Eichorst statement on Bo

[sd'sker]

So was I. Then you brought up Wiscy and MSU, and changed the argument. All the other stuff you mentioned doesn't really matter. We aren't replacing Bo unless he falls on his face, because nobody will want the job.

how was the argument changed? that makes no sense. wiscy and msu were brought up as an example of our expectations being reasonable and not delusional. you have been insistent on someone providing a program that fired a 9+ win coach who has won more than 70% of his games long before i mentioned msu and wiscy.

but nonetheless you assert something that is non-demonstrable and rather ridiculous.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

I would say Ohio st is better than they used to be.

You think they are better now, than when Tressell was there? Your out of your mind.

Also, to what standards? Because I know quite a few tOSU fans who are unhappy with how things have been. The inconsistencies, close games they should have lost, to lower ranked players.

 

[Saunders]

...because at the end of the day, most of the Bo supporters like QMany care little about anything else. As long as the 9 is there, that's good enough for them.

Once again, this fallacy. And husker fans wonder why people around the country think we're delusional or entitled.
The "explain it like I'm five" version: If you fire a coach who has never won less than 9 games, and has a clean program, you become toxic to new hires.

expecting to do what msu and wiscy do = delusional and entitled.
and who would not want to come here? great pay. great facilities. you can lose 4 games a year (with a favorable schedule), get blown out on national television regularly, you never have to win anything of significance, and you get to essentially tell the fans and media that you hate them (although, hope you do not mind signing off on press releases that vaguely resemble an apology). we are not stingy with our years, you can always have one more; as long as you are working on a process. also, make as many mistakes as you want, as those help justify your one more year. and do not worry about censoring yourself. if you think something is chickshit, well damnit, tell us.

Once again, please list the teams in the history of CFB that fired a 9+ win coach, who never won less than 70% of his games.
Here, I'll make it even easier.

Show me the ones who did it, and got better.

I would say Ohio st is better than they used to be.

What coach fitting that criteria did they fire because it wasn't good enough?

 

[Ulty]

I would say Ohio st is better than they used to be.

You think they are better now, than when Tressell was there? Your out of your mind.

Also, to what standards? Because I know quite a few tOSU fans who are unhappy with how things have been. The inconsistencies, close games they should have lost, to lower ranked players.

Go back one.

He's talking about the transition from John Cooper to Jim Tressel. Cooper won a hell of a lot of games, always had OSU nationally relevant and highly ranked. But he was not often enough in the championship conversation and couldn't beat Michigan. So they fired a .700 winning coach and hired someone from a D-1AA school. That's when they got a hell of a lot better.

 

[Saunders]

So was I. Then you brought up Wiscy and MSU, and changed the argument. All the other stuff you mentioned doesn't really matter. We aren't replacing Bo unless he falls on his face, because nobody will want the job.

how was the argument changed? that makes no sense. wiscy and msu were brought up as an example of our expectations being reasonable and not delusional. you have been insistent on someone providing a program that fired a 9+ win coach who has won more than 70% of his games long before i mentioned msu and wiscy.
but nonetheless you assert something that is non-demonstrable and rather ridiculous.

which part is "rather ridiculous?"

 

[NUpolo8]

Saying so would be redundant and as ridiculous as trying to talk about not vaccinating your children. Use the search function

 

[Ulty]

...and John Cooper was a more successful coach than Pelini by far.

But at the same time, I think the list of schools that have been able to achieve this ends there. I'm not high on Bo at all, but it's true that we can't just go firing coaches willy nilly. It seems that there is a lot of fear that if we fire Bo, we won't be able to attract a better candidate. That may be correct. That's one of the things that kind of depresses me, actually.

 

[Saunders]

I would say Ohio st is better than they used to be.

You think they are better now, than when Tressell was there? Your out of your mind.
Also, to what standards? Because I know quite a few tOSU fans who are unhappy with how things have been. The inconsistencies, close games they should have lost, to lower ranked players.

Go back one.

He's talking about the transition from John Cooper to Jim Tressel. Cooper won a hell of a lot of games, always had OSU nationally relevant and highly ranked. But he was not often enough in the championship conversation and couldn't beat Michigan. So they fired a .700 winning coach and hired someone from a D-1AA school. That's when they got a hell of a lot better.

He fell flat on his face the last 2 years, going 12-10.

 

[Saunders]

...and John Cooper was a more successful coach than Pelini by far.

But at the same time, I think the list of schools that have been able to achieve this ends there. I'm not high on Bo at all, but it's true that we can't just go firing coaches willy nilly. It seems that there is a lot of fear that if we fire Bo, we won't be able to attract a better candidate. That may be correct. That's one of the things that kind of depresses me, actually.

If Bo crashes and burns this year, we can get a good hire. If he goes 9-10 wins with no championships and is fired, NU would be throwing a Hail Mary for a coaching upgrade.

 

[Ulty]

I would say Ohio st is better than they used to be.

You think they are better now, than when Tressell was there? Your out of your mind.
Also, to what standards? Because I know quite a few tOSU fans who are unhappy with how things have been. The inconsistencies, close games they should have lost, to lower ranked players.

Go back one.

He's talking about the transition from John Cooper to Jim Tressel. Cooper won a hell of a lot of games, always had OSU nationally relevant and highly ranked. But he was not often enough in the championship conversation and couldn't beat Michigan. So they fired a .700 winning coach and hired someone from a D-1AA school. That's when they got a hell of a lot better.

He fell flat on his face the last 2 years, going 12-10.

True (well, he went 14-10), but that's the best (only) example we're gonna get. Even so, Cooper was still more successful than Pelini. Except for those last two years, his previous six teams all finished higher ranked than any Pelini squad ever has, which included appearances and victories in what are now BCS bowls. When he was fired, Cooper was only two years removed from a #2 ranking, the second time he had done it.

 

[Landlord]

but in no way was Nebraska play playing NC caliber defense during any of those seasons.

Aside from that Landlord, I was always under the impression that had Callahan been willing to make a move at DC, he may have been retained, but Callahan showed no desire to do so? Is this not the case? That loyalty thing....it can be good and bad some times.

1. Our defense was pretty damn good in 2006. It wasn't 2009 or 2010 good, but to call it championship-caliber defense (defining that as good enough to win championships) is reasonable and accurate.

We held a #4 ranked USC team to 28 points despite anemic offense, a #5 Texas team to 20 points, a #10 Oklahoma team to 21 points, and a #10 Auburn team to 17 points. That's good.

So just remember that nobody had any serious criticisms towards Cosgrove before the third game of the 2007 season. Who knows what would have happened if he fired Cosgrove, but I don't think it is the case that it would have changed anything. Callahan was fired based on his inability to turn around the second half of that season, according to the words of Tom Osborne. That wasn't going to change regardless of Cosgrove.

Yep, we lost to USC 28-10. I guess holding them to 28 wasn't good enough huh. Umm....holding Texas to 20 would have resulted in a tie bud, we had 20, Texas had 22....damn, if only that Kevin Cosgrove National Championship Caliber defense had been able to hold them to 19.....derp, derp, derp...Oklahoma, he'll of a game. We held em to 21! Wow, too bad we scored 7! Geez you support your arguments don't you, no matter how dumb it sounds. All losses so far. Auburn, yep....we held them to 17......so we only lost that one 17-14.

I almost laughed out loud as I typed Kevin Cosgroves National Championship Caliber Defense. Probably the same NC caliber defense we had in 2011, 2012, and 2013......you know, when the offense scores 41 and the defense allows 38, it doesn't mean we played good defense, it just means we scored more points than them. When the offense can't score, games can become what they call a defensive battle. That's where two tough defenses will limit each others offenses. So is what you are saying is that Bill Callahans and Jay Norvells offenses were the problem?

I don't understand like do you not get that I was only claiming that our defense was good enough to win those particular games and our offense cost us? Or are you claiming that a defense isn't championship caliber if it loses? Was our 2009 defense not championship caliber because we allowed 13 points to Texas but only scored 12?

And for the record my opinion is based on what I said. I didn't say it to support my opinion - I developed my opinion after saying it. You have it backwards and this is the weirdest thing I've ever heard you argue.

 

[Ulty]

I don't want to argue that we can go out and get any coach we want if Bo were to be fired, because I think when the time comes, it's going to be a daunting task to get a good replacement. But this gets me thinking about other successful coaches who have been ousted.

I think of guys like Phil Fulmer, Bobby Bowden, and Lloyd Carr. Enormously successful coaches who were forced out (Bowden and Carr retired, but were essentially forced to). They all had the occasional season that was worse than anything Pelini has produced, but their overall success was fantastic, there was just a bad season or two that served as the impetus to eventually drive these coaches out. But with these guys, age was a factor as well; I think the general consensus was that it was time for these guys to move on.

But then you're rolling the dice. Michigan got a proven winner in Rich Rod, but it turned out to be a disaster. Who would have thought Tennesse would have trouble finding a good coach? But they haven't recovered (but that's karma for hiring a douche like Kiffin anyway). Florida State has turned out okay, but Fisher was just an assistant, and there was no more guarantee of his success than Pelini coming here.

There is going to be some point in the future, whether it is next year or 20 years, when Nebraska hires a new coach, but coaches are like a box of chocolates.

I get a sense that a lot of Pelini's supporters prefer to keep him around because we know what we're gonna get (#9wins) even if we can't be reasonably confident of being a national contender anytime soon. Maybe a lot of you are comfortable with Pelini and are afraid of the uncertainty that comes with another coaching search. That's okay, and it's actually very reasonable. But it doesn't mean he's a great coach either.

 

[NUpolo8]

Saying so would be redundant and as ridiculous as trying to talk about not vaccinating your children. Use the search function

I was asking for clarification diphshit. STFU if you're just going to troll.

Its not trolling when you say the exact same words?

 

[blinky]

All this talk about Bo's job security, especially some people's insinuation that he will eventually be fired, is beyond worthless discussion.

If you don't like Bo, fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But at least wait until the season starts before starting such talk.

Or don't and keep looking like idiots arguing about firing a coach that the rest of college football thinks is doing a fine job.

 

[True2tRA]

but in no way was Nebraska play playing NC caliber defense during any of those seasons.

Aside from that Landlord, I was always under the impression that had Callahan been willing to make a move at DC, he may have been retained, but Callahan showed no desire to do so? Is this not the case? That loyalty thing....it can be good and bad some times.

1. Our defense was pretty damn good in 2006. It wasn't 2009 or 2010 good, but to call it championship-caliber defense (defining that as good enough to win championships) is reasonable and accurate.

We held a #4 ranked USC team to 28 points despite anemic offense, a #5 Texas team to 20 points, a #10 Oklahoma team to 21 points, and a #10 Auburn team to 17 points. That's good.

So just remember that nobody had any serious criticisms towards Cosgrove before the third game of the 2007 season. Who knows what would have happened if he fired Cosgrove, but I don't think it is the case that it would have changed anything. Callahan was fired based on his inability to turn around the second half of that season, according to the words of Tom Osborne. That wasn't going to change regardless of Cosgrove.

Yep, we lost to USC 28-10. I guess holding them to 28 wasn't good enough huh. Umm....holding Texas to 20 would have resulted in a tie bud, we had 20, Texas had 22....damn, if only that Kevin Cosgrove National Championship Caliber defense had been able to hold them to 19.....derp, derp, derp...Oklahoma, he'll of a game. We held em to 21! Wow, too bad we scored 7! Geez you support your arguments don't you, no matter how dumb it sounds. All losses so far. Auburn, yep....we held them to 17......so we only lost that one 17-14.

I almost laughed out loud as I typed Kevin Cosgroves National Championship Caliber Defense. Probably the same NC caliber defense we had in 2011, 2012, and 2013......you know, when the offense scores 41 and the defense allows 38, it doesn't mean we played good defense, it just means we scored more points than them. When the offense can't score, games can become what they call a defensive battle. That's where two tough defenses will limit each others offenses. So is what you are saying is that Bill Callahans and Jay Norvells offenses were the problem?

I don't understand like do you not get that I was only claiming that our defense was good enough to win those particular games and our offense cost us? Or are you claiming that a defense isn't championship caliber if it loses? Was our 2009 defense not championship caliber because we allowed 13 points to Texas but only scored 12?

And for the record my opinion is based on what I said. I didn't say it to support my opinion - I developed my opinion after saying it. You have it backwards and this is the weirdest thing I've ever heard you argue.

I've always gotten the impression from you that you rarely, if ever, are willing to admit you are wrong. Even going to very great lengths to prove your point, as proven by multiple posts you've displayed here on Huskerboard. That's fine man. It's your prerogative, so be it. At this point I don't know what we are talking about anymore. I found it amusing that you chose 4 losses from that season in your argument to display how great a defense we were. That's all. You win. Congrats. Way to go 2006 Huskers Defense on your honorary National Championship Caliber trophy! Presented by Landlord of Questionable Logic.