Developing players is hard

[Red Dead Redemption]

At least he was able to win 9 games by his second year Anyone who wouldn't give Riley the chance at four years should be calling for Frost right now. I'm glad they aren't but there is no reason to think Frost will be any more successful than Riley at this point comparing their first two seasons.

False equivalency.

Its arguable that Riley should have been given more time, but not as a puppet of HP and SE.
But It's even more arguable that a comparison of MR vs SF does not justify what you are insisting.

The condition of the program was in vastly different states when Riley took over vs. when Frost took over.

• Riley inherited a consistent 9/10 win team for 7 years; .705 winning %, bowl game 7 consecutive years.
• Frost inherited a 4-8 team on a losing streak (lost 12 of their last 18), past 3 years with overall .500 record and 2 losing seasons

Riley and Frost were hired for different reasons, thus the expectations were different

• Riley was hired to be an immediate "step up", a veteran coach to take an already stable program to the next level that Pelini couldn't reach, as it seemed he had plateaued. Instead, he drove the program down.
• Frost was hired to completely rebuild and resurrect the program from the ashes of the past 15 years, the young coach was immediately and appropriately given a long runway

Its also very arguable that Frost brought a lot more to the table than Riley did.
Frost played for and worked for a plethora of coaches, some who are considered legendary (Walsh, Osborne, Parcells, Belichek, Tomlin, Gruden, Kelly...
He was a finalist for the Broyles award, and one of his players won the Heisman trophy (Mariota). Oregon was extremely successful during his 3 years as OC.
Then there is of course UCF, and not to mention the intangibles he brings from his experience with the NU program during it's glory years (95-97)

All Riley brought to the table was a career .500 record and a 'nice guy' personality.

(Yeah, there may be more 'highlights' from MR's career that could be dredged up, like that silly canuck grey cup he won with a 6-6 record, but IMO the potential that Frost brought exponentially overshadows MR's resume.)

It's very understandable why someone would be willing to give Frost more time than what Riley was afforded. There are so many differences in the 2 situations, it's a futile effort to try to paint them as equivalent.

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

At least he was able to win 9 games by his second year Anyone who wouldn't give Riley the chance at four years should be calling for Frost right now. I'm glad they aren't but there is no reason to think Frost will be any more successful than Riley at this point comparing their first two seasons.

Not true at all. Frost has the “possibility” of HUGE upside and won an NC here, so, obviously he cares. Zero upside potential with previous coach. Wasn’t possible. You stay the course.

 

[Maverick]

Not true at all. Frost has the “possibility” of HUGE upside and won an NC here, so, obviously he cares. Zero upside potential with previous coach. Wasn’t possible. You stay the course.

We have no idea if he would have done well. Like I said, I trust Frost will get things done, but Riley was never given a chance by much of the fanbase (and if rumors are to be believed the AD wasn't doing much to help either) while many of those same people are still backing a coach who has shown no success at Nebraska. Its homerism at its finest.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

We have no idea if he would have done well. Like I said, I trust Frost will get things done, but Riley was never given a chance by much of the fanbase (and if rumors are to be believed the AD wasn't doing much to help either) while many of those same people are still backing a coach who has shown no success at Nebraska. Its homerism at its finest.

Hyperbolic.

It absolutely is not something to be dismissed as simply 'homerism at its finest'.
There are arguable reasons for why Riley was not given much of a chance.
And there are arguable reasons why those same people would still back Frost.

The two situations and circumstances are not equivalent.
See this post:

False equivalency.

Its arguable that Riley should have been given more time, but not as a puppet of HP and SE.
But It's even more arguable that the comparison of MR vs SF does not justify what you are insisting.

The condition of the program was in vastly different states when Riley took over vs. when Frost took over.

• Riley inherited a consistent 9/10 win team; .705 winning %, bowl game every year.
• Frost inherited a 4-8 team on a losing streak (lost 12 of their last 18), .500 record, 2 losing seasons

Riley and Frost were hired for different reasons, thus the expectations were different

• Riley was hired to be a "step up", to take an already stable program to the next level that Pelini couldn't reach, as it seemed he had plateaued. Instead, he drove the program down.
• Frost was hired to completely rebuild and resurrect the program from the ashes of the past 15 years.

Its also very arguable that Frost brought a lot more to the table than Riley did.
Frost played for and worked for a plethora of coaches, some who are considered legendary (Walsh, Osborne, Parcells, Belichek, Tomlin, Gruden, Kelly...
He was a finalist for the Broyles award, and one of his players won the Heisman trophy (Mariota). Oregon was extremely successful during his 3 years as OC.
Then there is of course UCF, and not to mention the intangibles he brings from his experience with the NU program during it's glory years (95-97)

All Riley brought to the table was a career .500 record and a 'nice guy' personality.

(Yeah, there may be more 'highlights' from MR's career that could be dredged up, like that silly canuck grey cup he won with a 6-6 record, but IMO the potential that Frost brought exponentially overshadows MR's resume.)

It's very understandable why someone would be willing to give Frost more time than what Riley was afforded. There are so many differences in the 2 situations, it's a futile effort to try to paint them as equivalent.

 

[Maverick]

False equivalency.

Its arguable that Riley should have been given more time, but not as a puppet of HP and SE.
But It's even more arguable that the comparison of MR vs SF does not justify what you are insisting.

The condition of the program was in vastly different states when Riley took over vs. when Frost took over.

• Riley inherited a consistent 9/10 win team; .705 winning %, bowl game every year.
• Frost inherited a 4-8 team on a losing streak (lost 12 of their last 18), .500 record, 2 losing seasons

Riley and Frost were hired for different reasons, thus the expectations were different

• Riley was hired to be a "step up", to take an already stable program to the next level that Pelini couldn't reach, as it seemed he had plateaued. Instead, he drove the program down.
• Frost was hired to completely rebuild and resurrect the program from the ashes of the past 15 years.

Its also very arguable that Frost brought a lot more to the table than Riley did.
Frost played for and worked for a plethora of coaches, some who are considered legendary (Walsh, Osborne, Parcells, Belichek, Tomlin, Gruden, Kelly...
He was a finalist for the Broyles award, and one of his players won the Heisman trophy (Mariota). Oregon was extremely successful during his 3 years as OC.
Then there is of course UCF, and not to mention the intangibles he brings from his experience with the NU program during it's glory years (95-97)

All Riley brought to the table was a career .500 record and a 'nice guy' personality.

(Yeah, there may be more 'highlights' from MR's career that could be dredged up, like that silly canuck grey cup he won with a 6-6 record, but IMO the potential that Frost brought exponentially overshadows MR's resume.)

It's very understandable why someone would be willing to give Frost more time than what Riley was afforded. There are so many differences in the 2 situations, it's a futile effort to try to paint them as equivalent.

Riley was hired as an anti-Pelini. Pelini poisoned the well before leaving and put Riley in a worse spot with the players. Even now, we are hearing players intentionally made things difficult on him. He was fixing a destroyed program even if it wasn't showing in the W-L columns yet.

Both were hired to save the program. How can Frost be hired to fix the last 15 years if Riley was supposed to take a stable program to the top three years ago?

Frost has yet to actually build a program with almost no HC experience and only 3 years max as a coordinator. UCF is just as easily fool's gold as anything else. The team was fantastic before the 0-12 team. He has a higher potential due to age, but that doesn't change how little resume he actually has.

Riley is widely believed to be the reason for Erickson's success at OSU and was sought by both Alabama and USC, albeit in his younger years. He's widely considered one of the most knowledgeable coaches by his peers. The issue was that people wanted him out by the end of his FIRST season due to record and are still making excuses after back to back disappointments from Frost.

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

We have no idea if he would have done well. Like I said, I trust Frost will get things done, but Riley was never given a chance by much of the fanbase (and if rumors are to be believed the AD wasn't doing much to help either) while many of those same people are still backing a coach who has shown no success at Nebraska. Its homerism at its finest.

Well I won’t argue with you about it. Riley always sucked. Wasn’t changing at Nebraska. Upside to be had with Frost. I’m hoping he has “it”. A few more years will tell us what we have.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Riley was hired as an anti-Pelini. Pelini poisoned the well before leaving and put Riley in a worse spot with the players. Even now, we are hearing players intentionally made things difficult on him. He was fixing a destroyed program even if it wasn't showing in the W-L columns yet.

You certainly have all the anti-Pelini talking points down. Still just mostly speculation.

I've already admitted that Riley should have been given more time.
Don't move the goalposts; this isn't about Pelini. Do you remember the point I was arguing?

Both were hired to save the program. How can Frost be hired to fix the last 15 years if Riley was supposed to take a stable program to the top three years ago?

Not sure what you are asking, but it seems like you are trying to argue some irrelevant point.
If you want to nitpick that the Pelini years weren't stable, that is fine, but that is a different discussion.
For all of the alleged woes of the program under his years, there was some consistency that was good as well. A consistency we didn't see with Bill or Mike.

As I said, the program was in very different states when Riley started than when Frost started. I don't think that can be argued.

I think that most people would argue that the faults of Frank, Bill, Bo, and Mike (as well as faults that were due to others during their tenures) have all had a detrimental cumulative effect on the program and it's current state.

Frost has yet to actually build a program with almost no HC experience and only 3 years max as a coordinator. UCF is just as easily fool's gold as anything else. The team was fantastic before the 0-12 team. He has a higher potential due to age, but that doesn't change how little resume he actually has.

I agree that his success at UCF was due to more than just him. But the trajectory of the program during his time there was monotonically increasing.
His experience as HC is short, but his other experiences surpass that of Riley IMO.
Don't marginalize him by just looking at his HC experience.

Riley is widely believed to be the reason for Erickson's success at OSU and was sought by both Alabama and USC, albeit in his younger years. He's widely considered one of the most knowledgeable coaches by his peers. The issue was that people wanted him out by the end of his FIRST season due to record and are still making excuses after back to back disappointments from Frost.

Like I said, it is arguable.
Yes, OSU seemed to have some success many, many years ago due in part to Riley.

But their situations and circumstances are so different, it is intellectually lazy to try to paint them as equivalent in order to dictate how fans opinions should be formed for a struggling new/young coach, and/or to dismiss their opinions as simply 'homerism at its finest'

 

[Maverick]

You certainly have all the anti-Pelini talking points down. Still just mostly speculation.

I've already admitted that Riley should have been given more time.
Don't move the goalposts; this isn't about Pelini. Do you remember the point I was arguing?


Not sure what you are asking, but it seems like you are trying to argue some irrelevant point.
If you want to nitpick that the Pelini years weren't stable, that is fine, but that is a different discussion.
For all of the alleged woes of the program under his years, there was some consistency that was good as well. A consistency we didn't see with Bill or Mike.

As I said, the program was in very different states when Riley started than when Frost started. I don't think that can be argued.

I think that most people would argue that the faults of Frank, Bill, Bo, and Mike (as well as faults that were due to others during their tenures) have all had a detrimental cumulative effect on the program and it's current state.


I agree that his success at UCF was due to more than just him. But the trajectory of the program during his time there was monotonically increasing.


Like I said, it is arguable.
Yes, OSU seemed to have success many, many years ago due in part to Riley.

But their situations and circumstances are so different, it is intellectually lazy to try to paint them as equivalent in order to dictate how fans opinions should be formed for a struggling new/young coach, and/or to dismiss their opinions as simply 'homerism at its finest'

I didn't make this argument until we were two full seasons of disappointment from Frost whereas Riley was being put on the hot seat by fans during his first season. It's arguable that Frost would get extra leeway sure but he failed for an entire extra year and is still receiving that leeway.

I also wasn't bringing up Pelini for his sake. I brought him up to point out that Riley was fixing a broken program just as much as Frost. I didn't want Pelini fired, though after his Iowa conference I knew it was inevitable and after his player speech realized how important it was. So no idea what you mean by "having the anti-Pelini comments down"

My point on the 15 years was you claimed that Riley was merely nudging a successful program over the top while Frost was fixing over a decade of failure. Those both can't be true if they coincide. Either Riley was also fixing a broken program (which is what I personally believe) or Frost is only overcoming 3 years max.

But HiO has it right, probably shouldn't keep debating it. Especially since I'm sure we are a bit off topic (my bad).

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I didn't make this argument until we were two full seasons of disappointment from Frost whereas Riley was being put on the hot seat by fans during his first season. It's arguable that Frost would get extra leeway sure but he failed for an entire extra year and is still receiving that leeway.

So what? Are you jealous by proxy? Should his seat be lit up or be fired out of spite for how Riley was treated?
It seems like argument you are making is that others should regard the situations of Riley vs. Frost as equivalent and be short-sighted and reactionary to both. And then you say Frost should get extra leeway.
You are all over the place.

I also wasn't bringing up Pelini for his sake. I brought him up to point out that Riley was fixing a broken program just as much as Frost. I didn't want Pelini fired, though after his Iowa conference I knew it was inevitable and after his player speech realized how important it was. So no idea what you mean by "having the anti-Pelini comments down"

Whatever.
There were things about the program that was consistent and good under Bo, in spite of the faults.
Riley's program had no consistency or trajectory.
Trying to make equivalent Riley's starting point to Frosts starting points is a futile effort.
They were 'broken' in different ways, and they were hired for different reasons, just like their predecessors were fired for different reasons.

Frosts experience as HC is short, but his resume of other experiences surpass that of Riley IMO.
Don't marginalize him by just looking at his HC experience. He brought more to the table than Riley did.

My point on the 15 years was you claimed that Riley was merely nudging a successful program over the top while Frost was fixing over a decade of failure. Those both can't be true if they coincide. Either Riley was also fixing a broken program (which is what I personally believe) or Frost is only overcoming 3 years max.

You are being too literal. There is nuance.
The program was 'successful' under Pelini, but there were still issues that needed to be fixed to raise the program to where it should be. I'm acknowledging the criticisms of others, not necessarily mine.
My point was that regardless of how 'successful' the program was under Pelini, it was erased by the aftermath of his firing, some of which was due to the same decisions/expectations/thinking/etc. that got Frank fired in the first place, and started the downfall of the program that really hasn't recovered since 2001. After Bo was fired, the program was back to where was before he started, and only got worse from there.
Riley took it to new depths.

But HiO has it right, probably shouldn't keep debating it. Especially since I'm sure we are a bit off topic (my bad).

Yes, trying to paint things as equivalent when they actually aren't equivalent, just to rebuke the opinions of other fans who may just simply be tired of the revolving door of coaches and want to give a young coach with a lot of potential the time that he needs, is a futile and fallacious effort.

 

[Hville]

At least he was able to win 9 games by his second year Anyone who wouldn't give Riley the chance at four years should be calling for Frost right now. I'm glad they aren't but there is no reason to think Frost will be any more successful than Riley at this point comparing their first two seasons.

Yes there is a reason to believe Frost will be more successful after comparing their first two seasons. Riley was handed players that were use to winning 9+ games a year. Frost was handed players who were playing in a cupcake system. Frost at least appears to show and act like a coach. Riley was just a nice guy.

 

[Hville]

Whether you like the speed or not...….SF has not digressed at Nebraska yet. Riley digressed in his first and 3rd years.

 

[goodnterribles]

We have no idea if he would have done well. Like I said, I trust Frost will get things done, but Riley was never given a chance by much of the fanbase (and if rumors are to be believed the AD wasn't doing much to help either) while many of those same people are still backing a coach who has shown no success at Nebraska. Its homerism at its finest.

Riley only getting 3 years at NU wasn't fair, as I believe every coach should get a full recruiting class to show what they can do. That being said, we all have an idea that RIley would not have done well because he's never done well.

 

[alabamahusker]

while many of those same people are still backing a coach who has shown no success at Nebraska. Its homerism at its finest.

I totally agree...…………. let's get him outta here by tonight...........

 

[ShortSideOption]

Riley only getting 3 years at NU wasn't fair, as I believe every coach should get a full recruiting class to show what they can do. That being said, we all have an idea that RIley would not have done well because he's never done well.

I'd agree there, but it was never going to be fair for him. Who to hire, who to fire, what workouts to do, what tackling to do, it just was never going to be his. Compounding that, the home-state kid was available for the taking who showed some promise, so I get the move.

As you said, I just wanted Riley to fail (or succeed) here with what he wanted to do. That never happened. But I think we got the better guy in the position now so I won't get too mad about it.

 

[goodnterribles]

I'd agree there, but it was never going to be fair for him. Who to hire, who to fire, what workouts to do, what tackling to do, it just was never going to be his. Compounding that, the home-state kid was available for the taking who showed some promise, so I get the move.

As you said, I just wanted Riley to fail (or succeed) here with what he wanted to do. That never happened. But I think we got the better guy in the position now so I won't get too mad about it.

Him having things forced on him and agreeing to it just tells me all I need to know about his leadership. He should have refused and said he's the coach, and if he can't do things his way, then fire me.

Whatever, we should send him a thank you note.