Red Five Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 As far as the timing, OWH says it happened "earlier this year". The media just noticed it yesterday. So the real question (to me at least) should be why this wasn't publicized when it happened? 1 Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 3 hours ago, The Dude said: Ah, the ominous vote of confidence. So it begins. Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Red Five said: As far as the timing, OWH says it happened "earlier this year". The media just noticed it yesterday. So the real question (to me at least) should be why this wasn't publicized when it happened? Because someone 'leaked' to the press to look at the extension and publicize it in an effort to get ahead of other potential rumors coming out. 1 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Contract extensions are for recruiting purposes. It means nothing about the longevity of the coach. 2 Quote Link to comment
olddominionhusker Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: Contract extensions are for recruiting purposes. It means nothing about the longevity of the coach. Yep. Really means nothing. If he had gotten another 3 years and a raise yes that would be odd. This is one year for recruiting optics and nothing else. A losing season this year and next and he's gone regardless of contract, that I'm sure of Quote Link to comment
Dagerow Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Yes, it may be for recruiting, but I don't think a recruit greatly focuses on if the coach has 3 or 4 years left in his contract. The recruit knows that if Riley does well, he will stay. If not, he will be fired. The way we play will be way more significant to whether a recruit will want to come here. What this does is limit our options and potentially cost us a lot of money. (I remember when this was done to protect someone from poaching our coach away. That obviously is not an issue). Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Dagerow said: Yes, it may be for recruiting, but I don't think a recruit greatly focuses on if the coach has 3 or 4 years left in his contract. The recruit knows that if Riley does well, he will stay. If not, he will be fired. The way we play will be way more significant to whether a recruit will want to come here. What this does is limit our options and potentially cost us a lot of money. (I remember when this was done to protect someone from poaching our coach away. That obviously is not an issue). But other coaches know and use the contract length to negatively recruit. ("He's only got 2 years left on his contract. Are you sure you want to risk going there, or come here where I've got a 6 year contract in place!") Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 32 minutes ago, Dagerow said: (I remember when this was done to protect someone from poaching our coach away. That obviously is not an issue). C'mon, I'm sure there's a FCS school that would readily welcome Riley's polite candor and 'aw shucks' demeanor. 2 Quote Link to comment
Huskerfb1970 Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 11 hours ago, Mavric said: OWH Unbelievable. Just speechless Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Huskerfb1970 said: Unbelievable. Just speechless Obviously not Quote Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 As much as I have been critical of Riley, the contract extension is not a big deal. It's basically just the way business is done in college football. 3 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, ColoradoHusk said: As much as I have been critical of Riley, the contract extension is not a big deal. It's basically just the way business is done in college football. Agree with this. As with Miles, the bigger story would be if he didn't get anything. Although it does seem a little odd to have the University President commenting about it instead of the AD. But whatever. 1 Quote Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Mavric said: Agree with this. As with Miles, the bigger story would be if he didn't get anything. Although it does seem a little odd to have the University President commenting about it instead of the AD. But whatever. Yes, it is odd that Eichorst wasn't providing the info. He must have been busy handing out books to all the coaches. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.