a lot of things have been said about Eichorst and his inability to run this program. I have no idea if he had any input in the coaching decisions that have just come out, but wondering if people are still thinking the worst of him and the job he is doing?
Still have vitriol towards Eichorst?
- Thread starter timnsun
- Start date
- Status
I don't think about him at all.
Don Draper
Don Draper
Believe these moves were installed by Eichorst to prevent the buddy system that kept Callahan from firing Cosgrove. Just don't see Riley being the guy to cut lose loyal assistants unless it was contractual.
I give him props for doing what needs to be done. He understands if Riley fails his 7 figure income is gone with the wind. Nothing makes people produce like knowing their job isnt always safe.
Riley fires a coach, after less than two weeks ago the AD told you he has nothing to do with it other than supporting his coach and yet people still feel the AD made this move.
SE should have never let Riley bring his band of OSU flunkies in the first place. Now, after he constantly tells the fan base that he trusts Riley he pushes him to get rid of Read, Banker and Stewart? It all suggests that SE feels the pressure along with Riley if he truly has his hand in it. Credit is deserved for getting rid of Read and Banker but let's wait and see how much of an upgrade is made before we do cart wheels.
I would be completely surprised if Eichorst had aything to do with it except to listen to MR and support his decision. That is how it is suppose to work.
Last edited:
Where did the idea that Eichorst is behind this come from? Is there some sort of evidence?
No AD should have to tell his HC to fire a coach (some instances they have no choice) BUT they have the right (and most do) sit down with HC and evaluate each coach. Pretty safe to say SE doesnt pull the trigger but he along with Devany (sp?) do have a lot of EVALUATION of these coaches.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
The AD evaluates the coaching staff at the end of the year. That evaluation obviously was not good. Now you can say Riley made the decision all you want but I think you're off on this one if you think Riley just came in one day and fired Banker without input from Eichorst. It involves a contract and salaries. That's the AD's department.
Having just fired people last week, I will clarify this point, yes, I went to my dept head and we discussed my decision and I was there to make sure I had the support. Riley did the same thing. Yes, he involved his AD. However, the insinuation is that SE is meddling around in the football offices telling Riley to fire this guy and that guy because they sucked. Simply not true. As far off base as one could be.
So you admit there had to have been input from the AD then. Thank you.
The contract and salaries are indeed the AD's responsibility. But they are after the fact problems. Eichorst probably evaluates Riley and Riley evaluates all of his coaches and reviews them with the AD. AD meets with Riley goes over Riley's eval and Riley shares his evals of his coaches. That is how it likely set up.
Did Eichorst hire Cook's new asistant VB coach?
No, not in the way you are insinuating. You are being overtly obtuse either because you are just an idiot or trolling.
You are saying that Eichorst told Riley to fire him or else. That didn't happen. Riley wanted to make a change and he told his superior of his intentions and they executed the change. That isn't input as you are defining it.
Yep...it was good that Shawn stepped in. He should never have allowed those guys to come with Riley in the first place after everything we heard from OSU, but helping Riley see this is a big boy program is a step in the right direction.
I said nothing of the sort. I'm not sure why you're starting a pissing match with me. I just think you're wrong if you think Riley out of the blue announced his intentions to SE to fire Banker without some input from SE first.
We'll see what happens going forth. However, after releasing a few assistants, it's not too far down the road when the HFC is released if things don't meet expectations. I hope these moves will start to pay dividends for Riley, the new and existing coaches, and the program. 2017 will be very pivotal to say the least.
Let's recap
Riley made the decision. I never said he came in one day and said he was going to fire the man. He did his due diligence and planned it. As most recently mentioned by SE himself, he is not involved in the running of the program. He is engaged on matters of personnel, like in any organization, but he doesn't instruct his direct report to hire or fire someone. He may provide input on what he thinks, but he leaves the decision up to the coach. You are and others are already trying to put the emphasis on the AD telling the coach how to run his program. That is now you successfully manage a large organization. So I'm telling you that Eichorst wasn't blindsided by this, he was kept in the loop as appropriate and he was involved as appropriate, but he isn't meddling in the affairs of the football staff.
I love when people speculate what role SE did or did not have with the firing. Unless you were in the meeting or are close friends with them, I don't think you can state with confidence one way or the other.
If I had to BET, I would suggest that Riley and Eichorst had an end of year meeting to discuss personnel. As AD, he is ultimately the CEO and when it comes to guys who earn the kind of money Banker does, at a minimum he played a role in this decision. Whether it is simply a blessing or whether he encouraged it I have no idea but he was definitely involved.
If I had to BET, I would suggest that Riley and Eichorst had an end of year meeting to discuss personnel. As AD, he is ultimately the CEO and when it comes to guys who earn the kind of money Banker does, at a minimum he played a role in this decision. Whether it is simply a blessing or whether he encouraged it I have no idea but he was definitely involved.
Not once have I suggested that SE ordered Riley to fire Banker. Not once. Not once have I even insinuated that SE is telling Riley how to run his program. I don't know why you are going to such lengths to defend somebody that doesn't need to be defended for doing his job.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Maybe... just MAYBE it's because you and the rest of the thumb-suckers constantly pull crap out of your rear ends. That way you can hurl your childish insults
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Yeah, you never take unwarranted shots at the "evil" AD, with absolutely zero proof
Except there is precedent at Oregon State. Mike Riley demoted Jay Locey in 2013 from RB\TE to a non-coaching position. Mike Riley and Jay Locey were high school teammates and friends coaching in the local ranks (Locey at a high school, Riley at D3 Linfield). Riley recommended Locey to replace him at Linfield when he left a job to go coach in Canada, Locey got that coordinator spot and eventually became the head coach. Riley convinced Locey to leave his head coaching position at Linfield in 2006, then 7 years later he demoted him. Basically someone he'd known for 40+ years and had been close to for a long long time. After Riley left OSU Locey went back and became a D3 coach again.
So a buddy that he convinced to leave a nice safe job to follow him...he demoted later on? That's awesome!
I believe Shawn is in effect managing certain aspects of the team now. This could be a net-positive thing.
Look at Wisconsin and Barry Alvarez. He very much manages things there, and you see the effect it has year after year, regardless of the coaching staff, because the identity is set and Barry makes sure it does not change.
Could be a positive thing, clearly though, there is another chef in the kitchen now.
Look at Wisconsin and Barry Alvarez. He very much manages things there, and you see the effect it has year after year, regardless of the coaching staff, because the identity is set and Barry makes sure it does not change.
Could be a positive thing, clearly though, there is another chef in the kitchen now.
SE may not be involved with the day to day decisions, but I could definitely see him establishing benchmarks that need to be attained, or changes might/would be discussed. Keep in mind that he fired Bo not because he didn't win enough, but more so because his teams were getting blown out. Seeing the same thing occur under Riley by seeing a ton of points being dropped on Banker's defense 3 times (OSU, IA, TN) couldn't have made him very happy.
So I could see Eichorst being indirectly involved with these firings. Especially when Banker has been with Riley for what, 20+ years?? Does it make sense that Riley had confidence in Banker after having him around for 20 years, and then completely lost confidence in him in the last 2 years? Doesn't add up to me.
BTW, I wouldn't blame Eichorst one bit if he did have a part in letting Reed and Banker go.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
