Looking Back At The Last Coaching Hire

[Enhance]

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

I guess this would certainly be a matter of perspective. I don't see a changing of a policy as a "lie."

 

If you say one year that you don't comment on coaching statuses during the season, but then alter it in future years when your most important hire is coming under a lot of outside scrutiny, I would call it being conveniently disingenuous. Bo wasn't SE's guy and it's pretty clear he didn't support what Bo was doing overall. Riley is his guy and he felt the need to defend him. I could see the argument for it being misleading and even shady, but a lie? Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but that doesn't really fit the definition of lying to me.

[knapplc]

This is a typical Football Scoop "report." They don't have a man inside every college's athletic department.

 

 

Often their "reporting" is "Yeah, we heard that too."

[StPaulHusker]

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

I guess this would certainly be a matter of perspective. I don't see a changing of a policy as a "lie."

 

If you say one year that you don't comment on coaching statuses during the season, but then alter it in future years when your most important hire is coming under a lot of outside scrutiny, I would call it being conveniently disingenuous. Bo wasn't SE's guy and it's pretty clear he didn't support what Bo was doing overall. Riley is his guy and he felt the need to defend him. I could see the argument for it being misleading and even shady, but a lie? Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but that doesn't really fit the definition of lying to me.

 

The lie was last year when he said it was his policy to not comment on current coaches during the season. He obviously would in certain circumstances, as he proved this year. It was a convenient lie last year.

[knapplc]

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

[teachercd]

By being convinced that SE did NOT talk to other other coaches about the NU job only makes him look worse!

 

There is no way, none, that he knew he was canning Bo as the season came near the end and thought "Wow, this is great, looks like I am the only one in on Mike Riley right now...I better close this sweet deal up FAST before anyone else goes after him...and I also won't be putting any feelers out there to see who might be interested"

[teachercd]

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

 

I think people get caught up on the word "liar"

 

Example...you are a sales guy and applying for a new gig...you were responsible for 9.75 million in sales at your last job...on your resume you put down "Responsible for 10 million in sales"

 

Did you lie? Sure...are you a liar? Sure...is it a big deal? Only if someone wants to make it one.

 

SE might not have "offered" the job to anyone else but he sure as heck might have had some other people put out a few feelers.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Do you guys honestly think Shawn Eichorst and staff hadn't been performing due diligence on potential new coaches for at least a year before the actual firing of Bo Pelini?

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

 

I think people get caught up on the word "liar"

 

Example...you are a sales guy and applying for a new gig...you were responsible for 9.75 million in sales at your last job...on your resume you put down "Responsible for 10 million in sales"

 

Did you lie? Sure...are you a liar? Sure...is it a big deal? Only if someone wants to make it one.

 

SE might not have "offered" the job to anyone else but he sure as heck might have had some other people put out a few feelers.

 

I know what you are trying to say but it isn't the same thing.

[DomiNUs]

Do you guys honestly think Shawn Eichorst and staff hadn't been performing due diligence on potential new coaches for at least a year before the actual firing of Bo Pelini?

 

He did say the MR had been on his radar for a while.

[knapplc]

By being convinced that SE did NOT talk to other other coaches about the NU job only makes him look worse!

 

There is no way, none, that he knew he was canning Bo as the season came near the end and thought "Wow, this is great, looks like I am the only one in on Mike Riley right now...I better close this sweet deal up FAST before anyone else goes after him...and I also won't be putting any feelers out there to see who might be interested"

There are very few guarantees in coaching hires. Eichorst may have begun to do his due diligence after the 2013 Iowa game, talked to several potential candidates, and settled on Riley.

 

Or, he may have just winged it after the 2014 Iowa game and caught Riley on a good day, and he decided to come here.

 

The YOLO LET'S FIRE BO scenario is pretty scary, and by far the most least likely. Some would call his version of events a "lie," others would call it an expedience.

 

The reality is, Riley wins the conference championship and fares decently in a bowl game next year, and we're all laughing at this season, "Remember last year when we all thought the Riley hire was turrrble and we should fire Eichorst? LOL, we were so funny!"

 

Another 5-7 season, though, and both Riley & Eichorst are gone and Eichorst is Pederson 2.0.

 

 

EDIT - a word

Edited December 22, 2015 by knapplc

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

I guess this would certainly be a matter of perspective. I don't see a changing of a policy as a "lie."

 

If you say one year that you don't comment on coaching statuses during the season, but then alter it in future years when your most important hire is coming under a lot of outside scrutiny, I would call it being conveniently disingenuous. Bo wasn't SE's guy and it's pretty clear he didn't support what Bo was doing overall. Riley is his guy and he felt the need to defend him. I could see the argument for it being misleading and even shady, but a lie? Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective, but that doesn't really fit the definition of lying to me.

 

The lie was last year when he said it was his policy to not comment on current coaches during the season. He obviously would in certain circumstances, as he proved this year. It was a convenient lie last year.

 

It's not a lie. Just stop it.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

 

I think people get caught up on the word "liar"

 

Example...you are a sales guy and applying for a new gig...you were responsible for 9.75 million in sales at your last job...on your resume you put down "Responsible for 10 million in sales"

 

Did you lie? Sure...are you a liar? Sure...is it a big deal? Only if someone wants to make it one.

 

SE might not have "offered" the job to anyone else but he sure as heck might have had some other people put out a few feelers.

 

I know what you are trying to say but it isn't the same thing.

 

Exactly! That is why people get caught up with the word "liar"

[knapplc]

Do you guys honestly think Shawn Eichorst and staff hadn't been performing due diligence on potential new coaches for at least a year before the actual firing of Bo Pelini?

I think Eichorst fired Bo, started his coaching search once Pelini left his office, and got super lucky to have met Mike Riley in San Francisco within what? 48 hours?

 

That's exactly how I think it happened. It was kismet.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

This whole thing has spiraled into a lot of things.

 

But no one can prove that Eichorst LIED about the 2 things that Saunders was saying he lied about. If you choose to not believe him, that's your opinion. That doesn't prove he lied.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie.

 

NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie.

 

I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar.

 

I think people get caught up on the word "liar"

 

Example...you are a sales guy and applying for a new gig...you were responsible for 9.75 million in sales at your last job...on your resume you put down "Responsible for 10 million in sales"

 

Did you lie? Sure...are you a liar? Sure...is it a big deal? Only if someone wants to make it one.

 

SE might not have "offered" the job to anyone else but he sure as heck might have had some other people put out a few feelers.

 

I know what you are trying to say but it isn't the same thing.

 

Exactly! That is why people get caught up with the word "liar"

 

What I mean is that in your scenario, you can actually disprove your salesman in an actual falsehood.

 

A guy making a policy change does not constitute lying.

 

 

Augusta National had a policy of not letting black people as members. Or women. Both of those policies have changed. Does that make them liars?