Tuesday's Gone

According to Miles you are certainly wrong.  Unless you think Miles is a liar. 

Why is it a big deal if SE made the call? Did he just call in Miles and say Biggs is done? Isn't he the top CEO of this company and he would make the final decision anyway?

I ask because I really don't see it as that big of a problem. The right call has been made on numerous athletes who can't seem to stay out of trouble.

Agreed silver even if it had happened that way an AD can do what he wants to an extent.

Guys again Biggs is a kid who has selfish behaviors displayed on and off the court. Glad Biggs talked to Damon but what evidence has Biggs given us to trust him. Biggs has one side but the other side has much stronger credibility than the mouth of biggs

Like I said if you'll believe Damon when he talked about Bigg's personal issue, then you also have to give credibility to what he is saying about SE involvement. Damon is pretty dialed in and wouldn't say something unless it were true. I'm not trusting Biggs 100% but I do trust Damon.

You're free to believe what Biggs and Benning told you on the radio. You're also free to be wrong.

I am, but unfortunately I'm not. My information is more than just the Damon..

I hate to break it to you, but all your informants are wrong. I don't know who you're talking to, but whoever it is isn't as informed as he or she would like to think.

This Eichorst stuff comes from some goober over on Husker Power Hour who claims he's a big booster. The guy, I'm told, is an idiot.

Your info on him is incorrect. He's about as knowledgeable as a booster as it gets and while opinionated, he doesn't make up information. I would say better than 95% of the info Harold posts becomes public almost exactly as he states it, and often days or weeks before we read about. He was on Damon's show a month ago when they did the round table and he's also the force that helped organize the air fleet for the coaches about two years ago. So he's not some make believe wana be like you see at the RSS. There is a growing list of things SE is doing that are making him unpopular because they are hurting our athletic department and it's two major sports. Harold has been one of several folks over there discussing those things.

Does anyone think that Perlman was consulted?  The word consulted perhaps has been misconstrued by some.  That could be cause for some of the observations and discussions.  I believe Coach Miles stated that others were consulted, in particular about the desire of Deverell being allowed to stay on a schollie through the end of the semester in order to graduate (10 hours or so). 

Heard rumor tonight that Miles really lit into team following loss at Penn St. and Biggs responded in anot so polite manner back to Miles. At which point Miles informed Biggs would no longer be part of team.

Here is the front runner in the basketball version of "Come up with a reason for Taylor Martinez's foot injury"

I heard Benny wanted a bit more playing time, so he's the one who made the final decision.

It was Miles call ultimately. He even said so. Not complicated unless you think Miles is a liar.

...or he was falling on the sword to show that he isn't an energy vampire.

Why is it a big deal if SE made the call? Did he just call in Miles and say Biggs is done? Isn't he the top CEO of this company and he would make the final decision anyway?

I ask because Imreally don't see it as that big of a problem. The right call has been made on numerous athletes who can't seem to stay out of trouble.

Agreed 100 percent.

Seems to me that like with most things the truth is very likely in the middle of the extremes that people argue.

I suspect that what happened is Miles consulted with Eichorst in the process of making a decision.  Eichorst statements in that conversation would certainly have had an impact on any decision Miles made.  If Eichorst had encouraged Miles to give the kid another chance Mile would more likely have been willing to do so.  If on the other hand Eichorst said he felt Miles should cut him loose (which again is what I suspect happened) then that probably played a big role in Mile's ultimate decision.  Certainly Miles could have defied his boss in this kind of scenario but that is not likely in reality unless Miles really wanted to take a contrary approach.  "Maybe" Eichorst's input is what led to Miles ultimately making the decision he did and "maybe" without that input that decision would have been different.  No on on this board knows for sure - and frankly Miles probably doesn't even know for sure because that would just be a hypothetical of facts that did not happen.

Bottom line it was Miles' decision to make - but one would expect that Eichorst might have a role in influencing that decision - and probably a major role depending upon how strongly he felt.  Obviously an AD could have said - "coach it is entirely up to you and I will back up whatever you decide".  Then the coach can make the decision on their own. Doesn't sound like that happened here - but that doesn't mean what happened is wrong.  These are things that AD's can legitimately provide input and advice on in helping the coach make a decision and it is not wrong if they do so.

Again - no one on this board has all the facts - and even the people involved probably viewed it differently.   It is quite possible that Miles gave Biggs the impression that his hands were somewhat tied by his boss and that he "might" have decided differently otherwise.  That could be true and it still could be Miles' decision in the end - but a decision he made knowing how his boss felt about the issue.  Neither one has to be "lying" for their statements to be true.  People will often see or hear the exact same thing and interpret them very differently.  Primarily people interpret events in a manner that is most consistent with their preconceived notions.  I am sure Biggs "wanted" to believe that his coach wanted to keep him on the team but that SE said no.  So he would be very inclined to interpret Miles' statements that way - even if that would not be the interpretation of Miles or even a neutral observer.   The truth to anyone is based on their interpretation of the event - and so different things are true to different people.  The world is a million shades of grey - not black and white.

That said it would be ludicrous for Miles to ever say publicly that he was not the one making the decision in this situation.  He would appear castrated as a coach.  So for example (not saying this happened - in fact I am pretty certain it would not have come down this way ) if SE told Miles that he had to kick Biggs off the team or Miles would be fired then Miles is still not lying in saying he made the decision.  Might not be a decision he "wanted" to make but even if it were a decision forced upon him it is still his decision and he is not "lying" by saying that is what he decided.   Again I don't think it came down in any form close to that - just saying that if you did think it came down that way it does not necessarily equate with calling Miles a liar.  Even if he did think the decision was forced upon him Miles is going to say it was his decision to make and that he was the one he made it. 

Ron, I'm going to address (and refute) your arguments one at a time in a more organized format than trying to reply to each of your posts:

1.  Biggs told Benning that (Miles wanted to work things out -- was "fair" to him -- and that) it was Eichorst who pulled the plug.

a.  OK, that's not what Benning said.  Not on his radio show.  Go back and listen to it.  The MOST Benning said was that Biggs IMPLIED that it was "an Eichorst issue."  Whatever that means.  That's it.  Nothing specific.  He deliberately avoided going into any specifics.  He just summarized it as "an Eichorst issue."  Which could mean anything.  Very open to interpretation.  At the end of the day, Biggs could have made it up to bolster his own image by suggesting that Miles didn't really want him gone.  Or Benning could have warped it into something more juicy so that he'd have something captivating to talk about on his radio show.  So far, I haven't seen anything quoting Biggs directly.  Have you?  And contrary to what you say, Benning did NOT "all but say" that Eichorst forced Miles' hand.  Did not.

b.  Eichorst meddling -- assuming it's happened -- only matters if Eichorst told Miles to do something Miles didn't want to do.  Others have covered this.  How many missed meetings do you think Miles should/would endure before Miles himself would come to the conclusion that he can't put up with this sh!t anymore and Biggs needs to go?  Don't you think we probably already reached that point?  Three suspensions already served this season and we haven't even played Indiana yet.  Are you trying to tell us that you believe Miles wanted to keep Biggs on the team and wouldn't have dismissed him had Eichorst not told him he had to?  Seriously.  Answer that question.  Would Miles have kept Biggs but for Eichorst meddling?

2.  What Benning said about what Biggs said about Eichorst is no different than what Benning said about recruiting Omaha and therefore if you find Benning's comments credible on the problems in Omaha, I can take his comments about Biggs/Eichorst as credible.

a.  OK, again, what did he say about Biggs/Eichorst?  He said simply and without any elaboration whatsoever that it was an "Eichorst issue."  What exactly does that mean?  You can feel free to find those comments credible but don't expect me to accept your interpretation of them.  You're filling in the blanks in that statement to suit your agenda.  YOU are filling in the blanks.  NOT Damon Benning and NOT Deverell Biggs.  YOU.

b.  On the other hand, the comments Benning made about recruiting were an expression of his observations and were far more detailed.  Not a two-word phrase slid into a broader discussion.  It was the discussion.  And I'm not attributing any particular credibility to it.  I'm just suggesting that what he had to say about the aversion of Nebraska's football team in recruiting players from up there is a lot more of an earth-shattering revelation than the fact that Biggs was dismissed due to an "Eichorst issue."

3.  "Lets say someone is convicted of robbing a house but it is later found out they did not rob that house. Now lets say that person had previously robbed a house but it was never proven. Do we then say the original conviction was just because we know this person has previously committed the same crime before but was never arrested and charged?"

Huh?

OK, well that about covers things.

wow, so this is what Scout boards are like. 

And I thought it was just chicks that were supposed to be drama queens.

On to Thursday and Indiana, and let's just bury the dead and move on.

wow, so this is what Scout boards are like. 

And I thought it was just chicks that were supposed to be drama queens.

On to Thursday and Indiana, and let's just bury the dead and move on.

That's the most sexist comment I've read on this board since my thread about bad drivers talking on cell phones.

wow, so this is what Scout boards are like. 

And I thought it was just chicks that were supposed to be drama queens.

On to Thursday and Indiana, and let's just bury the dead and move on.

This.

So.  Much.  This.

wow, so this is what Scout boards are like. 

And I thought it was just chicks that were supposed to be drama queens.

On to Thursday and Indiana, and let's just bury the dead and move on.

That's the most sexist comment I've read on this board since my thread about bad drivers talking on cell phones.

Don't forget about shorts on former volleyball players Norm!

 

 

wow, so this is what Scout boards are like. 

And I thought it was just chicks that were supposed to be drama queens.

On to Thursday and Indiana, and let's just bury the dead and move on.

That's the most sexist comment I've read on this board since my thread about bad drivers talking on cell phones.

Don't forget about shorts on former volleyball players Norm!

 

Oh, yeah.  I'm responsible for that one, too. 

Ron, I'm going to address (and refute) your arguments one at a time in a more organized format than trying to reply to each of your posts:

 

1.  Biggs told Benning that (Miles wanted to work things out -- was "fair" to him -- and that) it was Eichorst who pulled the plug.

 

a.  OK, that's not what Benning said.  Not on his radio show.  Go back and listen to it.  The MOST Benning said was that Biggs IMPLIED that it was "an Eichorst issue."  Whatever that means.  That's it.  Nothing specific.  He deliberately avoided going into any specifics.  He just summarized it as "an Eichorst issue."  Which could mean anything.  Very open to interpretation.  At the end of the day, Biggs could have made it up to bolster his own image by suggesting that Miles didn't really want him gone.  Or Benning could have warped it into something more juicy so that he'd have something captivating to talk about on his radio show.  So far, I haven't seen anything quoting Biggs directly.  Have you?  And contrary to what you say, Benning did NOT "all but say" that Eichorst forced Miles' hand.  Did not.

 

b.  Eichorst meddling -- assuming it's happened -- only matters if Eichorst told Miles to do something Miles didn't want to do.  Others have covered this.  How many missed meetings do you think Miles should/would endure before Miles himself would come to the conclusion that he can't put up with this sh!t anymore and Biggs needs to go?  Don't you think we probably already reached that point?  Three suspensions already served this season and we haven't even played Indiana yet.  Are you trying to tell us that you believe Miles wanted to keep Biggs on the team and wouldn't have dismissed him had Eichorst not told him he had to?  Seriously.  Answer that question.  Would Miles have kept Biggs but for Eichorst meddling?

 

2.  What Benning said about what Biggs said about Eichorst is no different than what Benning said about recruiting Omaha and therefore if you find Benning's comments credible on the problems in Omaha, I can take his comments about Biggs/Eichorst as credible.

 

a.  OK, again, what did he say about Biggs/Eichorst?  He said simply and without any elaboration whatsoever that it was an "Eichorst issue."  What exactly does that mean?  You can feel free to find those comments credible but don't expect me to accept your interpretation of them.  You're filling in the blanks in that statement to suit your agenda.  YOU are filling in the blanks.  NOT Damon Benning and NOT Deverell Biggs.  YOU.

 

b.  On the other hand, the comments Benning made about recruiting were an expression of his observations and were far more detailed.  Not a two-word phrase slid into a broader discussion.  It was the discussion.  And I'm not attributing any particular credibility to it.  I'm just suggesting that what he had to say about the aversion of Nebraska's football team in recruiting players from up there is a lot more of an earth-shattering revelation than the fact that Biggs was dismissed due to an "Eichorst issue."

 

Damn it Norm, I wanted to move on from this...

The way DB said it, it came across as a statement of fact, not an inference. Now, did he infer or did he relay it exactly as Biggs told him? I don't know, but he said it as though there was no debate. It may have just been a moment or recklessness on his part, but it was not a statement that came across as if it were inferred. It came across as explicit, at least to this listener. He didn't go into details because he "didn't want to betray the confidence" of Biggs. He has to know that when he says something like that, people are going to run with it, and that's exactly what happened. There are lessons to be learned by all parties in this.

Uneblinstu, feel free not to get sucked back into this discussion because, really, the reason I posted the post you quoted from was for the part you left out:

 

3.  "Lets say someone is convicted of robbing a house but it is later found out they did not rob that house. Now lets say that person had previously robbed a house but it was never proven. Do we then say the original conviction was just because we know this person has previously committed the same crime before but was never arrested and charged?"

 

Huh?

 

Why is it a big deal if SE made the call? Did he just call in Miles and say Biggs is done? Isn't he the top CEO of this company and he would make the final decision anyway?

I ask because Imreally don't see it as that big of a problem. The right call has been made on numerous athletes who can't seem to stay out of trouble.

Agreed 100 percent.

 

I've explained it multiple times in this thread why it is a big deal. Re-read one of the many posts where I stated as much.

 

Uneblinstu, feel free not to get sucked back into this discussion because, really, the reason I posted the post you quoted from was for the part you left out:

 

 

3.  "Lets say someone is convicted of robbing a house but it is later found out they did not rob that house. Now lets say that person had previously robbed a house but it was never proven. Do we then say the original conviction was just because we know this person has previously committed the same crime before but was never arrested and charged?"

 

Huh?

 

yeah, I was confused by that one, too...

Ron, I'm going to address (and refute) your arguments one at a time in a more organized format than trying to reply to each of your posts:

 

1.  Biggs told Benning that (Miles wanted to work things out -- was "fair" to him -- and that) it was Eichorst who pulled the plug.

 

a.  OK, that's not what Benning said.  Not on his radio show.  Go back and listen to it.  The MOST Benning said was that Biggs IMPLIED that it was "an Eichorst issue."  Whatever that means.  That's it.  Nothing specific.  He deliberately avoided going into any specifics.  He just summarized it as "an Eichorst issue."  Which could mean anything.  Very open to interpretation.  At the end of the day, Biggs could have made it up to bolster his own image by suggesting that Miles didn't really want him gone.  Or Benning could have warped it into something more juicy so that he'd have something captivating to talk about on his radio show.  So far, I haven't seen anything quoting Biggs directly.  Have you?  And contrary to what you say, Benning did NOT "all but say" that Eichorst forced Miles' hand.  Did not.

 

b.  Eichorst meddling -- assuming it's happened -- only matters if Eichorst told Miles to do something Miles didn't want to do.  Others have covered this.  How many missed meetings do you think Miles should/would endure before Miles himself would come to the conclusion that he can't put up with this sh!t anymore and Biggs needs to go?  Don't you think we probably already reached that point?  Three suspensions already served this season and we haven't even played Indiana yet.  Are you trying to tell us that you believe Miles wanted to keep Biggs on the team and wouldn't have dismissed him had Eichorst not told him he had to?  Seriously.  Answer that question.  Would Miles have kept Biggs but for Eichorst meddling?

 

2.  What Benning said about what Biggs said about Eichorst is no different than what Benning said about recruiting Omaha and therefore if you find Benning's comments credible on the problems in Omaha, I can take his comments about Biggs/Eichorst as credible.

 

a.  OK, again, what did he say about Biggs/Eichorst?  He said simply and without any elaboration whatsoever that it was an "Eichorst issue."  What exactly does that mean?  You can feel free to find those comments credible but don't expect me to accept your interpretation of them.  You're filling in the blanks in that statement to suit your agenda.  YOU are filling in the blanks.  NOT Damon Benning and NOT Deverell Biggs.  YOU.

 

b.  On the other hand, the comments Benning made about recruiting were an expression of his observations and were far more detailed.  Not a two-word phrase slid into a broader discussion.  It was the discussion.  And I'm not attributing any particular credibility to it.  I'm just suggesting that what he had to say about the aversion of Nebraska's football team in recruiting players from up there is a lot more of an earth-shattering revelation than the fact that Biggs was dismissed due to an "Eichorst issue."

 

3.  "Lets say someone is convicted of robbing a house but it is later found out they did not rob that house. Now lets say that person had previously robbed a house but it was never proven. Do we then say the original conviction was just because we know this person has previously committed the same crime before but was never arrested and charged?"

 

Huh?

 

OK, well that about covers things.

1 & 2 You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what "Eichorst issue" means. I got additional information from another party.

3. Analogy's escape you. Got it.

This was about all your post deserved.

Can we lock this thread, please?

I keep coming back into it thinking there might be something of value...but alas...

Why is it a big deal if SE made the call? Did he just call in Miles and say Biggs is done? Isn't he the top CEO of this company and he would make the final decision anyway?

I ask because Imreally don't see it as that big of a problem. The right call has been made on numerous athletes who can't seem to stay out of trouble.

Agreed 100 percent.

I've explained it multiple times in this thread why it is a big deal. Re-read one of the many posts where I stated as much.

So you don't want SE micro managing all the sports? Is that the jest of what bothers you? If so then I think I understand, it just isn't that big of a deal for me as it is for you.

Ron, I'm going to address (and refute) your arguments one at a time in a more organized format than trying to reply to each of your posts:

1. Biggs told Benning that (Miles wanted to work things out -- was "fair" to him -- and that) it was Eichorst who pulled the plug.

a. OK, that's not what Benning said. Not on his radio show. Go back and listen to it. The MOST Benning said was that Biggs IMPLIED that it was "an Eichorst issue." Whatever that means. That's it. Nothing specific. He deliberately avoided going into any specifics. He just summarized it as "an Eichorst issue." Which could mean anything. Very open to interpretation. At the end of the day, Biggs could have made it up to bolster his own image by suggesting that Miles didn't really want him gone. Or Benning could have warped it into something more juicy so that he'd have something captivating to talk about on his radio show. So far, I haven't seen anything quoting Biggs directly. Have you? And contrary to what you say, Benning did NOT "all but say" that Eichorst forced Miles' hand. Did not.

b. Eichorst meddling -- assuming it's happened -- only matters if Eichorst told Miles to do something Miles didn't want to do. Others have covered this. How many missed meetings do you think Miles should/would endure before Miles himself would come to the conclusion that he can't put up with this sh!t anymore and Biggs needs to go? Don't you think we probably already reached that point? Three suspensions already served this season and we haven't even played Indiana yet. Are you trying to tell us that you believe Miles wanted to keep Biggs on the team and wouldn't have dismissed him had Eichorst not told him he had to? Seriously. Answer that question. Would Miles have kept Biggs but for Eichorst meddling?

2. What Benning said about what Biggs said about Eichorst is no different than what Benning said about recruiting Omaha and therefore if you find Benning's comments credible on the problems in Omaha, I can take his comments about Biggs/Eichorst as credible.

a. OK, again, what did he say about Biggs/Eichorst? He said simply and without any elaboration whatsoever that it was an "Eichorst issue." What exactly does that mean? You can feel free to find those comments credible but don't expect me to accept your interpretation of them. You're filling in the blanks in that statement to suit your agenda. YOU are filling in the blanks. NOT Damon Benning and NOT Deverell Biggs. YOU.

b. On the other hand, the comments Benning made about recruiting were an expression of his observations and were far more detailed. Not a two-word phrase slid into a broader discussion. It was the discussion. And I'm not attributing any particular credibility to it. I'm just suggesting that what he had to say about the aversion of Nebraska's football team in recruiting players from up there is a lot more of an earth-shattering revelation than the fact that Biggs was dismissed due to an "Eichorst issue."

3. "Lets say someone is convicted of robbing a house but it is later found out they did not rob that house. Now lets say that person had previously robbed a house but it was never proven. Do we then say the original conviction was just because we know this person has previously committed the same crime before but was never arrested and charged?"

Huh?

OK, well that about covers things.

1 & 2 You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what "Eichorst issue" means. I got additional information from another party.

3. Analogy's escape you. Got it.

This was about all your post deserved.

Can we lock this thread, please?

 

I keep coming back into it thinking there might be something of value...but alas...

Lock this thread?  And ruin all the fun?  Killjoy.

Besides, now we know that Ron (who is good at analogy's but not so much at analogies) got his information about the "Eichorst issue" from other sources and not from what Benning says Biggs said. 

So, that's all cleared up now.  Hooray!  We can all move on. 

(Ron, just gotta flip you sh!t and I wouldn't do it if I couldn't take it on the flipside.)