Jump to content


Shawn Eichorst's public support of Mike Riley has backfired on a national level.

Dansker

By Dansker,
in Husker Football

Recommended Posts


Judoka Scout Team

Judoka

Posted
Posted

I don't think we need pay much attention to the 'national' media (basically those who don't have any real idea what Nebraska and Nebraska fans are all about!

Aren't these the same people that were saying what a "great fit" Mike Riley was for Nebraska? I think I'll pass on their opinion this time around.

Link to comment
MichiganDad3 Heisman Winner

MichiganDad3

Posted
Posted

 

 

Have any of the top 15 winning programs in cfb ever hired a bad coach and fired him after one season?

 

 

 

Really curious as to any precedent for this.

Alabama fired Mike Price before he coached a game; and Notre Dame did the same to George O'Leary.

Good point!

 

Riley most likely lied on his resume. It probably says something about previously being a 'football coach.'

 

Hilarious!

Link to comment
MichiganDad3 Heisman Winner

MichiganDad3

Posted
Posted

the ONLY reason I do not want Mike Riley fired is because there is nobody on this planet more ill-suited to hire another football coach at Nebraska than Shawn Eichorst.

 

As much as it sucks we have to wait until there is a new university chancellor. New chancellor comes in, and if we hire the right guy the opening statement in his press conference is "I informed Shawn Eichorst he is being relieved of his duties effective immediately". We hire a real Athletic Director who then hires a real football coach.

If the new Chancellor has been named, is it possible for the new chancellor to meet with the board, and replace SE before the season ends? The cancer must be removed before it does more damage.

Link to comment

Landlord Head Coach

Landlord

Posted
Posted

 

Have any of the top 15 winning programs in cfb ever hired a bad coach and fired him after one season?

 

 

 

Really curious as to any precedent for this.

I was looking for the same info, but maybe a better question is have any of the top 15 winning programs in CFB ever hired a buffoon as AD?

 

 

 

the irony of you asking this question with your username being michigan dad

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
quesadilla Preferred Walk-On

quesadilla

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Have any of the top 15 winning programs in cfb ever hired a bad coach and fired him after one season?

 

 

 

Really curious as to any precedent for this.

Alabama fired Mike Price before he coached a game; and Notre Dame did the same to George O'Leary.
Good point!

 

Riley most likely lied on his resume. It probably says something about previously being a 'football coach.'

The thing that concerned me most when he was hired was that I read dozens of quotes from ex-players, media types, and other coaches about what a nice guy Riley is, but I didn't read any about what a solid coach he is. Unfortunately, I think SE's #1 requirement when he was looking to hire someone was to find the opposite of Bo, someone who would be nice and smile a lot and not ruffle any feathers.

 

 

Jim Harbaugh on Mike Riley:http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Harbaugh-to-take-on-his-mentor-3237439.php

"That was the first time I was ever exposed to a West Coast style of offense, and I really got the bug there, fell in love with that system," Harbaugh said. "He did a tremendous coaching job that year with literally no talent on offense. And we were one game away, one dropped catch away (against the Chicago Bears) from going to the playoffs."

 

 

Mack Brown on Mile Riley: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/former-texas-coach-mack-brown-says-mike-riley-is-a/article_b71e4dac-daf6-11e4-84bf-13223618c614.html

 

“He’s much tougher than people think he is,” Brown said. “He’s tough. He’s disciplined. He’s smart. I think we throw this term around a lot, but he’s as close to an offensive genius as there is. ... I think Mike is perfect for this place.”

 

 

ESPN's Sept. 2014 Most Underrated Coaches Poll: http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2014/09/espn_poll_names_mike_riley_nat.html

 

Mike Riley was named the nation's second-most underrated college football coach Saturday in ESPN's weekly college football poll of FBS head coaches.

 

 

Yes, this season is now an unmitigated disaster but but the narrative that he has never been considered anything but a "nice guy" has zero basis in reality.

 

There are numerous stories going back for years praising MR as a coach and not just a nice guy. And these aren't anonymous tipsters that some guy claims to have had a beer with, these are other respected coaches including the 2015 "Splash Hire of the Year" and the 97 FBS coaches who voted in the poll. Last September.

 

Who knows, maybe MR's washed up, burned out, or benefited from low expectations for his entire career but that Coaches Hot City geo-cities-looking website is a joke; the fact that it is getting any attention in this discussion is a pretty sad statement about how far we have to go to right this program. USC twice tried to hire MR and likely would have tried again this year if he were still at Oregon State but I guess some guy who maybe had a drink with a guy who maybe is actually someone important in some program in the PAC-12 probably knows best.

 

All that said, SE's letter was a terrible, bewildering PR blunder that could do nothing but hurt MR and the team. That's all on SE and UNL's administration, not on MR and the players.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Defensive Coordinator

Guy Chamberlin

Posted
Posted

 

 

At least we are relevant in the national media again. That should take care of some of the complaining.

 

In a weird way, this is not a bad thing.

 

If the world of college football is wondering aloud whether Nebraska can and should do better than Mike Riley, it makes the job description more meaningful and hopefully desirable.

 

 

Except that way too often, the national media is referring to NU as a has been program, with unrealistic expectations that don't fit the reality of their recruiting situation.

 

Here's what NU needs to focus on:

Find a coach that wins .700+ of his games with "bad" recruiting and then, when the stars align and there's an influx of local/regional talent, he can put together a championship season.

Really, that's what every team, even the Bama's and USC's of the world, should be doing (though maybe you bounce that up to .730 based on their inherent advantages). But instead, we've fired two coaches who fit that mold.

I'm wondering if we can find, let alone attract, a third.

 

 

There's a lot we need to do. But one of those things is to not pretend we were satisfied -- or should be satisfied -- with Bo Pelini's 7 seasons at Nebraska.

 

When the national media joins the chorus -- a tad late and hypocritically -- that Nebraska could have done better than Mike Riley, with virtually no one insisting we should have stuck with Bo Pelini, it opens a discussion of what candidates are worthy of the storied position of HC at Nebraska. It's no more scorched earth or irreversible than the last few years at Michigan.

 

But your idea of hiring only career .700 winners who do great things with bad recruits and deserve years of patience for the stars to properly align is brilliant.

 

Why doesn't every team do that?

Link to comment

cm husker Starter

cm husker

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

At least we are relevant in the national media again. That should take care of some of the complaining.

 

In a weird way, this is not a bad thing.

 

If the world of college football is wondering aloud whether Nebraska can and should do better than Mike Riley, it makes the job description more meaningful and hopefully desirable.

 

 

Except that way too often, the national media is referring to NU as a has been program, with unrealistic expectations that don't fit the reality of their recruiting situation.

 

Here's what NU needs to focus on:

Find a coach that wins .700+ of his games with "bad" recruiting and then, when the stars align and there's an influx of local/regional talent, he can put together a championship season.

Really, that's what every team, even the Bama's and USC's of the world, should be doing (though maybe you bounce that up to .730 based on their inherent advantages). But instead, we've fired two coaches who fit that mold.

I'm wondering if we can find, let alone attract, a third.

 

 

There's a lot we need to do. But one of those things is to not pretend we were satisfied -- or should be satisfied -- with Bo Pelini's 7 seasons at Nebraska.

 

When the national media joins the chorus -- a tad late and hypocritically -- that Nebraska could have done better than Mike Riley, with virtually no one insisting we should have stuck with Bo Pelini, it opens a discussion of what candidates are worthy of the storied position of HC at Nebraska. It's no more scorched earth or irreversible than the last few years at Michigan.

 

But your idea of hiring only career .700 winners who do great things with bad recruits and deserve years of patience for the stars to properly align is brilliant.

 

Why doesn't every team do that?

 

 

I never said hire only .700 winners. I said hire and (it should be obvious, but apparently isn't) retain guys who win 70%+ of their games in Lincoln.

 

Why don't other teams do this? I suspect many try to get to step 1 (hire coach capable of consistently winning .700 games), but fail. We are one of the few (only?) teams to ever fail to retain a coach who satisfies that criteria.

 

 

I won't get into a semantics debate about "satisfied" but no coach at NU should EVER be fired after a 9+ win season unless they have major off the field issues (i.e., NCAA violations, criminal allegations, etc.).

 

 

And that's for many different reasons, but most, again, obviously: when you fire a clean .700 coach, you're almost guaranteed to end up with a lackluster or worse replacement.

 

 

This stuff shouldn't be so hard for people to understand and admit.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment
GBRedneck Scout Team

GBRedneck

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

At least we are relevant in the national media again. That should take care of some of the complaining.

 

In a weird way, this is not a bad thing.

 

If the world of college football is wondering aloud whether Nebraska can and should do better than Mike Riley, it makes the job description more meaningful and hopefully desirable.

 

 

Except that way too often, the national media is referring to NU as a has been program, with unrealistic expectations that don't fit the reality of their recruiting situation.

 

Here's what NU needs to focus on:

Find a coach that wins .700+ of his games with "bad" recruiting and then, when the stars align and there's an influx of local/regional talent, he can put together a championship season.

Really, that's what every team, even the Bama's and USC's of the world, should be doing (though maybe you bounce that up to .730 based on their inherent advantages). But instead, we've fired two coaches who fit that mold.

I'm wondering if we can find, let alone attract, a third.

 

 

There's a lot we need to do. But one of those things is to not pretend we were satisfied -- or should be satisfied -- with Bo Pelini's 7 seasons at Nebraska.

 

When the national media joins the chorus -- a tad late and hypocritically -- that Nebraska could have done better than Mike Riley, with virtually no one insisting we should have stuck with Bo Pelini, it opens a discussion of what candidates are worthy of the storied position of HC at Nebraska. It's no more scorched earth or irreversible than the last few years at Michigan.

 

But your idea of hiring only career .700 winners who do great things with bad recruits and deserve years of patience for the stars to properly align is brilliant.

 

Why doesn't every team do that?

 

 

I never said hire only .700 winners. I said hire and (it should be obvious, but apparently isn't) retain guys who win 70%+ of their games in Lincoln.

 

Why don't other teams do this? I suspect many try to get to step 1 (hire coach capable of consistently winning .700 games), but fail. We are one of the few (only?) teams to ever fail to retain a coach who satisfies that criteria.

 

 

I won't get into a semantics debate about "satisfied" but no coach at NU should EVER be fired after a 9+ win season unless they have major off the field issues (i.e., NCAA violations, criminal allegations, etc.).

 

 

And that's for many different reasons, but most, again, obviously: when you fire a clean .700 coach, you're almost guaranteed to end up with a lackluster or worse replacement.

 

 

This stuff shouldn't be so hard for people to understand and admit.

 

Bingo. No one is saying we should be happy with 9 wins or strive for 9 wins.

 

But it definitely should not be a firing offense.

 

We are the only school in history to fire a 9 win coach with no losing seasons. And we've done it twice.

  • Fire 2
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.

×
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...