sker_echo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, of course, we cant forget that Eichorst was selected by Perlman in a process that did not include Eichorsts predecessor, Tom Osborne, a sore subject in a lot of parts of the state.

 

OWH

I laugh at the stupidity in bold. Unless Osborne is an employee/contractor of the University in some capacity then he should have ZERO say in what happens there. None. If Osborne wants to have a say in the Univeristy's dealings then maybe he should apply and get hired for an actual job there.

Tom Osborne was the Athletic Director of the University when this happened. Harvey didn't consult with TO regarding a replacement, while TO was still employed by the University.

 

I've also heard from a few different places that Harvey was looking for a replacement before Tom even said he was going to retire, which triggered the abrupt announcement/press conference that nobody saw coming.

Exactly. TO rose above the fray by denying he was pressured out, but I'd wager about 85% of what Bo told his team during that last meeting was accurate. The writing was on the wall when Eich was hired as perlmans lackey. They just lacked the political firepower to make their move in '13.

 

Funny thing is, people want to ignore the (lack of) leadership parallels, but is not being able to get a meeting any different than receiving notes under the door?

 

 

I apologize if this is common knowledge, but can I get a link to where coaches have stated the bold? I've searched and I can't find anything.

 

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/78911-athletic-department-under-review/&do=findComment&comment=1682234

 

Eichorst told us in August that he has strong relationships with his head coaches. That is counter to what coaches have told me and many others. Some say they can’t directly get a meeting with him. One said the number of books Eichorst has assigned coaches to read has outnumbered his in-person visits to that sport.

 

http://m.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-is-sellout-streak-next-cornerstone-to-tumble/article_7f54b0b1-173d-5c82-9e86-f9c3cb73b07b.html?mode=jqm

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

And, of course, we cant forget that Eichorst was selected by Perlman in a process that did not include Eichorsts predecessor, Tom Osborne, a sore subject in a lot of parts of the state.

 

OWH

I laugh at the stupidity in bold. Unless Osborne is an employee/contractor of the University in some capacity then he should have ZERO say in what happens there. None. If Osborne wants to have a say in the Univeristy's dealings then maybe he should apply and get hired for an actual job there.

Tom Osborne was the Athletic Director of the University when this happened. Harvey didn't consult with TO regarding a replacement, while TO was still employed by the University.

 

I've also heard from a few different places that Harvey was looking for a replacement before Tom even said he was going to retire, which triggered the abrupt announcement/press conference that nobody saw coming.

Exactly. TO rose above the fray by denying he was pressured out, but I'd wager about 85% of what Bo told his team during that last meeting was accurate. The writing was on the wall when Eich was hired as perlmans lackey. They just lacked the political firepower to make their move in '13.

 

Funny thing is, people want to ignore the (lack of) leadership parallels, but is not being able to get a meeting any different than receiving notes under the door?

 

I apologize if this is common knowledge, but can I get a link to where coaches have stated the bold? I've searched and I can't find anything.

I guess I really don't understand the point of this review. At Nebraska, absent some sort of scandal or major NCAA violations, the athletic director is reviewed on one criteria alone: wins and losses of the head football coach(es) he hires. If MR would have made the CFP this past year, would SE have even heard a peep if this Silverstone review concluded " SE has fostered a terrible culture at Nebraska, he has no personal relationships inside the building, etc.." Of course not.

 

Everybody knows SE takes a hands off business approach. Many coaches have said they have hardly even met the guy. That is fine in my book, but SE shouldn't expect these people to come rushing to his defense if/when he needs it.

Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I've seen a few people state this. Can someone link me to the interviews where these coaches have stated the bolded?

 

 

 

image.jpg

Jake Cotton is making all those defenders hurdle him, slowing them just enough to spring Armstrong for the TD.

Based on polo's long-term negative posts trend, I assume he's trying to criticize Jake Cotton. But the image shows that TA has a running lane, and we know that play results in a TD. Maybe polo is trying to say Cotton is doing a good job. Not clear from just an image what the point is.

He juked an unblocked defender to get into the open field. I think the point of the image is it's hard to block someone when you're laying down flat on your face.

 

You mean he juked an "unblocked" defender who is supposed to be unblocked because it's an option play? Strange how the play worked how it's designed to work

Watch us give up a TD drive to Rutgers on their next series and allow them back in the game.

Good call

100%. My favorite helmet including Nebraska and also the only replica I own.

 

 

The revenue generating sports, and women because government.

Not sure I would agree with this approach. What would the determining factor be for which women's sports get the money?

And I thought it was about athletes going to bed hungry, not about how much revenue is generated? What about other sports that don't even get full scholarships but are still restricted as far as employment? They don't get anywhere close to the true cost of attendance.

He was specifically asked about Coach Brown, which is an utterly obvious question to ask in the wake of Brown's public testimony against basic human rights.

 

There is no "narrative" that explains why Coach Brown's lack of condemnation wasn't commented on. Coach Brown shouldn't specifically be commended for not openly condemning this guy.

 

In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "That's what you're supposed to do."

I agree. I was late but the first page was a discussion on whether Ron Brown would make Eric feel uncomfortable and I had remembered reading this part in the omaha.com article so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Surprised to not see this mentioned.

http://www.omaha.com...SKERS/140219007

Eric says that several assistant coaches — he won't name names — started making comments about masculinity and femininity in his presence after they learned he was gay. That they gave him sidelong glances, brushed past him in the hall like a stranger, employed their own brand of under-the-radar animosity.

 

But Eric wants to point out that longtime assistant Ron Brown, a man who later vocally opposed Omaha's ordinance banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals, was not one of those coaches. Eric joined the post-practice and postgame huddles and bowed his head as Brown prayed.

19

1. Lincoln
   
2. Boulder
   
3. Lawrence
   
4. Norman
   
5. Stillwater
   
6. Lubbock
   
7. Austin
   
8. College Station
   
9. Waco
   
10. Cotton Bowl
    
11. Independence Bowl
    
12. Gator Bowl
    
13. Holiday Bowl (2X)
    
14. Arrowhead (Big 12 Championship)
    
15. Cowboys Stadium (2 Big 12 Championships)
    
16. Alamo Dome (2 Big 12 Championships, 3 Alamo Bowls)
    
17. Orange Bowl Stadium (94 Championship)
    
18. Pro Player Stadium (97 Championship)
    
19. Rose Bowl Stadium (01 Championship)
    

also, as for the 2nd amendment, it only says that the people have a right to bear arms, but it does not limit the government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. i would argue as long as you can bear at least a 9mm, you have the right to bear arms. but hey, i suppose your hypothetical right to own assault weapons is a more important freedom than my right and freedom to not have to live in a world where a maniac can easily shoot-up a crowded area. freedom, right?

The constitution does limit the federal government's ability to regulate what guns you have the right to bear. The tenth amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So theoretically the the states can regulate what guns you can own but not the federal government.