Athletic Department under review

Tom Osborne might have been very hands-on, but he's probably one of the more pleasant human beings on the planet, so I'm sure nobody minded having him around.

Wait till you get a boss that's hands-on but not as pleasant to be around. You'll be wishing for a guy like SE who just lets you do your job.

That being said, if he really has coaches that can't get a meeting with him, that's a problem and he needs to fix it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
unlfan said:
I guess I really don't understand the point of this review. At Nebraska, absent some sort of scandal or major NCAA violations, the athletic director is reviewed on one criteria alone: wins and losses of the head football coach(es) he hires. If MR would have made the CFP this past year, would SE have even heard a peep if this Silverstone review concluded " SE has fostered a terrible culture at Nebraska, he has no personal relationships inside the building, etc.." Of course not.

Everybody knows SE takes a hands off business approach. Many coaches have said they have hardly even met the guy. That is fine in my book, but SE shouldn't expect these people to come rushing to his defense if/when he needs it.
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I've seen a few people state this. Can someone link me to the interviews where these coaches have stated the bolded?

 
The AD world smacks of good ol boy ism. Who was the ginger assassins dad? Grandpa? What frat did they belong to? Who was their college room mate? Best friend?

Protect your buddy. Protect the institution. Do what's right (when it is popular, or beneficial)

 
Still, it seems like an unusual thing to do, one year into a tenure.


Especially when there’s a chancellor, Harvey Perlman, still in place. Why go over Perlman’s head on this?

Well, Perlman is about to take his last lap at NU. He’s leaving the office in June.

Meanwhile, a new chancellor has not been hired yet.

Did we mention that the football team went 6-7 in head coach Mike Riley’s first year?

Or that the NU Board of Regents was caught off guard when Athletic Director Shawn Eichorst hired Riley, and that some on the board privately may not have been happy about it?

Just like some regents were not thrilled about being out of the loop when Eichorst fired former coach Bo Pelini.

And, of course, we can’t forget that Eichorst was selected by Perlman in a process that did not include Eichorst’s predecessor, Tom Osborne, a sore subject in a lot of parts of the state.

So, to review: Perlman’s popularity took a hit in some circles. Eichorst was hired by Perlman. Perlman is leaving. Eichorst and the regents are not always on the same page. And now the first-year president hands out a survey.

Any questions? Well, yes. The World-Herald reached out to Perlman, via email, for his thoughts on the survey involving his athletic director.

Perlman, who has been very accessible in his tenure and typically responds to emails from the general public, offered a somewhat terse reply: “No interviews. This is being done by President Bounds so you should contact him.”

OK then.
Click to expand...
OWH

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have little concern about this. The guy is doing his job, and using outside the house data gathering. No company ties so to speak. He wants to know what he is responsible for, and where there are problems or if everything is working properly. When I sold my last business, the company I sold it to had and outside firm do all their checking. Found good and bad I am sure. But it wasn't biased by a department wanting our company and another not wanting the division.

To me it is doing things as they should be done.

It eliminates the loyalty card, or I am pissed card.

I think Moraine has it nailed on this, we need as a fan base to start trusting.

As I have said many times, Coach Osborne was responsible for two, what some consider terrible hires, the last one he had nothing to do with. But everyone felt he did, so he was going to support Pelini under any circumstance or it would be strike number three.

I agree with Moraine, if anything was done wrong with Pelini, it was he stayed an extra year, and that was because of the current AD.

 
I know people who work in the Athletic Department. Pelini was an absolute nightmare to be around, just a complete bullying douchebag to everyone he came into contact with. But even with his departure, things aren't great. The culture still needs work. So I understand why they're doing this. Surveys make the most sense when people are skittish about venting their true opinions due to fear of reprisals. Based on what I've been told, that's a real concern.

 
Maybe it's just because it's March, but I wonder why no AD in the last 50 years takes the heat for Nebraska's utter meaninglessness of a basketball program, when NCAA basketball is increasingly a source of prestige and revenue. Every Big 10 team has had it's March Madness moments. Most of the old Big 8 has had its moments. Big time football schools have their basketball moments. Nebraska doesn't even enter the conversation.

Okay. I don't really wonder. If our football is working we declare the Athletic Department healthy.

It could be interesting if this is really an Athletic Department audit to determine the overall culture.

If the only revelation we're looking for is whether Eichorst was more supportive of the first year coach he hired, or the seventh year coach he fired, I'm not so interested.

 
The Dude said:
Tom Osborne might have been very hands-on, but he's probably one of the more pleasant human beings on the planet, so I'm sure nobody minded having him around.
Click to expand...
The odd thing is that all we heard about from Pelini is that Tom doesn't meddle, but he was there if Pelini sought him out for advice. Pelini framed it as though Tom was completely hands-off.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top