I think we're Texas...

[GBRedneck]

Callahan and cosgrove could come back and win 9 games a year in this f'ing conference. Were not gonna drop off if thats what youre afraid of. Regardless who it is.

Don't feel bad, Count. You weren't the only one spouting this nonsense.

 

[GBRedneck]

I don't think we'll win out at all.

I don't think we need to. I'm okay writing the season off.

I think we need to spend the rest of the season determining which players really want to be here, which players don't, which players are under-utilized, which players are overblown, which players can step up and break out. It might not be pretty, but if you unbunch your panties, it could be a surprisingly fun losing season.

Then we need to see how those players mesh with a couple seasons worth of new recruits. Hopefully a better recruiting class than we've had for several years. You may be surprised what a single competent quarterback can do. Or a totally fresh defensive secondary. I'd hoped we didn't need an overhaul. It's looking like we do. Eichorst is right about folks who are intelligent and objective about football, including the majority of ex-Husker's who've been weighing in.

I believe our other options were an 8th season of Bo Pelini or a handful of coaches with their own imperfect resumes.

Giving Riley a couple seasons to show what he can do with five seasons worth of low-tier recruits and a 35% attrition rate isn't kool-aid drinking. It's a beer, a cigarette and a bit of patience.

The average attrition rate on P5 teams is 38%. Pelini's last five recruiting classes averaged a team ranking of #24 in the country. Wasn't Sub500 supposed to be really good at coaching them up?

 

[walksalone]

I'd have been OK with canning Bo for a homerun hire but if our only choices were guys with "imperfect resumes"

This x1000...

They went out and got the "safest" guy for the job, the "anti-Bo".

 

[Enhance]

I don't think we'll win out at all.

I don't think we need to. I'm okay writing the season off.

I think we need to spend the rest of the season determining which players really want to be here, which players don't, which players are under-utilized, which players are overblown, which players can step up and break out. It might not be pretty, but if you unbunch your panties, it could be a surprisingly fun losing season.

Then we need to see how those players mesh with a couple seasons worth of new recruits. Hopefully a better recruiting class than we've had for several years. You may be surprised what a single competent quarterback can do. Or a totally fresh defensive secondary. I'd hoped we didn't need an overhaul. It's looking like we do. Eichorst is right about folks who are intelligent and objective about football, including the majority of ex-Husker's who've been weighing in.

I believe our other options were an 8th season of Bo Pelini or a handful of coaches with their own imperfect resumes.

Giving Riley a couple seasons to show what he can do with five seasons worth of low-tier recruits and a 35% attrition rate isn't kool-aid drinking. It's a beer, a cigarette and a bit of patience.

If these are the options then the right call to make was to implement staffing changes. Tell Bo that the rut is unacceptable and change is being made whether that means upgrading what we have or wholesale change is up to him. I'm sure he'd choose the former. For the massive amounts we are spending on buyouts we could have made changes that would have had us at probably 11-1 this year. Ditch Ells, give Papuchis LB's/ST's, bring in a top-notch DC to run the defense. On O ditch Cotton(could always find Bo's buddy an office job), give TE's to Fisher and a GA, bring in a quality QB-coach/ co-OC. Make sure both guys can recruit.

I'd have been OK with canning Bo for a homerun hire but if our only choices were guys with "imperfect resumes" I'd have rather fixed shortcomings and seen what happened. On the chance it didn't work-out at-least hopefully there would be a better candidate for the job than what we had last year.

The big caveat to this argument, though, is then how long do you extend the timeframe for Bo? If you make wholesale changes and they don't immediately result in on-field success, you'll create a deeper division of people. One would clamor to give Bo more time with the new staff and then you'd still have the other group of people saying Bo needs to be fired. How long would we have given Bo to figure things out with a new staff?

This also assumes that the staff was more the issue than Bo, and I'm not personally in a position to believe that. I certainly understand the point you're making and understand why you're making it, but I don't think forcing a head coach to revamp his staff is the answer here.

 

[junior4949]

I don't think we'll win out at all.

I don't think we need to. I'm okay writing the season off.

I think we need to spend the rest of the season determining which players really want to be here, which players don't, which players are under-utilized, which players are overblown, which players can step up and break out. It might not be pretty, but if you unbunch your panties, it could be a surprisingly fun losing season.

Then we need to see how those players mesh with a couple seasons worth of new recruits. Hopefully a better recruiting class than we've had for several years. You may be surprised what a single competent quarterback can do. Or a totally fresh defensive secondary. I'd hoped we didn't need an overhaul. It's looking like we do. Eichorst is right about folks who are intelligent and objective about football, including the majority of ex-Husker's who've been weighing in.

I believe our other options were an 8th season of Bo Pelini or a handful of coaches with their own imperfect resumes.

Giving Riley a couple seasons to show what he can do with five seasons worth of low-tier recruits and a 35% attrition rate isn't kool-aid drinking. It's a beer, a cigarette and a bit of patience.

If these are the options then the right call to make was to implement staffing changes. Tell Bo that the rut is unacceptable and change is being made whether that means upgrading what we have or wholesale change is up to him. I'm sure he'd choose the former. For the massive amounts we are spending on buyouts we could have made changes that would have had us at probably 11-1 this year. Ditch Ells, give Papuchis LB's/ST's, bring in a top-notch DC to run the defense. On O ditch Cotton(could always find Bo's buddy an office job), give TE's to Fisher and a GA, bring in a quality QB-coach/ co-OC. Make sure both guys can recruit.

I'd have been OK with canning Bo for a homerun hire but if our only choices were guys with "imperfect resumes" I'd have rather fixed shortcomings and seen what happened. On the chance it didn't work-out at-least hopefully there would be a better candidate for the job than what we had last year.

What in the seven years Bo was here leads you to believe he would have upgraded any position coaches or assistants? It always appeared to me that he only brought on "yes" men. His brother Carl is probably the closest thing to listening to an assistant Bo ever did. He may have brought in different assistants, but I'd put just about anything on it that they would have been a rinse and repeat of the "yes" men he had before. There's not a chance in Hades Bo would have ever brought in a top notch DC.

What home run candidates were there? Saban turned down 7+ million and Texas. Urban wasn't leaving Ohio State. Harbaugh probably doesn't come back to coach college ball unless it was at his alma mater. Who are the other home run candidates? USC has and is now still looking for the next Pete Carroll. There are other blue blood programs still looking for that home run.

 

[Whs from cb]

How do we know we would have gotten a sub-par coach this year? As fast as the hire was I am sure that MR was the only person the powers to be wanted.

 

[StPaulHusker]

How do we know we would have gotten a sub-par coach this year? As fast as the hire was I am sure that MR was the only person the powers to be wanted.

I'm pretty sure the AD said this was the first and only choice he made.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I don't think we'll win out at all.

I don't think we need to. I'm okay writing the season off.

I think we need to spend the rest of the season determining which players really want to be here, which players don't, which players are under-utilized, which players are overblown, which players can step up and break out. It might not be pretty, but if you unbunch your panties, it could be a surprisingly fun losing season.

Then we need to see how those players mesh with a couple seasons worth of new recruits. Hopefully a better recruiting class than we've had for several years. You may be surprised what a single competent quarterback can do. Or a totally fresh defensive secondary. I'd hoped we didn't need an overhaul. It's looking like we do. Eichorst is right about folks who are intelligent and objective about football, including the majority of ex-Husker's who've been weighing in.

I believe our other options were an 8th season of Bo Pelini or a handful of coaches with their own imperfect resumes.

Giving Riley a couple seasons to show what he can do with five seasons worth of low-tier recruits and a 35% attrition rate isn't kool-aid drinking. It's a beer, a cigarette and a bit of patience.

If these are the options then the right call to make was to implement staffing changes. Tell Bo that the rut is unacceptable and change is being made whether that means upgrading what we have or wholesale change is up to him. I'm sure he'd choose the former. For the massive amounts we are spending on buyouts we could have made changes that would have had us at probably 11-1 this year. Ditch Ells, give Papuchis LB's/ST's, bring in a top-notch DC to run the defense. On O ditch Cotton(could always find Bo's buddy an office job), give TE's to Fisher and a GA, bring in a quality QB-coach/ co-OC. Make sure both guys can recruit.

I'd have been OK with canning Bo for a homerun hire but if our only choices were guys with "imperfect resumes" I'd have rather fixed shortcomings and seen what happened. On the chance it didn't work-out at-least hopefully there would be a better candidate for the job than what we had last year.

I think everything you describe about Bo's last season could have been said about his 2013 season.

Bo made it clear he had no intention of letting Eichorst dictate who he should fire, or make any ultimatums at all. He wasn't keen on having his judgement questioned at all. He reserved the right to spit on his own assistants.

Eichorst had given Bo a contract extension a new plane and bigger recruiting budget. Anything less would have been a deadly sign to our recruiting efforts. But everyone knew Bo was on the short leash. The year your describing was Bo's 2014 season. He would make his stand his way.

Bo had made this the rallying point for his team. The fans were expecting the team to fail. Eichorst wanted the team to fail, so he could fire Bo. Nobody outside the locker room believed in these players except Bo Pelini. He had already dared Eichorst to fire him the year before, after a blowout loss to an unranked team in the final regular season game at home. Bo is on record as blaming fan expectation for the team's poor performance. In Bo Pelini's motivational scheme, it was Nebraska players against the world, including Nebraska fans, Nebraska administration, and the state of Nebraska itself.

Bo had also made himself available for every major HC job opening since 2011 but found no takers.

That's pretty much the definition of a clubhouse cancer. You can't put a band-aid on it by firing an assistant. Which Bo wasn't going to do. Because he needed to get fired to collect the payday no other team seemed willing to give him. Apparently 9 wins isn't everything in this world..

So I have no problem firing Bo without a "homerun" choice waiting in the wings. Given how few of them there are, you might have to wait years for one to become available. With no guarantee they'd prefer to come to the University of Nebraska over other options.

So you gotta take a chance. Mike Riley was considered a pretty smart if slightly surprising hire by most knowledgeable people in college football. Still could be, since recruiting was always considered his strong suit. Had Riley inherited a Zac Taylor or Joe Ganz instead of a rogue Tommy Armstrong, maybe he's 6-0 right now, given those razor thin margins.

There also seems to be evidence that Bo Pelini left a toxic stew that has yet to clear. I'd hoped Mike Riley could wave his hand and make it go away. But that's the serious Kool-Aid drinking.

On the other hand, we could panic six games into the season and throw a bunch of money at......who?

The best choice is probably a name we don't recognize, either. Someone young and clever and innovative and ballsy, but as yet unproven at the major college HC level. We'll have to give him a chance in a few years too, and now is a good time to show that Nebraska fans aren't the enemy.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Here's how hard it is:

Assuming he was available last December (he wasn't), how many of you would have taken Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson and his old school, run-first offense in a heartbeat?

Does it change your mind that he's also 2 - 4 this season, with larger margins of defeat?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

How do we know we would have gotten a sub-par coach this year? As fast as the hire was I am sure that MR was the only person the powers to be wanted.

I'm pretty sure the AD said this was the first and only choice he made.

I'm pretty sure weeks if not months of outreach was involved, and by the time Eichorst made his "choice" the list had been vetted of coaches who were not available or interested in the job.

You don't want to keep getting rejected in public. That was the issue in 2003.

 

[StPaulHusker]

How do we know we would have gotten a sub-par coach this year? As fast as the hire was I am sure that MR was the only person the powers to be wanted.

I'm pretty sure the AD said this was the first and only choice he made.

I'm pretty sure weeks if not months of outreach was involved, and by the time Eichorst made his "choice" the list had been vetted of coaches who were not available or interested in the job.

You don't want to keep getting rejected in public. That was the issue in 2003.

I don't care if it took him 6 months or 6 hours. He's our coach and I hope he is successful.

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

How do we know we would have gotten a sub-par coach this year? As fast as the hire was I am sure that MR was the only person the powers to be wanted.

I'm pretty sure the AD said this was the first and only choice he made.

I'm pretty sure weeks if not months of outreach was involved, and by the time Eichorst made his "choice" the list had been vetted of coaches who were not available or interested in the job.

You don't want to keep getting rejected in public. That was the issue in 2003.

This. What else would an AD say? "Well, he was technically our 5th choice, but the others weren't available or interested" doesn't exactly give a vote of confidence to the guy you end up with.

 

[Enhance]

We have enough on the field problems to talk about right now. What is gained by discussing the coaching search when the evidence is almost entirely speculation? Unless there's something I'm missing?

 

[Bowfin]

I'm pretty sure the AD said this was the first and only choice he made.

Yep. Anything more on Eichorst's part would have taken a smidgen of effort...

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Considering that hiring the football coach is the single most important task in the entire state of Nebraska, and one that will determine Eichorst's legacy, I'm pretty sure he made an effort, whether you like his choice or not.