Jump to content


Now a big test for new AD Shawn Eichorst


Recommended Posts


Eichorst would make the biggst MISTAKE of his young career to fire Bo......... If you all didn't read what TO said about Bo this week... TO said that Bo was comparable to a lot of HOF coaches. How many guys win 9+ games in their first 5 years, make it to their conference championship 3 of the first 5 ? Only in Nebraska would this make people freak out..

 

There used to be a time, when we measured TO by his 9 win "record".....and when BC didn't get 9, he was public enemy number 1... Bo has gotten to 9 every year. Yes, the losses on primetime, big stage, in embarassing fashion suck big time... and it will need to be addressed, but not at the expense of a guy who has won over 70% of his games for goodness sake...

 

Back to my "original" statement....If a new AD fires and coach (at a football school), then he BETTER make sure the guy HE brings in makes everyone happy. I am trying to find a way that a NEW guy can win more than 70% of his games and do more than Bo.... We all know that if an AD hires a guy, and the guy doesn't do well...not only is the coach fired, MORE TIMES THAN NOT, the AD goes with him.

 

Eichorst could be very safe and keep a coach with 70% winning percentage, and buy a year or two safely. If he pulls a trigger, he better make sure his guy is a home run, or he will be searching for a job again very soon.

 

The last time we fired a guy for winning 9 games worked out really well for the new AD, new coach and the entire program, didn't it?

 

This 9+ win stat is getting old. Nebraska plays 4 gimmie wins every season to start, then played in a weak Big 12 North and a Weak Big 10. How many times has a Bo coached team been flat out embarrassed. We gave up 70 points to a 7-5 team, we were embarrassed by Ohio State, we were embarrassed by Michigan last year, South Caroline. Good 9+ wins teams don't get taken to the wood shed every year. Our 9+ wins have been the result of playing a weak schedule, not being a dominate team.

 

Believe me, I have lived through the glory years and have attended the NC games..... I am not "settling" anything, but 9+ is sure a heck of a lot better than under .500 and 6-6 .....which is what Bo took over..... I kind of thought my statement of being embarassed was evident, but I am glad you pointed out the scores....seems like we are on the same page there...

 

I thought all of our non-conference foes went to a bowl last year (or at least 3of the 4).... Agreed that the Big 10 is weak...no argument there.

Link to comment

Eichorst would make the biggst MISTAKE of his young career to fire Bo......... If you all didn't read what TO said about Bo this week... TO said that Bo was comparable to a lot of HOF coaches. How many guys win 9+ games in their first 5 years, make it to their conference championship 3 of the first 5 ? Only in Nebraska would this make people freak out..

 

There used to be a time, when we measured TO by his 9 win "record".....and when BC didn't get 9, he was public enemy number 1... Bo has gotten to 9 every year. Yes, the losses on primetime, big stage, in embarassing fashion suck big time... and it will need to be addressed, but not at the expense of a guy who has won over 70% of his games for goodness sake...

 

Back to my "original" statement....If a new AD fires and coach (at a football school), then he BETTER make sure the guy HE brings in makes everyone happy. I am trying to find a way that a NEW guy can win more than 70% of his games and do more than Bo.... We all know that if an AD hires a guy, and the guy doesn't do well...not only is the coach fired, MORE TIMES THAN NOT, the AD goes with him.

 

Eichorst could be very safe and keep a coach with 70% winning percentage, and buy a year or two safely. If he pulls a trigger, he better make sure his guy is a home run, or he will be searching for a job again very soon.

 

The last time we fired a guy for winning 9 games worked out really well for the new AD, new coach and the entire program, didn't it?

 

This 9+ win stat is getting old. Nebraska plays 4 gimmie wins every season to start, then played in a weak Big 12 North and a Weak Big 10. How many times has a Bo coached team been flat out embarrassed. We gave up 70 points to a 7-5 team, we were embarrassed by Ohio State, we were embarrassed by Michigan last year, South Caroline. Good 9+ wins teams don't get taken to the wood shed every year. Our 9+ wins have been the result of playing a weak schedule, not being a dominate team.

 

Believe me, I have lived through the glory years and have attended the NC games..... I am not "settling" anything, but 9+ is sure a heck of a lot better than under .500 and 6-6 .....which is what Bo took over..... I kind of thought my statement of being embarassed was evident, but I am glad you pointed out the scores....seems like we are on the same page there...

 

I thought all of our non-conference foes went to a bowl last year (or at least 3of the 4).... Agreed that the Big 10 is weak...no argument there.

 

Yeah sorry, just lashing out. Backing away form the keyboard, have a good night sir.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Eichorst would make the biggst MISTAKE of his young career to fire Bo......... If you all didn't read what TO said about Bo this week... TO said that Bo was comparable to a lot of HOF coaches. How many guys win 9+ games in their first 5 years, make it to their conference championship 3 of the first 5 ? Only in Nebraska would this make people freak out..

 

There used to be a time, when we measured TO by his 9 win "record".....and when BC didn't get 9, he was public enemy number 1... Bo has gotten to 9 every year. Yes, the losses on primetime, big stage, in embarassing fashion suck big time... and it will need to be addressed, but not at the expense of a guy who has won over 70% of his games for goodness sake...

 

Back to my "original" statement....If a new AD fires and coach (at a football school), then he BETTER make sure the guy HE brings in makes everyone happy. I am trying to find a way that a NEW guy can win more than 70% of his games and do more than Bo.... We all know that if an AD hires a guy, and the guy doesn't do well...not only is the coach fired, MORE TIMES THAN NOT, the AD goes with him.

 

Eichorst could be very safe and keep a coach with 70% winning percentage, and buy a year or two safely. If he pulls a trigger, he better make sure his guy is a home run, or he will be searching for a job again very soon.

 

The last time we fired a guy for winning 9 games worked out really well for the new AD, new coach and the entire program, didn't it?

 

This 9+ win stat is getting old. Nebraska plays 4 gimmie wins every season to start, then played in a weak Big 12 North and a Weak Big 10. How many times has a Bo coached team been flat out embarrassed. We gave up 70 points to a 7-5 team, we were embarrassed by Ohio State, we were embarrassed by Michigan last year, South Caroline. Good 9+ wins teams don't get taken to the wood shed every year. Our 9+ wins have been the result of playing a weak schedule, not being a dominate team.

 

Believe me, I have lived through the glory years and have attended the NC games..... I am not "settling" anything, but 9+ is sure a heck of a lot better than under .500 and 6-6 .....which is what Bo took over..... I kind of thought my statement of being embarassed was evident, but I am glad you pointed out the scores....seems like we are on the same page there...

 

I thought all of our non-conference foes went to a bowl last year (or at least 3of the 4).... Agreed that the Big 10 is weak...no argument there.

 

Yeah sorry, just lashing out. Backing away form the keyboard, have a good night sir.

 

 

No need to be sorry.....most (if not all) of what you said is true... I may just be trying to make myself look for positives... kind of hard to come by right now... you also have a good night.

Link to comment

Oh, really? Which loss was worse? And was that loss to an unranked team that had lost 5 games?

 

There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.

 

 

 

This 9+ win stat is getting old. Nebraska plays 4 gimmie wins every season to start, then played in a weak Big 12 North and a Weak Big 10. How many times has a Bo coached team been flat out embarrassed. We gave up 70 points to a 7-5 team, we were embarrassed by Ohio State, we were embarrassed by Michigan last year, South Caroline. Good 9+ wins teams don't get taken to the wood shed every year. Our 9+ wins have been the result of playing a weak schedule, not being a dominate team.

 

The 9+ win streak was the result of playing a weak schedule in Devaney and Osborne days, too. It's no different. Yes, the losses are worse, but the wins are still the same wins.

 

QFT. Now if these losses were close then that would be a different story. Most of them aren't.

 

 

Do you know what the definition of the word most is? Because I don't think you're using it properly. 8 out of Bo's 19 losses here (2 of those being his first year) have been by more than two scores.

Link to comment

Eichorst could sit him down and explain that if he wants to seek employment elsewhere, that would probably be best for everyone involved. If Bo decides he wants to stay, make sure it's understood that blowout losses like this are no longer tolerated.

 

It's time to start seeing results. We have arguably the worst big game coach in all of football. That needs to change in a hurry.

Link to comment

There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.

 

 

Really?? So you're saying a 1-10 Colorado team losing by 50 points is better than a #12 10-2, Big 10 division champion team getting their doors blown off on national TV by a so-so, unranked team that they were favored to win, and are more talented than on offense?? I can't understand how the life of me how that's better.

Link to comment

There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.

 

 

Really?? So you're saying a 1-10 Colorado team losing by 50 points is better than a #12 10-2, Big 10 division champion team getting their doors blown off on national TV by a so-so, unranked team that they were favored to win, and are more talented than on offense?? I can't understand how the life of me how that's better.

 

an unranked team is favored over #12 team? I don't think so.

Link to comment

There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.

 

 

Really?? So you're saying a 1-10 Colorado team losing by 50 points is better than a #12 10-2, Big 10 division champion team getting their doors blown off on national TV by a so-so, unranked team that they were favored to win, and are more talented than on offense?? I can't understand how the life of me how that's better.

 

 

It means we have expectations. It means we are in a better place as a program. Would you rather be a 1-10 team being blownout by 50 and being okay with it, or would you rather be a nationally ranked team being blown out and getting pissed about it?

Link to comment

There are a number of losses that could be considered worse than this. It might not feel that way, but that's because we were an awful football team with no expectations and had been resigned to the fact of being blownout. That, in my eyes, is worse than underperforming with the expectation of great achievement.

 

 

Really?? So you're saying a 1-10 Colorado team losing by 50 points is better than a #12 10-2, Big 10 division champion team getting their doors blown off on national TV by a so-so, unranked team that they were favored to win, and are more talented than on offense?? I can't understand how the life of me how that's better.

 

 

It means we have expectations. It means we are in a better place as a program. Would you rather be a 1-10 team being blownout by 50 and being okay with it, or would you rather be a nationally ranked team being blown out and getting pissed about it?

 

The original point was not comparing programs, it was that this is the worst loss in our history----you said no, because previous losses when we didn't expect to win (like Colo this year) were worse.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...