Search the Community

Maybe this has been discussed... I was out of the country the entire week following the Iowa game. If so, I apologize. This is NOT a debate on whether or not he should have kept Bo or not.....that has been brought up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times....even in topics that don't concern it. My question: I understand that the AD has his own "philosophy" or "methodology" concerning evaluating and discussing HC job "during" the season. I respect that, but in this case, does anyone feel as if maybe Eichorst's ideals hurt the program. Here is my take.... Eichhorst OBVIOUSLY has his mind made up many weeks ago that he was going to keep Bo.... if not, Bo would be gone... my goodness, the last week could NOT have gone any worse...with the home loss to Iowa (boarder war), 15 yd penalty for antics on sideline and post-game meltdown (which I actually supported because I think media is too blame for entire situation)...... with all that happened, Bo gave him every reason to pull the trigger, yet he supported him. This tells me that his mind was already made up.. Under that presumption (sp), with the fire storm that the local media decided to drum up concerning Bo's status during the last month..... NOBODY but the media fed this fire...... I truly believe that Eichorst should have put "his protocol" aside for the betterment of "his program"... by saying nothing at all, I really think that if effected recruiting, caused unsettlement in the locker room (distraction for players AND coaches).... both which could have impacted the team in a negative manner. Just look at the number of recruits who have verballed in the last 2 weeks, once kids found out that Bo was safe...... how many guys cooled on us during the last month while everything was up in the air? ..... and players and coaches alike mentioned that the uncertainty was a distraction inside the locker room....... when in all reality, according to the way things played out, there really wasn't any uncertainty at all. Eichorst could have solved A LOT of this crap with a simple statement saying that Bo was his guy and at the least visited with the team / coaches reassuring them that this was the case. At some point, a leader must put aside his own agenda for the betterment of the cause. I don't think that Eichorst did this at all, and he has a little to learn about being an AD. I know that many will disagree, but that is what debate is all about. I don't mean for this to be a "negative"..."downer" topic, (that seems to be all we have had the past weeks), but rather just a debate on whether or not Eichorst handled the situation right or wrong in your opinions.