Bo around, myself not included.
BigRedBuster
Active member
Not disagreeing with the winning part or the schedule part or the coaching part or the QB experience part...etc.
However, I think it was proven that the last 8 years 9 wins was the floor. The ceiling just was only about 2" off the floor.
JJ Husker
Donor
I just really don't agree with this at all. I want to win as much as anyone but doing away with the embarrassing blowouts is at the top of my list of improvements needing to be made. Winning only 9 and eliminating those blowouts would be a huge improvement. That changes a lot IMO. In fact, if I had to choose between winning 9 with no blowout losses or winning 10 with 1 blowout loss, I would take the 9 wins.
That doesn't mean it's the only thing but it's most of it. I don't think the being more competitive is much of a moral victory. I think we improved a lot last year from the year before but the record was still the same so it didn't really seem any better. If we win 9 and don't get blown out in the one game ... eh, that's nice but it doesn't change a lot. If we win less but don't get blown out once, it's understandable but that doesn't mean it's better. If we win more but still get blown out once, I'd say it's still a good improvement. I'm not going to shrug off the next year or two just because I'm hoping it will be better down the road.
As far as the this year/five years, it almost has to be about 3-5 years down the road. I don't see us winning a conference championship this year (there's that winning again) so hopefully we're laying the ground work to get to that next level.
And I am not going to shrug off the next year or two either but there is a difference of opinion of what is more important for our program. If all it is about is 1 or 2 more wins, I think some people are focused on the wrong things.
Mavric
Yoda
Absolutely no way I'd take a moral victory instead of a real vicotry but that's why everyone gets to have their own opinion.
JJ Husker
Donor
I think you just answered this but I want to make sure I understand because I just don't think this way. So, you would rather have 10 wins and a repeat of that 408 game against Wisconsin than to have only 9 wins while playing competitively in the losses?
Mavric
Yoda
Definitely not all of the games that have gotten labeled as "blow-out losses" over the last few years are to that level. UCLA, Michigan State and Iowa in 2013 were termed "blow outs". So were Ohio State and Georgia in 2012 (plus Wiscy II). Same with Wisconsin and Michigan in 2011.
But considering we have almost an identical schedule to last year, I'd trade beating Michigan State, Wisconsin or winning a bowl game for still getting "blown out" once. I guess if you really want to get to specifics I probably wouldn't trade one of the worst games in program history for beating Minnesota but I wouldn't call that a huge improvement either.
Mierin
Donor
It wouldn't make you feel the slightest bit better to lose to Wisconsin by 3 points instead of 40 points? That's pretty damn weird.
Detasselingthehuskers
New member
This feels like bill's first year is gonna be a repeat...
Saunders
Administrator
It looks better on the scoreboard I guess, but it's still a loss. The team quit last year so I wouldn't call losing to Wisconsin this year by 3 points progress either.