A. Bo said the things he was expected to say in that position. Shawn Eichorst said the things he was expected to say in that position. You don't understand "click bait."
B. Some fans and influential alums wanted to fire Bo in 2013, too. If Eichorst wanted to fire him after Iowa 2013 it would hardly have been a maverick agenda, and history ended up justifying it anyway. As it was, Shawn Eichorst did what a clear majority of fans (and Tom) wanted: alerted Bo that the status quo was unacceptable, gave him the recruiting budget and resources to improve his situation, and another season to prove himself on the field.
C. That means Eichorst's tepid and conditional "support" of Bo wasn't a lie, and actually reflected a significant portion of the fanbase. Even after the Wisconsin debacle, Bo probably could have stuck it to Eichorst by beating Minnesota the next week. He didn't. And if Eichorst's "support" of Bo was as "bland and lawyerly" as it gets, you'd have to note that Bo Pelini's "support" of Nebraska was as childish and unprofessional as it gets. It doesn't take much imagination to believe that Bo said even worse sh#t behind the scenes, and the reason Eichorst chose his words like a lawyer is because that was the smart thing to do.
So where exactly is the lie? I mean holy hell, read this board. Virtually every Riley critic starts off by saying "Don't get me wrong, it was time for Bo to go but...."
Either those are lies, or you agree that Eichorst did the right thing.
Hey, how 'bout that Women's Volleyball team!