An awkward, uncomfortable signing

[rawhide]

Thanks for the OWH link looks like the beef is back bunch of studs: look out MNC

GBR

 

[Enhance]

I had an opposite take. I don't understand why the media, who were told before the meeting that Bo wouldn't be addressing coaching changes, kept harping on him about coaching changes.

Limits and boundaries exist, obviously, and you have to know when enough is enough, but the best reporters get their nose dirty and dig at information. People may not like them for it (especially those being dug into) but reporters do it anyways because they have stories to write. Some people don't know the work and effort involved in producing stories, broadcast media, etc.

Reporters spend all day collecting information and then finding ways to share it with people. It's what they are - a medium for telling stories. Whilst collecting information they come across rumors and other tidbits of information they try to confirm. They let their bosses/editors know the things they hear, and then the editors will tell the journalist to try and get the information. If that involves making a press conference a little awkward in exchange for a good story, so be it.

The point is, I'd rather know than not know. I'd rather we had an awkward press conference that told us there is need-to-know information out there instead of an over-done, hoopla of a signing day presser where everybody wears corn on their head, drinks some kool-aid, and spouts off about how great the class is.

 

[hskerprid]

I had an opposite take. I don't understand why the media, who were told before the meeting that Bo wouldn't be addressing coaching changes, kept harping on him about coaching changes. Say what you will about the media 'doing their job' but he did tell them in advance, of the press conference agenda. Why do they insist on pressuring the guy to go against what he planned to say? Bo did TRY to not say anything but it's like a little kid who keeps whining about getting a toy after you've told him a dozen times NO, you sometimes break down and say OK already.

Bo was trying to make this about those boys but the media was fighting him almost the whole time. If anyone took away from making this a special time it was the media-not Bo. Why didn't they ask more questions about the recruits? It almost seemed like they cam only prepared to pepper Bo with questions about coaching changes. What about those kids? Good grief! I couldn't believe that they had come so ill prepared when they knew the agenda weeks in advance.

I really don't think this press conference is going to make or break our program. Bo has a ton on his plate right now and not giving the media the kind of press conference that they wanted is the least of his worries. Getting his team ready for the fall season is his first priority. Come fall this press conference will merely be a faded memory in the minds of many. Just my take

The simple answer is that the coaching changes are a bigger story than the recruits. Great, we signed 20 guys who seem like nice young men, and we're all really happy to have them aboard. Get to work and let's hope you amount to something.... sometime.... months or years from now. That's the reality of recruiting - it doesn't pay off for years. So today's class is tomorrow's news.

The fact that a much-loved coach, former player, hugely popular with the fans, is apparently being replaced when there had been nothing by way of advance warning is a far larger story. It was right for the reporters to ask those questions. That's their job.

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

 

[knapplc]

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

The First Amendment disagrees with you. Freedom of the press is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. The press are under zero obligation to respect the privacy of public issues. When the questions were asked it was no longer a private matter - the cat had been let out of the bag in the Indiana presser by Wilson. The reporters asked pertinent, respectful questions. All the crying about these questions beggars belief.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

I don't "fail to realize" anything about this situation. I know full well what the rights, privileges and expectations of the press are. Bo and his assistants are public figures, and their salaries are paid by taxpayers - that's why they're public information, and announced every year. Sure, they're real people, but when they take a public position like they've done, they give up certain levels of privacy. Goes with the territory.

 

[Enhance]

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

Ahh, but see now you're getting into the private vs. public argument. Do you give these people the privacy they request despite intentionally putting themselves in the public eye? The law says that people who intentionally put themselves in the public eye are not reserved the same accommodations as a private citizen...

Either way, that's a debate for another time. The university says one thing, but the best reporters (as I mentioned earlier) ruffle feathers every once in awhile. It's what they do and it's what they're paid to do. They push boundaries. As long as they don't go too far, there are no problems. In my opinion, they didn't go too far yesterday. Bo could have shot everything down with his responses but he chose not to.

 

[carlfense]

I had an opposite take. I don't understand why the media, who were told before the meeting that Bo wouldn't be addressing coaching changes, kept harping on him about coaching changes. Say what you will about the media 'doing their job' but he did tell them in advance, of the press conference agenda. Why do they insist on pressuring the guy to go against what he planned to say? Bo did TRY to not say anything but it's like a little kid who keeps whining about getting a toy after you've told him a dozen times NO, you sometimes break down and say OK already.

Bo was trying to make this about those boys but the media was fighting him almost the whole time. If anyone took away from making this a special time it was the media-not Bo. Why didn't they ask more questions about the recruits? It almost seemed like they cam only prepared to pepper Bo with questions about coaching changes. What about those kids? Good grief! I couldn't believe that they had come so ill prepared when they knew the agenda weeks in advance.

I really don't think this press conference is going to make or break our program. Bo has a ton on his plate right now and not giving the media the kind of press conference that they wanted is the least of his worries. Getting his team ready for the fall season is his first priority. Come fall this press conference will merely be a faded memory in the minds of many. Just my take

The simple answer is that the coaching changes are a bigger story than the recruits. Great, we signed 20 guys who seem like nice young men, and we're all really happy to have them aboard. Get to work and let's hope you amount to something.... sometime.... months or years from now. That's the reality of recruiting - it doesn't pay off for years. So today's class is tomorrow's news.

The fact that a much-loved coach, former player, hugely popular with the fans, is apparently being replaced when there had been nothing by way of advance warning is a far larger story. It was right for the reporters to ask those questions. That's their job.

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

Yeah! Reporters should only be able to ask university approved questions and publish university approved stories. Dissent should not be allowed in ANY fashion.

Heck, let's take it another step further. Here on HuskerBoard we shouldn't be allowed to post opinions or speculation without seeking official university approval.

If you disagree you hate Nebraska football.

 

[huskerj12]

Simma down everyone. I think most people agree that they had every right to ask the questions, but Bo has the right to not answer them too.

 

[carlfense]

Simma down everyone. I think most people agree that they had every right to ask the questions, but Bo has the right to not answer them too.

I was just having fun . . . sorry for the hyperbole. :moreinteresting

 

[zoogs]

I think Dirk's first question specifically mentioned Wilson, and Wilson's comments were again brought up in detail later in the presser. Bo's most sweeping statements about no staff changes also came later, but I suppose at that time you could say he was being consistent.

In any case, regardless of whether he knew the cat was let out of the bag by someone else or not, it's a good example of why it's better not to mislead. Just say nothing and the whole issue would not exist.

I had an opposite take. I don't understand why the media, who were told before the meeting that Bo wouldn't be addressing coaching changes, kept harping on him about coaching changes. Say what you will about the media 'doing their job' but he did tell them in advance, of the press conference agenda. Why do they insist on pressuring the guy to go against what he planned to say? Bo did TRY to not say anything but it's like a little kid who keeps whining about getting a toy after you've told him a dozen times NO, you sometimes break down and say OK already.

Bo was trying to make this about those boys but the media was fighting him almost the whole time. If anyone took away from making this a special time it was the media-not Bo. Why didn't they ask more questions about the recruits? It almost seemed like they cam only prepared to pepper Bo with questions about coaching changes. What about those kids? Good grief! I couldn't believe that they had come so ill prepared when they knew the agenda weeks in advance.

I really don't think this press conference is going to make or break our program. Bo has a ton on his plate right now and not giving the media the kind of press conference that they wanted is the least of his worries. Getting his team ready for the fall season is his first priority. Come fall this press conference will merely be a faded memory in the minds of many. Just my take

I don't think it was the media, so much as Dirk Chatelain, who doesn't mind butting heads with the staff at all. He's got some serious stones and I'm pretty certain that he is not in this staff's good graces anymore, or to begin with...

Regardless, it is still Bo's fault for breaking down when pressed. Dirk let it all out there and raised the stakes for Bo, who lost that round in the PR game.

It doesn't change who he is as a coach or anything like that, but the part that worries me is perception.

To respond to the last post, Bo absolutely has that right and he should have used the heck out of that right. But he didn't, he answered the questions And now it's probably bad, to show the press chinks in the armor like that. They are going to be really feasting and pressing and going after the scoop from now on after seeing the results of what Dirk did.

 

[hskerprid]

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

The First Amendment disagrees with you. Freedom of the press is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. The press are under zero obligation to respect the privacy of public issues. When the questions were asked it was no longer a private matter - the cat had been let out of the bag in the Indiana presser by Wilson. The reporters asked pertinent, respectful questions. All the crying about these questions beggars belief.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

I don't "fail to realize" anything about this situation. I know full well what the rights, privileges and expectations of the press are. Bo and his assistants are public figures, and their salaries are paid by taxpayers - that's why they're public information, and announced every year. Sure, they're real people, but when they take a public position like they've done, they give up certain levels of privacy. Goes with the territory.

Their in lies the crux of the problem. If "certain levels" are to be observed who sets them? As a Mod here you are in a position of power yourself. Should we demand to know certain aspects of your life because it goes with the territory? Granted the two situations aren't realistically comparable, but you get my drift.

The constitution also says we have the right to bear arms but that was back when it took 2 minutes to load a musket. I think if the forefathers were here now there would be provisions. But that's an argument for another time.

Sounds like wiki-leaks may have a job opening soon. Maybe you should send your resume.

 

[knapplc]

The story is being picked up outside the sphere of Husker football:

Nebraska doesn’t become an official Big Ten member until this summer. Yet its first head-butt with a school from that league became one of National Signing Day’s strangest subplots.
Huskers coach Bo Pelini during a media teleconference declined to comment on rumored wholesale changes to his coaching staff. Pelini’s comments came about an hour after Indiana coach Kevin Wilson announced that Hoosiers assistant Corey Raymond was leaving to join Pelini’s staff as defensive backs coach.

Read more

 

[knapplc]

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

The First Amendment disagrees with you. Freedom of the press is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. The press are under zero obligation to respect the privacy of public issues. When the questions were asked it was no longer a private matter - the cat had been let out of the bag in the Indiana presser by Wilson. The reporters asked pertinent, respectful questions. All the crying about these questions beggars belief.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

I don't "fail to realize" anything about this situation. I know full well what the rights, privileges and expectations of the press are. Bo and his assistants are public figures, and their salaries are paid by taxpayers - that's why they're public information, and announced every year. Sure, they're real people, but when they take a public position like they've done, they give up certain levels of privacy. Goes with the territory.

Their in lies the crux of the problem. If "certain levels" are to be observed who sets them? As a Mod here you are in a position of power yourself. Should we demand to know certain aspects of your life because it goes with the territory? Granted the two situations aren't realistically comparable, but you get my drift.

The constitution also says we have the right to bear arms but that was back when it took 2 minutes to load a musket. I think if the forefathers were here now there would be provisions. But that's an argument for another time.

Sounds like wiki-leaks may have a job opening soon. Maybe you should send your resume.

You don't think I'm more in the "public eye" than regular members, being a Mod? Most definitely I am, and most definitely the things I say and do are under far greater scrutiny than normal members. I knew that when I accepted the position, and I take my slings and arrows as they come. Bo needs to learn to do the same, and adapt when situations evolve out of his control. That's the bottom line.

 

[hskerprid]

It's also their job to respect what the university and the head coach wished them to do. If reporters have the right to demand answers to questions they were asked not to pose then the university has the right not to answer based on apparent speculation by the media. Just like driving is a priviledge and not a right, so goes it for reporters. It's a priviledge to be at the presser. Don't abuse the priviledge.

The First Amendment disagrees with you. Freedom of the press is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. The press are under zero obligation to respect the privacy of public issues. When the questions were asked it was no longer a private matter - the cat had been let out of the bag in the Indiana presser by Wilson. The reporters asked pertinent, respectful questions. All the crying about these questions beggars belief.

What you fail to realize is that maybe the coaches in the speculation have asked the administration to respect their privacy until all the details are hashed out. It's not just the "coaches" we're talking about here but also their friends and families as well. Journalists and some people seem to think that there has to be absolute transparency at all times. Privacy is a very important issue and many try to trample upon it. Just sayin'

I don't "fail to realize" anything about this situation. I know full well what the rights, privileges and expectations of the press are. Bo and his assistants are public figures, and their salaries are paid by taxpayers - that's why they're public information, and announced every year. Sure, they're real people, but when they take a public position like they've done, they give up certain levels of privacy. Goes with the territory.

Their in lies the crux of the problem. If "certain levels" are to be observed who sets them? As a Mod here you are in a position of power yourself. Should we demand to know certain aspects of your life because it goes with the territory? Granted the two situations aren't realistically comparable, but you get my drift.

The constitution also says we have the right to bear arms but that was back when it took 2 minutes to load a musket. I think if the forefathers were here now there would be provisions. But that's an argument for another time.

Sounds like wiki-leaks may have a job opening soon. Maybe you should send your resume.

You don't think I'm more in the "public eye" than regular members, being a Mod? Most definitely I am, and most definitely the things I say and do are under far greater scrutiny than normal members. I knew that when I accepted the position, and I take my slings and arrows as they come. Bo needs to learn to do the same, and adapt when situations evolve out of his control. That's the bottom line.

I said that your positions aren't realistically comparable. I didn't say that you weren't more in the public eye as a Mod.

The bottom line was that we need to consider the personal rights of others as well, I think. Professional decorum not with standing. I just feel that the media needs to be more common sense centered.......off soap box

 

[knapplc]

The bottom line was that we need to consider the personal rights of others as well, I think. Professional decorum not with standing. I just feel that the media needs to be more common sense centered.......off soap box

Think about this from the media's perspective. Bo hasn't spoken to them since the Holiday Bowl. Five weeks later, with rumors swirling, and an outright declaration of coaching changes being made by another coach in the press, do you really think they should not have addressed the topic? Especially when it's possible - even likely - that Bo won't speak to them again until the Spring Game ten weeks away.

If they didn't ask those questions they may as well have hung up their journalist's credentials and gotten another job.

 

[hskerprid]

The bottom line was that we need to consider the personal rights of others as well, I think. Professional decorum not with standing. I just feel that the media needs to be more common sense centered.......off soap box

Think about this from the media's perspective. Bo hasn't spoken to them since the Holiday Bowl. Five weeks later, with rumors swirling, and an outright declaration of coaching changes being made by another coach in the press, do you really think they should not have addressed the topic? Especially when it's possible - even likely - that Bo won't speak to them again until the Spring Game ten weeks away.

If they didn't ask those questions they may as well have hung up their journalist's credentials and gotten another job.

I did think about it from the media's perspective. Since I have never been a reporter I don't know all the in's and out's of the business. But I do know in my occupation that if I continually prod someone for specific information after said person has told me there wouldn't be any discussion of the matter, I would change tact. I would not want to risk the alienation of myself from the information flow. If you get my jist.

It's like the kid on the outside of the pit bull cage with his stick poking the dog in the ribs.