Mike Riley's contract extended until 2020 and most likely again in December

[timnsun]

Do you just say, "I'm going to criticize that wife of Tom's no matter what"? Because I said let them extend the contract if it helps recruits because it's not a big deal to us. A coach at Nebraska is a dead man walking if he doesn't win regardless of what the contract says.

Do you understand my point? If he has, what, 3 years left on his contract and it doesn't get extended (which is standard everywhere in big time athletics), that is the administration saying we don't support you any longer, unless you show us now that you can win. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a huge red flag to recruits, because the coach doesn't have the support of the administration.

If the administration extends the coach, guess what? He can be fired later that year! And the players who signed on to play for that coach won't have that opportunity any longer. To your point, there is no difference, and you would be right in terms of his staying power.

If the coach is not extended, what is communicated is the coach won't be there much longer (unless he dramatically turns it around)... why would I go play there?

Do you see this difference? Maybe you agree with me and I am missing it, and if so, I apologize. But there is a difference in the eyes of the recruit whether the coach is extended or not. That's the point.

Edit: Apologies, I went back to page one, and I think we agree, more or less. I think we talk past each other at times, and miss when we agree with each other.

 

[timnsun]

even if the program had gone 0-11 the previous year - that would be uncharted waters for NU and i think most would change expectations

I see what you are saying here, and it makes sense... Still, after 4 years, of plateau football, you would definitely begin to wonder if he was the right guy, wouldn't you? Maybe we wouldn't fire him under your scenario, but we probably wouldn't be sad to see him go before year 5... As it happens, MSU kept him on for year 5 which turned out well for them...

 

[Toms Wife]

Do you understand my point? If he has, what, 3 years left on his contract and it doesn't get extended (which is standard everywhere in big time athletics), that is the administration saying we don't support you any longer, unless you show us now that you can win. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a huge red flag to recruits, because the coach doesn't have the support of the administration.

If the administration extends the coach, guess what? He can be fired later that year! And the players who signed on to play for that coach won't have that opportunity any longer. To your point, there is no difference, and you would be right in terms of his staying power.

If the coach is not extended, what is communicated is the coach won't be there much longer (unless he dramatically turns it around)... why would I go play there?

Do you see this difference? Maybe you agree with me and I am missing it, and if so, I apologize. But there is a difference in the eyes of the recruit whether the coach is extended or not. That's the point.

You just quoted my post which said, "...let them extend the contract if it helps recruits." So go for it.

But just admit that this perception we are creating doesn't mean anything in regards to staying longer. We extended Bo in March of 2014. We fired Bo in November of 2014. The extension meant nothing.

 

[timnsun]

You just quoted my post which said, "...let them extend the contract if it helps recruits." So go for it.

But just admit that this perception we are creating doesn't mean anything in regards to staying longer. We extended Bo in March of 2014. We fired Bo in November of 2014. The extension meant nothing.

Agreed on that count. It doesn't mean a thing to his longevity if he bombs... See my edit above, I missed that we agree, more or less here.

 

[SnohomishRed]

I see what you are saying here, and it makes sense... Still, after 4 years, of plateau football, you would definitely begin to wonder if he was the right guy, wouldn't you? Maybe we wouldn't fire him under your scenario, but we probably wouldn't be sad to see him go before year 5... As it happens, MSU kept him on for year 5 which turned out well for them...

If NU got to a point where we went 0-11 and previous to that had losing seasons, then I think a new coach is judged by improvement in recruiting and overall play initially. This is not what Riley walk into and so fairly or unfairly he is being judged on wins and losses as compared to well 9

 

[Toms Wife]

Here's my conspiracy theory take (which I think is real). Coaches know they have a cash cow in these contract extensions. Thus, they love to talk about how important it is to recruits that they be extended and they love to point out when others aren't being extended. They have purposefully created this issue and now have they have put it into the minds of recruits in the recruiting world. AD's bought it, and now it is this gigantic issue.

One example of how it used to be: When Osborne played for the national championship in 1983, he was making $58,500 and only had a three year contract.

 

[TheOutline]

7-5 is Riley's norm. He wants to go to a bowl, after that, everything else is gravy. Not even in the same galaxy as Urban, Saban, and maybe James Franklin. My choice was always Justin Fuente, already won his division in the increasingly competitive ACC. Mystical Mike - like a Presidential election, 4 more years....

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

You just quoted my post which said, "...let them extend the contract if it helps recruits." So go for it.

But just admit that this perception we are creating doesn't mean anything in regards to staying longer. We extended Bo in March of 2014. We fired Bo in November of 2014. The extension meant nothing.

As I told someone else, it meant nothing to Nebraska but not the recruits.

Here's my conspiracy theory take (which I think is real). Coaches know they have a cash cow in these contract extensions. Thus, they love to talk about how important it is to recruits that they be extended and they love to point out when others aren't being extended. They have purposefully created this issue and now have they have put it into the minds of recruits in the recruiting world. AD's bought it, and now it is this gigantic issue.

One example of how it used to be: When Osborne played for the national championship in 1983, he was making $58,500 and only had a three year contract.

So you are comparing a contract from 1983 where recruiting rules were mostly non-existent to now? C'mon Tom you're better than that. Osborne and Switzer stockpiled classes of 45 or more back in the day. There was no need to worry about other schools, the rich got richer.

 

[suhnami]

Not sure winning 3 out of the last 8 qualifies as trending up.

You went there.

 

[jflores]

As I told someone else, it meant nothing to Nebraska but not the recruits.



So you are comparing a contract from 1983 where recruiting rules were mostly non-existent to now? C'mon Tom you're better than that. Osborne and Switzer stockpiled classes of 45 or more back in the day. There was no need to worry about other schools, the rich got richer.

Or go read SEC Country. They list I think pretty much all of their schools in the Top 25 of coaches pay, and the only one really earning their Big Bucks is ole Saban. Sumlin I think is 2 or 3, and his situation rather speaks for itself. Plus there's an article on there by the voice of Bama talking about how fans are upset with their new $1.3 million dollar OC.

I suppose one could make the case that adding a potential extra year to a buyout is the difference between Osborne making less than a competent junior aerospace engineer and Harbaugh bringing in $9 million, but I think its a stretch.

 

[Toms Wife]

As I told someone else, it meant nothing to Nebraska but not the recruits.



So you are comparing a contract from 1983 where recruiting rules were mostly non-existent to now? C'mon Tom you're better than that. Osborne and Switzer stockpiled classes of 45 or more back in the day. There was no need to worry about other schools, the rich got richer.

What? Are you following the discussion?

We are talking about how today coaches have made recruits think that the coaches recruiting them have to have five year contracts. That never was the case among any people I went on recruiting trips with or when Tom took his trips. Nobody ever asked, "And how many years does Carm Cozza have on his contract?" nor did anyone care enough to bring it up. It's a contrived issue that has developed over the last 15-20 years fed by coaches who know the value of it to themselves.

 

[headcard]

7-5 is Riley's norm. He wants to go to a bowl, after that, everything else is gravy. Not even in the same galaxy as Urban, Saban, and maybe James Franklin. My choice was always Justin Fuente, already won his division in the increasingly competitive ACC. Mystical Mike - like a Presidential election, 4 more years....

That's asinine. I guarantee you Mike Riley wants to win Conference Titles and play in big-time Bowl Games. Funny you mention James Franklin. Was he happy with 7-5 and just going to Bowl Games? Because prior to last year that is about all he had ever done.

And when did you want to hire Fuente? At the time we hired Riley, Fuente had been a head coach for three seasons, going 4-8 and 3-9 the first two, before finally going 10-3 in 2014. I'm sure you would have been thrilled with that hire...

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

What? Are you following the discussion?

We are talking about how today coaches have made recruits think that the coaches recruiting them have to have five year contracts. That never was the case among any people I went on recruiting trips with or when Tom took his trips. Nobody ever asked, "And how many years does Carm Cozza have on his contract?" nor did anyone care enough to bring it up. It's a contrived issue that has developed over the last 15-20 years fed by coaches who know the value of it to themselves.

Coaches today made it an issue because that is how they negative recruit. Conspiracy theory, maybe, but the point is that recruiting today isn't the same as it was in 1983. Secondly, recruiting is today's world is nothing like Ivy League recruiting, so using Carm Cozza probably isn't the best example unless he recruiting again John Yovicsin or Joe Restic.

 

[Toms Wife]

Coaches today made it an issue because that is how they negative recruit. Conspiracy theory, maybe, but the point is that recruiting today isn't the same as it was in 1983. Secondly, recruiting is today's world is nothing like Ivy League recruiting, so using Carm Cozza probably isn't the best example unless he recruiting again John Yovicsin or Joe Restic.

I'm sure they want to score recruiting points. But they aren't stupid. They know the continuing chorus about contract extensions can only help themselves. Do you know what is a MUCH BIGGER issue that I have never heard coaches bring up? "Do you know how small that guy's buyout is?" If you are recruiting against GOOD coaches who might be tempted to leave for greener pastures that is far bigger issue. But it's one that I've never heard get brought up because it isn't of benefit to coaches.

P.S. That tool Joe Restic (MHRIP) and the rest of those Johnnies need to take to heart what their fans think about them.

 

[mel mains]

Are you seriously comparing his FBS and FCS results, and considering that a fair comparison?

No, not at all. But then I don't even know what a fair or unfair comparison would even mean. Wins are wins.

I simply pointed out that his YSU tenure would belong in the first group, which is seemingly undeniable. Yet the ability of posters to find reasons to argue after 5 pages of moving targets is amazing. Anonymity I suppose helps.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

No, not at all. But then I don't even know what a fair or unfair comparison would even mean. Wins are wins.

I simply pointed out that his YSU tenure would belong in the first group, which is seemingly undeniable. Yet the ability of posters to find reasons to argue after 5 pages of moving targets is amazing. Anonymity I suppose helps.

I totally get what you mean... "Mel"

 

[Morgan747]

Triggered

Nitwit

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Nitwit

I was spot on, thanks for confirming. 408 is gone and you are forever triggered, enjoy that.

 

[oldjar07]

i think it's safe to say if those first four seasons played out in Lincoln, whoever was coaching would not have gotten a fifth season...

Let's put a finer point on it... if those first four seasons were under Riley (impossible after his second season, I know...), would he be coach for a fifth year?

Not relevant. He was at Michigan State. Michigan State was terrible for decades before he got there and sucked after he left until Dantonio.

 

[oldjar07]

Let me be the first to say...Riley can't meet whatever the bar is, I'm not going to cry if he goes.

We have to consider this fan base though. At this point in time, I would imagine our fan base would demand Frost get the first look, *because that's the way we roll*.

There are only a couple of truisms spouted across the Husker casual fanbase anymore

1. We need to get back to our running identity.
2. We need to get Frost while he's a young up and comer before some other school locks him down.

For folks that think there are better fits out there in the next 18 months...consider this. There were better fits in 2008 when we went "thumbs down" on Steve P and wanted TO hired to "bring back Bo". That's exactly what happened, and most folks weren't even upset that our own Gill didn't get more than a sham of a look.

With Lincoln Riley and Tom Herman off the books, the last two of the potential all star hires are now gone. Its basically Frost and bunch of other guys we're not sure are any better than Frost would be, even though they are more experienced. Tie goes to the Husker.

IMO, a vote for canning Riley in the next 18 months, is effectively a vote for Frost. The folks who are debating Husker football in donut shops across the state are not looking to hire Mike Gundy.

Maybe Chip Kelly or Bob Stoops are in the running by the end of the year?

 

[oldjar07]

Who hires him as a head coach? Youngstown? There is career risk.

Does he even want to be the head coach at Nebraska?

Not really much of a risk. If he wasn't good enough for Nebraska, what makes you think he would be good enough for other schools? And if he isn't good, he's probably just overpaid. I would take that risk!

 

[Morgan747]

I was spot on

So was I

 

[mel mains]

I totally get what you mean... "Mel"

Always angry, always arguing. Hardly surprised you were triggered.

Digits and Dots:

 

[Herkmeister]

If the contract didn't matter, it wouldn't be a topic. The donors pay those buyouts not the windfall from the Big Ten money.

Really? There's a difference?

 

[Herkmeister]

Is it true the once proud Nebraska Huskers are 16-12 under Mediocre Mike?

And you're going to extend a contract twice in the same year?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put out this dumpster fire and get back to where you belong as a top national program. Enough is enough!!!!!!

Penn State is back, you should be too.

I'm a Hawkeye and this makes me sick.

You are letting your administration take you down the path of mediocrity and you have the perfect coach to do it. DUMP HIM.

GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE!!!!!

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Always angry, always arguing. Hardly surprised you were triggered.

Digits and Dots:

View embedded media

Ya got me. I am so upset.