A little about Riley - from an Outsider
- Thread starter Zorse
- Start date
It was far from just an opinion
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sp...g-decision-to-leave-oregon-state-bittersweet-
Riley said he first got a phone call from Nebraska athletic director Shawn Eichorst on Monday afternoon -- hours after a post-season meeting with OSU AD Bob De Carolis.
Three sources told me that De Carolis wanted to eliminate multiyear contracts for Beaver assistant coaches -- something Riley had fought hard for in recent years -- and also wanted to renegotiate Riley's deal to pare the years remaining down from seven.
Did Riley feel his future with the OSU program was in doubt?
"Let's just say it's a new start for me and a new start for Oregon State," he said. "I hope it works out well on both ends."
The thing you all are missing from the OP is the difficulty in maintaining success at smaller and lesser funded schools. The point the OP was making is that had Riley left Oregon St after the 2008 season or before, Bellotti believes he could have and would have had success at a bigger school. There is a reason Saban left Michigan St and Franklin left Vandy, Paul Chryst left Pitt, Rich Rodriguez left WV for Michigan, those are just off the top of my head. A guy like Larry Fedora was a hot commodity at Southern Miss and got the UNC job. Now he is sort of stuck in the 7-9 win range, cant win enough to get out and good enough to keep his job. A good coach getting a lower level P5 school from 3 wins to 8 or 9 is a whole lot easier than keeping it at 9 wins and getting it to 11 or 12.
Mike Leach at Texas Tech, couldn't get over the hump, again Franklin at Vandy couldn't get over the 9 win threshold. The aforementioned Fedora, Cutcliffe at Duke, are a couple of more. Some believe Fitzgerald would be a great coach at bigger school with a bigger budget and lesser academic restrictions.
Mike Leach at Texas Tech, couldn't get over the hump, again Franklin at Vandy couldn't get over the 9 win threshold. The aforementioned Fedora, Cutcliffe at Duke, are a couple of more. Some believe Fitzgerald would be a great coach at bigger school with a bigger budget and lesser academic restrictions.
Two days before Mike Riley was offered the job at Nebraska the local Corvallis paper ran an editorial with the headline:
Three Reasons Not to Fire Mike Riley
If the local paper has an editorial article with that title, you are in some pretty good trouble.
Three Reasons Not to Fire Mike Riley
If the local paper has an editorial article with that title, you are in some pretty good trouble.
Far from fact, there is tons of room for supposition and inference depending on your agenda. Riley was 60 with a 7 year deal that continued to roll over, if I recall correctly. Getting up in age, retirement was getting closer, Riley with a 7 year deal would have been in a better position to negotiate a buyout when he retired. That is just good business on the part of the AD. Secondly, you didn't mention what his buyout would have been if he was fired. Was that a part of the renegotiation or was it just the fact that the AD wanted a contract more in line what other FBS coaches were getting 4-5 year deals?
The comment about a new start for him and a new start for Oregon St isn't at all controversial. That is about the only thing that is 100% fact in your cut and paste. Riley was starting new and so was Oregon St. Look what Riley leaving has done to Oregon St. They went from 12-13 overall and 6-12 in the league in Riley's last 2 years to 6-18 overall and 3-15 in the league under the Andersen. So far this year Andersen and Oregon St has lost all 4 games to FBS opponents by 31,34,29, and 35 points.
This is true. But it is also MR fault for NOT leaving or not having the chance to leave (Maybe UCLA and Bama).
What is that editor saying about the Andersen hire? Easy to give an opinion in a newspaper.
I don't think anyone is looking for who's fault it is. The OP was detailing a conversation he had with Bellotti, where Bellotti said had Riley left Oregon St he would have been successful. But if you want to go down that path, of course it's Riley's fault he didn't leave. He chose to stay home to coach. That is a choice people make everyday in all walks of life. Additionally, he did leave, and chose to come back. Again this is a post about what Bellotti said, not a post of what Riley wished he would have done. Assigning fault is asinine.
90% of your posts make absolutely no sense, and I think that percentage is probably low.
Yes it is. The whole post was between 2 people not named Mike Riley discussing what Mike Riley could have done. Assigning fault for him not doing something different is stupid. Riley made the choices that he wanted to make. There is no fault in doing that. Again we all make those choices. If you choose to live in a dump, and I say you could move to a better place. I guess technically it is your fault for living in a dump, but it's your choice to do so. What sense does it make to assign fault though, as a grown man you did what you did. That doesn't mean me and some stranger can't say well if JRE had moved to a better place he would have had more success. Which is inherently differnt than saying it's JRE's fault that he doesn't live in a better place. Who cares who is at fault.
The point is that the seat is pretty hot if the local rag has to write an editorial trying to help you keep your job. I imagine the seat is getting pretty hot for Anderson too.
It's an opinion piece in the mid 2010's. There are literally 100s of shows on TV and radio where people give their opinion. In this day and age, if a coach isn't winning half their games by year 2, they are on the hot seat. Kevin Sumlin is on the hot seat and is winning 68% of his games and 55% of his games in the SEC. But Dan Mullen is winning 59% of his games overall and 45% of his SEC games and he is a candidate for all the top jobs.
Yes I do no the poster isn't Mike Riley. Mike Riley would not have misspelled Bellotti's name throughout the article.
If I was Riley I would have done that to throw people off the scent a bit.
That's entirely different than what TulsaTom said which was; "The AD at OSU however was not going to let Mike and the same coaches return in 2015 because the ship was sinking."
That contract was ridiculous for any coach to receive and dumb for any AD to approve. The contact gave Riley an extra year, every single year Riley made a bowl game. We've seen you can go 6-6 or even 5-7 to make a bowl game so of course the AD wanted to restructure Riley's contract, but that doesn't mean Riley or any of his staff were out the door in 2015 or any time shortly after.
TT post is still an opinion.
Last edited:
I really do not believe OSU would have ever fired Riley, that would have been like firing their Devaney. I do think and the sentiment was at the time that some assistants were in the hot seat, mainly Banker, Read and to a lesser extent Cavanaugh. I think the tone was Mike Riley can stay but some of these guys have to go.
The irony is he fired Banker and Read anyhow. There were some very puzzling hires when he came aboard that I feel had more to do with loyalty to friends than it had to do that these were the guys to bring NU back.
Either way there are some direct quotes by Riley I guess you can read into then what you want
Didn’t call it rosy... just let Tulsa know that the article he posted wasn’t a statement of fact that Riley was soon to be fired.
Tulsa likes to exaggerate things to rile the masses, as you no doubt know.
I don't think you are following. 1. People were calling for Riley's head (he had only won 2 out of his last 12 conference games remember). 2. The AD was unhappy. He and Riley would subsequently have a meeting that did not go well. This info was widely reported. 3. The local rag took to defending Riley. People don't write editorials in favor of "not firing" someone if there is no chance that person would get fired.
That is part of his legacy.
it is all about expectations and trends.. Taxas A-M isn't paying Sumlin the 7th highest salary in the nation for what amounts to a losing record in the SEC after his first year. While certainly expectations within any fan base can be unrealistic the head coaches are making millions with almost automatic contract renewals such that if fired they continue to collect for 3-5 years. It is a high risk - high reward occupation that banks you millions for years even after being fired.
Any coach is going to take some heat if it looks like it is going to be a dog fight to get to 6-6 in year three at Nebraska.
I don’t think you are following. Riley had a 7 year contract. Oregon State is not made of money. He wasn’t going anywhere. The article said the AD wanted to restructure his contract, not fire him.
You can argue he should have been fired, but he wasn’t going to be fired. He had the AD over a barrel.
Which is exactly why the AD took the steps that he did in that meeting because he knew Riley would be upset about it. His actions not only got him out of that horrendous contract but caused Nebraska to have to pay OSU. (Have the results been good? No. But the AD got what he wanted.)
p.s. If you fill in the timeline it's not too hard to figure out what went down on that fateful day of December 2, 2014. What we know is in bold. What we don't know for sure is in bold and italics.
Dec. 1 (or early on Dec. 2): SE called the OSU AD for official permission to talk to Mike Riley. (I have not seen this reported but this is the accepted practice everywhere.)
Dec. 2: The OSU AD and Riley have a contentious meeting about the season. It involved things Riley did not want...cutting asst. coaches' contracts and Riley's length of contract. It did not go well. (The OSU AD knew that Nebraska was going to be talking to Riley later that day. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...)
Dec. 2: soon after the meeting: SE and Riley have their first contact about the Nebraska job. (Riley told a Portland paper his first contact was "shortly after his meeting with De Carolis" on December 2nd.)
Dec. 4: Riley calls De Carolis and says he's taking the Nebraska job. It's cordial but Riley wants to call the pres and let him know and De Carolis tells him no. He will be the one to inform the president.
Dec. 4: De Carolis calls the president and says, "Hey Boss..." (I think you can fill in the rest.)
After he took the steps to make Riley miserable there was no need to fire him. It's like some coaches don't have a need to "fire" a kid not pulling his weight on scholarship.
We are talking about Riley at Oregon St, not Nebraska. I have no problem with Riley being on the hot seat here he has under performed.
Tom's point is that because some writer in Corvallis wrote an editorial that it proves Riley was on the hot seat.
My point on the two coaches I mentioned is exactly what you are referring to, expectations. Riley, at Oregon St, more resembled Mullen at Miss St than Sumlin at aTm. That doesn't mean that some writer at the Starkvegas Tribune isn't going to write an article explaining why Mullen should not be fired.
I have seen nothing about how the meeting with DeCarolis was leading to Riley being fired. The topics discussed were contracts that were out of whack for FBS football coaches. The AD wanted to get a handle on them. If I came to you and said, no other preachers have 7 year contracts that get an extra year based on you getting 100 people at your noon service. I wan't to renegotiate that deal. I would assume you wouldn't be happy. That doesn't mean that I am looking to fire you. That means I don't want to overpay for you simply doing what is expected. I would imagine that meeting could be defined as "not going well"
This isn't the 1980's anymore with regards to editorials. Everyone has an opinion. The fans at Oregon St were probably vocal in their dislike for going 5-7, and were calling for his head. There are a ton of outlets for that now days. An editor wrote a piece voicing his opinion on why Riley shouldn't be fired. None of which means DeCarolis was on the verge of firing Riley. There is always a chance someone gets fired, that has to be the lowest bar possible.
De Carolis knew that Nebraska would be officially calling and that Mike had not talked directly with them yet. (Yes, I know my guys talk to your guys stuff.) If you are in favor of keeping your coach do you try and irritate him immediately before he talks with a big time program?
Do you think on the day after the regular season, if Nebraska happens to call the UCF AD to get permission to talk to Frost that the AD is going to enter into a meeting with Scott with a list of things that will irritate him?
This isn't rocket science.
Shouldn't you be trying to decide which dress to wear to church on Sunday. You don't want to be caught with your panties down Sunday morning unable to decide which one to wear. Pick black if you can. It makes you look slimmer. And oh, make sure it doesn't show your panty line.
Football aside, were you glad your wife "dragged" you to the Midwest, or did it ruin your life?
You are making assumptions based on conversations you did not hear.
In 2010, DeCarolis extended Riley because he was worried that Riley was going to take Carroll's job at USC. Riley at that time said he had no desire to leave and wanted to be the Joe Paterno of Oregon St (assuming he is talking about longevity) but DeCarolis gave him a 3 year extension which was totally unnecessary, considering Riley had already indicated he would be there for the long term. DeCarolis put the provisions in the deal to make it a "lifetime deal", those were DeCarolis's words. Fast forward 4 years, and now DeCarolis is about to step down. He sees this ridiculous deal for the football coach, and realizes he has saddled the next AD with a bad deal. Maybe he wanted to get him to leave so he wouldn't be viewed as the moron who signed the coach to a lifetime deal. But Oregon St could not afford to fire Riley, so any talk of him about to be fired are erroneous at best.
I don't care what the AD at UCF says to Frost. I
No, Riley was not fired by the OSU AD. It is only speculation but I think it would have been hard to fire Riley there. This is pure speculation, but I think he would have been kicked upstairs to some sort of emeritus position. If Nebraska hadn't come along I think Mike would have been fine with that. He's a hometown boy. He still could ride his bike to the office and he would still be surrounded by his friends and family.
I want to get this out there. This is just a gut feeling. I am 61 years old so I base it a little on age. I would not be surprised if 64 year old Mike Riley at the end of the season quietly comes to a separation agreement. He hears the boos. He knows the lay of the land. He may not acknowledge it, but he is aware fans are not happy. Eichorst getting fired does not bode well for him. Why deal with the stress and pressure. It would be a win-win situation. The Husker brass doesn't actually fire him and he leaves with a boatload of money. He's set for life. He can go home and be happy.
I could be completely wrong. This is pure conjecture on my part.
The truth is probably in the middle. I agree his hands were tied on firing. I was wrong on saying that was a real option. However, I don't think he was interested in keeping Riley around. None of the signs point to that whether it be fan frustration, paper editorials, contentious meetings, etc.
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...f/2015/12/canzano_mike_riley_speaks_abou.html
Riley was not on the chopping block at OSU but his assistants were. Riley could have stayed but not his buddies
Said Riley: "It was direct and clear... it was very, very clear to me."
What was clear exactly?
Riley could stay forever under his long-term deal, but he'd be stranded on that island alone. He'd passed on job offers at USC and Alabama in prior years, and once told me that he had his forever job in Corvallis. Riley also said that he was aware of the growing frustration amid Beavers' fans, which is only to say that he was listening.
Who provides resources to a college athletic program? If the Regents and the Dean/President have no interest in having a strong athletic program there will be no dollars for recruiting or facilities upgrades. One coach doesn't do it by himself without the ardent support of the institution's leadership. Devaney came to Nebraska as a coach who was wholeheartedly supported by the U of Nebraska leadership and was provided with facilities upgrades and money to support his efforts. The stadium was expanded with of Devaney's arrival. Good Facilities and Good budgets bring good recruits if one is a good coach.
