Eichorst Statement About Football Program

[Mavric]

You'll have to let me know what you're referring to Mav, since the only bits I can find that would relate do not at all seem to be the exact opposite to me:

Q: You're more visible now around the football program. You're on the sideline. You're at practice. That wasn't necessarily the case when Pelini was the head coach. Why the change in your approach?

Eichorst: "I don't know if there was a change in approach. I love the game of football, as you know. We've gone into depth on that. When you transition into incredible positions like at Nebraska, there's a lot of looking, listening and learning to do. I would attribute it more to having a lot of things to do, a lot of people to get to know, more than anything. I now think I know the place a little better than when I first came in, know the people better. That allows me a little more flexibility to get around and to be available."

LJS

By the way, I generally agree with the rest of your previous post. He always has to be careful with what he says so there's not a good way to answer some of the questions.

But it was just two years ago that he explicitly said "we have the talent to win championships" and basically dismissed beating Iowa as not mattering. Now the story is we need a significant talent upgrade. If you're going to make such strong statements previously, it's a pretty bad look to change your tune so quickly. He would have been better served to tone it down earlier unless he was really sure about what he was saying.

I guess I don't see where what he said in your quote has anything to do with him being hands-off or hands-on. As far as the post-Bo-firing comments, I'd say A) beating Iowa didn't really matter much, did it? That team finished 7-6, and the only reason it felt good was because we allowed ourselves to get down 24-7 or whatever it was. That specific Iowa team wasn't good, and I think he was right in his assessment and comments on judging that game accordingly. Otherwise, full transcript quotes are important.

I was talking about your comment about letting the coaches come to him. You said it was Bo's paranoia that he interpreted Eichorst's not being around in a bad way. But now Eichorst said he's not only letting the coaches come to him. He's out and about - at practice, on the sideline, etc. That's a change from what was going on. That's what Sipple was asking him about.

"That is not my expertise, I would hope we do. I see it from a far. I think our coaches have obviously have seen that and that Is why they brought these young men into our program. At the end of the day, I think we have kids in our program that are capable of winning championships."

Is that really that strong of a statement? He's now saying that we're in a good place, on our way, and have work to do. Maybe he was just wrong before, but also, maybe he can't actually say, "Yeah we don't have talent." and this isn't an issue at all when one rationally understands that an AD's job is to spin in favor of the university's coaches and players.

You're just trying to finesse it. The word "championship" appears 13 times in that press conference. No where was the impression given that we were very far away. Not nearly the same tone now.

 

[khaake]

Eichorst found and hired the type of coach Nebraska needed.

We needed a losing season and more embarrassment for the program?

Of course not, but looking at it from a wider perspective, we needed somebody to reconnect the "Nebraska way" of the past to the way that things are actually done within the program. Was that way always perfect or consistent in the past? No. But we've been drifting further away from it for well over a decade now. Riley is a good match for that goal, and he might actually be pretty darn good coach as well.

 

[Mavric]

I thought he didn't make statements like this during the season.

What a slimy weasel.

Season was over after the Iowa game.

So there is no bowl game tomorrow?

Bowl games are not part of the regular season, and not everyone gets to participate. So, yes, I do consider the season over after our last B1G game of the year.

So tomorrow's game doesn't count in the 2016 record and the stats from that game don't either?

Interesting take. Totally wrong but interesting none the less.

His "I don't make statements during the season" mantra has always referred to the regular season. Please try to keep up.

It referred to the regular season when Pelini was the coach. He apparently doesn't have any trouble making mid-season comments about Riley.

(Though, again, I agree with your distinction about "after the season" not including the bowl game.)

 

[cornstar]

the same previous coach who said he hated SE from the first time he saw him? the same previous coach who kept it no secret that he hated SE? i wonder why SE didn't go out of his way to support poor little previous coach?

I'm relatively sure Pelini had an idea of the specific reason Eichorst was being brought in. Pelini knew Osborne was being kept at arms length on the replacement AD search.
The struggle with the powers that be started long before Pelini's spittle infused hat swipe. Pelini certainly has his role in how that power struggle was handled, but there are several men in positions above Pelini more responsible for the stagnation of Nebraska football.

It's also another reason we could have trouble finding a great candidate to replace Riley. While Eichorst is wearing his PR suit, Pelini is busy playing for a championship. The coaching fraternity is not dumb.

Struggles with the powers that be always end up poorly for those lower on the ladder. Always. And if you are doing your job in the proper manner those struggles don't generally happen and when they do happen, doing your job properly can fix them.

Another interesting yet totally untrue take.
Sounds like poor leadership from the top.

In my years I've seen plenty of power struggles, and none of them turned out well. Well, not for the people lower on the ladder and in some cases I'd say it didn't turn out well for the company either because they lost good people sometimes.
It can be poor leadership, I've seen that as well, but even with poor leadership it never turns out well for the person lower on the ladder.

This is not my experience.

 

[QMany]

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7.

Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers.

All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska.

And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective.

 

[throwing bones]

I thought he didn't make statements like this during the season.

What a slimy weasel.

Season was over after the Iowa game.

So there is no bowl game tomorrow?

Bowl games are not part of the regular season, and not everyone gets to participate. So, yes, I do consider the season over after our last B1G game of the year.

So tomorrow's game doesn't count in the 2016 record and the stats from that game don't either?

Interesting take. Totally wrong but interesting none the less.

His "I don't make statements during the season" mantra has always referred to the regular season. Please try to keep up.

Except his open letter of support on Nov 2, 2015 talking about the program when they were 3-6. Like Mav said, he has no problem making statement and being visible with Riley. Just like you said it's hypocrisy that he's allowed to do at his level. I like to keep up.

http://journalstar.com/links/online-exclusives/text-of-shawn-eichorst-s-letter-to-husker-fans/article_e219a391-ce42-597b-a801-fae1a2254580.html

 

[cornstar]

I thought he didn't make statements like this during the season.

What a slimy weasel.

Season was over after the Iowa game.

So there is no bowl game tomorrow?

Bowl games are not part of the regular season, and not everyone gets to participate. So, yes, I do consider the season over after our last B1G game of the year.

So tomorrow's game doesn't count in the 2016 record and the stats from that game don't either?
Interesting take. Totally wrong but interesting none the less.

His "I don't make statements during the season" mantra has always referred to the regular season. Please try to keep up.

It referred to the regular season when Pelini was the coach. He apparently doesn't have any trouble making mid-season comments about Riley.

This.

(Though, again, I agree with your distinction about "after the season" not including the bowl game.)

Interesting because from my recollection the press (and the former coach) pretty much had to drag it out of Eichorst between the Iowa game and the bowl game in 2013.

I guess it matters what you think the definition of "the season" is.

 

[cornstar]

Eichorst found and hired the type of coach Nebraska needed.

We needed a losing season and more embarrassment for the program?

Of course not, but looking at it from a wider perspective, we needed somebody to reconnect the "Nebraska way" of the past to the way that things are actually done within the program. Was that way always perfect or consistent in the past? No. But we've been drifting further away from it for well over a decade now. Riley is a good match for that goal, and he might actually be pretty darn good coach as well.

I guess I don't see how hiring someone who had never been in Nebraska before he was hired would "connect us to the Nebraska way" whatever that may be.

His actions don't necessarily point to it.

He could end up being a damn good coach, time will tell.

 

[Mavric]

Anyone trying to defend Eichorst's treatment of coaches is deceiving themselves. Eichorst was hired to fire Pelini. There is simply no other way around it. Perlman had wanted Pelini out for some time. That was Job #1 when Eichorst was hired.

Pelini had decided to go after the Miami job in 2010. He had an inside track - Mike Ekeler played football at Kansas State with then-Miami AD Kirby Hocutt. But Miami hired Al Golden instead. A couple months later Hocutt leaves Miami for Texas Tech. Miami then hires .... Shawn Eichorst. Pretty easy for Eichorst to find out that Pelini wanted the Miami job (one way or another at some point along the line). A couple years later, Eichorst interviews for the Nebraska job. No idea if that knowledge helped him get the job or not but now there is a Chancellor that wants Pelini out and an AD who knows he wanted out.

Eichorst wanted to fire Pelini after the 2013 season but couldn't get enough boosters on board to get it done. So now he's gone through a year wanting to fire Pelini and has to sit through another one trying to drum up enough support to get it done. How can anyone be surprised that there wasn't much of a relationship there. Eichorst trying to play it off as being busy is a thin cover story. After Eichorst hires his own guy, obviously they're going to have a close relationship - Eichorst has a vested interest in him succeeding.

The second paragraph is exactly what happened - straight from the horse's mouth. The third has been widely rumored and makes too much sense to not be true. Trying to pass off the bad relationship as being only Pelini's fault is disingenuous.

 

[Mavric]

(Though, again, I agree with your distinction about "after the season" not including the bowl game.)

Interesting because from my recollection the press (and the former coach) pretty much had to drag it out of Eichorst between the Iowa game and the bowl game in 2013.

I guess it matters what you think the definition of "the season" is.

That's because he was trying to drum up enough support to fire him - see my previous post. He couldn't say anything until he failed to get enough support to get it done.

 

[throwing bones]

Anyone trying to defend Eichorst's treatment of coaches is deceiving themselves. Eichorst was hired to fire Pelini. There is simply no other way around it. Perlman had wanted Pelini out for some time. That was Job #1 when Eichorst was hired.

Pelini had decided to go after the Miami job in 2010. He had an inside track - Mike Ekeler played football at Kansas State with then-Miami AD Kirby Hocutt. But Miami hired Al Golden instead. A couple months later Hocutt leaves Miami for Texas Tech. Miami then hires .... Shawn Eichorst. Pretty easy for Eichorst to find out that Pelini wanted the Miami job (one way or another at some point along the line). A couple years later, Eichorst interviews for the Nebraska job. No idea if that knowledge helped him get the job or not but now there is a Chancellor that wants Pelini out and an AD who knows he wanted out.

Eichorst wanted to fire Pelini after the 2013 season but couldn't get enough boosters on board to get it done. So now he's gone through a year wanting to fire Pelini and has to sit through another one trying to drum up enough support to get it done. How can anyone be surprised that there wasn't much of a relationship there. Eichorst trying to play it off as being busy is a thin cover story. After Eichorst hires his own guy, obviously they're going to have a close relationship - Eichorst has a vested interest in him succeeding.

The second paragraph is exactly what happened - straight from the horse's mouth. The third has been widely rumored and makes too much sense to not be true. Trying to pass off the bad relationship as being only Pelini's fault is disingenuous.

Mic Drop

 

[khaake]

Eichorst found and hired the type of coach Nebraska needed.

We needed a losing season and more embarrassment for the program?

Of course not, but looking at it from a wider perspective, we needed somebody to reconnect the "Nebraska way" of the past to the way that things are actually done within the program. Was that way always perfect or consistent in the past? No. But we've been drifting further away from it for well over a decade now. Riley is a good match for that goal, and he might actually be pretty darn good coach as well.

I guess I don't see how hiring someone who had never been in Nebraska before he was hired would "connect us to the Nebraska way" whatever that may be.

His actions don't necessarily point to it.

He could end up being a damn good coach, time will tell.

This is a topic for a different thread, but when I think of the Nebraska Way, the thing that comes to mind first is that the program will be run from the vantage point of doing the right thing. This includes what is best for the players, the fans, and the integrity and persona of the program. Winning is important, yes, but it takes a backseat to those other things.

 

[Elf]

I agree that the argument for or against the talent level at Nebraska is something he probably shouldn't have stepped into in the first place. As we have proven multiple times on this board, it is easy to find evidence on both sides of that argument.

Are we generally more talented than the rest of the West? Yes.

Do we have depth issues in critical areas? Yes.

Will our coaches be more successful with a true passing quarterback? Hopefully.

ADSE makes himself look a lot like a lawyer when he spins the argument one way or the other. On the other hand, other ADs and coaches use "spin" all the time. Get over it.

I think Eichorst was mistaken when he said we had the talent to win championships and when you do the "eyeball test" between the Huskers and say...Alabama, or Ohio St...we fail pretty miserably imo.

You are correct in saying we have depth issues in some critical areas. Especially (imo) on the offensive line this past year. We whiffed on two consecutive classes of o-linemen, not just one or two each class, but ALL of them. That can be fixed and I believe it is being fixed, it just takes time if you build a proper foundation first. And that is exactly what I believe the coaches were doing when they didn't pull redshirts from freshmen linemen this year. Next fall, those same guys will be redshirt freshmen and will have a year of S&C and coaching in the system to prepare them to play if needed. I find it ironic that so many folks who demand we play those freshmen to save our season are many times the same ones who think the only way to win at NU is to do it Osborne's way. Well, this type of o-line development is exactly how Osborne did things.

 

[Elf]

Eichorst found and hired the type of coach Nebraska needed.

We needed a losing season and more embarrassment for the program?

Of course not, but looking at it from a wider perspective, we needed somebody to reconnect the "Nebraska way" of the past to the way that things are actually done within the program. Was that way always perfect or consistent in the past? No. But we've been drifting further away from it for well over a decade now. Riley is a good match for that goal, and he might actually be pretty darn good coach as well.

I guess I don't see how hiring someone who had never been in Nebraska before he was hired would "connect us to the Nebraska way" whatever that may be.

His actions don't necessarily point to it.

He could end up being a damn good coach, time will tell.

This is a topic for a different thread, but when I think of the Nebraska Way, the thing that comes to mind first is that the program will be run from the vantage point of doing the right thing. This includes what is best for the players, the fans, and the integrity and persona of the program. Winning is important, yes, but it takes a backseat to those other things.

+10 Gazillion if I could.

If Nebraska ever cheated like Oklahoma did under Barry Switzer, I'd probably quit being a fan.

 

[cornstar]

Eichorst found and hired the type of coach Nebraska needed.

We needed a losing season and more embarrassment for the program?

Of course not, but looking at it from a wider perspective, we needed somebody to reconnect the "Nebraska way" of the past to the way that things are actually done within the program. Was that way always perfect or consistent in the past? No. But we've been drifting further away from it for well over a decade now. Riley is a good match for that goal, and he might actually be pretty darn good coach as well.

I guess I don't see how hiring someone who had never been in Nebraska before he was hired would "connect us to the Nebraska way" whatever that may be.
His actions don't necessarily point to it.

He could end up being a damn good coach, time will tell.

This is a topic for a different thread, but when I think of the Nebraska Way, the thing that comes to mind first is that the program will be run from the vantage point of doing the right thing. This includes what is best for the players, the fans, and the integrity and persona of the program. Winning is important, yes, but it takes a backseat to those other things.

I don't disagree, but I also don't see how the previous 3 coaches failed to do this if we look at the big picture.

Maybe there were a few instances of some nefarious things or mistakes that were made, but I don't see where we've gone off track in that regards.