Rhule Positivity & is the Solich Curse Broken?

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Fair enough, and I agree. I just read your last couple posts as suggesting that the local media was unduly harsh on Bo Pelini and not critical enough of everyone else. 

I think this was my first post on the subject.

 

[teachercd]

I think for the most part the local media guys try hard to be positive probably because it makes their job easier BUT they also need a "good" product to talk/write about in order to do that.

 

Bo put them in a bad spot.  Same record every year AND he hated the media and fans (newsflash all the coaches hate us, we are annoying), so they could then start to be less positive, dipping their toe in the negative end of the pool, which makes sense, I would do that as well.

 

With Riley the were caught in a weird spot because the guy is just super freaking nice and super media friendly, I feel like they were great with the way they covered him.

 

With Frost they were stuck.  Frost was smart in some ways, he basically cut the media off and out of his life from the jump, probably thinking that he would not need them.  He was still treated with kid gloves for about the first 3 seasons.  I feel like skipping the bowl game in the covid year was the first time there was some negative nellies in the media.  By his last year, there was nothing positive built up with the media and frankly there was nothing positive to really say.

 

Rhule so far seems to be in a good spot AND he has a bit of a scapegoat, Jeff Sims and Satterfield then he also has that huge bright spot in Tony White.  I don't hear much negative stuff on him just yet, other than the "call plays that work" and "Why, WHY was Grant in the game!!" which is normal, from fans and media.

[JeffKinney87]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think this was my first post on the subject.

 

I think Guy mistook you for me, by accident?  

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

 

 

They also tended to downplay his positive coaching results, involvement with Team Jack, and his family persona and the clean program he ran.  

 

Have to disagree. The media reported his great starts, then had no choice but to report the big game blowouts. IIRC, they even off-loaded much of the blame to Carl Pelini, Shawn Watson, Tim Beck, and John Papuchis, like we did here on HB. The fact that Bo Pelini ran a clean program was always part of the story. 

 

Some people have a hard time believing this, but the Team Jack stuff, along with fun viral videos showing Bo's good deeds and amusing pranks was part of a 2013 PR campaign to warm up Bo's image, carried out by the Athletic Department with the direct approval of Shaun Eichorst. That year Eichorst also gave Bo a contract extension, a bigger private plane, and a larger recruiting budget. 

 

Bo Pelini was noticeably more restrained those last two seasons, and the media made a big deal about the new Bo. Then the team crapped out at the end of each season, and Bad Bo quickly returned. 

34 minutes ago, JeffKinney87 said:

I think Guy mistook you for me, by accident?  

 

Maybe. But you seemed to intersect there for awhile.

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Fair enough, and I agree. I just read your last couple posts as suggesting that the local media was unduly harsh on Bo Pelini and not critical enough of everyone else. 

 

Oh yeah. That was definitely meant for Jeff.

[JeffKinney87]

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Someone help me out here. There's one faction of HuskerBoard — along with a lot of average fans — who think the Husker beat writers have long been too negative about Nebraska. And Jeff Kinney thinks they haven't been critical enough, including Day One skepticism about every coaching hire. 

 

I don't read these guys daily. Does the Nebraska sports media not express skepticism or report discord when things actually start going bad? Given how much space they have to fill every day, isn't it a mix of good news and hopeful speculation and the obviously flawed product on the field? Did any of them make excuses for Mike Riley or Scott Frost's firing beyond the obvious? 

 

Or is this just another Eichorst and Bo thing? I'm not sure why you put "sideline behavior" and "poison the well" in quotes. They're pretty accurate. That first leaked tape of Bo was quarantined for two years, and appears to have gone from an internal employee straight to Deadspin.  Bo's final speech to the team wasn't leaked by the media, it was someone else in attendance. The latter was pretty ugly and self-centered. It's hard to imagine these kinda rants were rare for Bo, and it's easy to imagine someone wanting others to know what working with the man was really like. How did the reporting align with the fans? Pretty even split as I recall. Even the people who didn't want Pelini fired were expecting improvement over his 9 wins, national irrelevance, and poor behavior. It was a simpler time. 

 

You seem to mistake "excuses" for "reasons" Bo was fired. The man was 100% responsible for his own actions. Not the media. Not Shawn Eichorst. It's why Bo is where he is today. Eichorst, too. 

 

 

 

 

Your posts are growing more and more incoherent.  

 

First you claimed that I stated that the local media caused Bo to be fired (Straw Man Fallacy), I showed that was not what I said or argued:  "we decided to instead gulp down the excuses for firing proven winners given to us by incompetent ADs, and sports writers."  

 

Next you said that local sportswriters try to "cover every base" in presenting opposing viewpoints about the NU program.  I do not believe this is true, thus I asked for any evidence that local newspapers were critical of the Bo Pelini firing, Mike Riley Hire, or Rhule Hire at the time, since all of these were being talked about by fans and blowing up over message boards.  You won't find them, because they don't reflect the views that the AD's departments approved of at the time.  Only 5 - 10 years later do they get discussed if at all.  You have yet to present any of this evidence.  

 

You then moved onto polling other's opinions above underlined: "Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).  This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. "  I agree with Enhance and others that this behavior by sportswriters is typical in most other places (to write positive coverage initially, and slowly drain the kool-aid at the end).    

 

My point was, and still is, that fans should take a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what is printed by local sportswriters, and trumpeted by the AD.  I think the reason you see Pelini or his rhetoric as "ugly and self-centered", or that your head flashes to angry Bo yelling at a ref, instead of seeing a coach who allowed young Jack Hoffman to run a Touchdown in the Spring game, or had a similar first few years to a young Tom Osborne is due to some of the excuse-making coming out of the ADs office and sportswriters.

 

I know you (and Enhance and others) strongly disagree with my opinions in bold, but I don't think you are going to change your opinion, or change mine.  I do respect that you think my "excuses" were "reasons" for Bo to be fired, even if I don't agree.  In that case why don't we just agree to disagree?  

[Guy Chamberlin]

6 minutes ago, JeffKinney87 said:

Your posts are growing more and more incoherent.  

 

First you claimed that I stated that the local media caused Bo to be fired (Straw Man Fallacy), I showed that was not what I said or argued:  "we decided to instead gulp down the excuses for firing proven winners given to us by incompetent ADs, and sports writers."  

 

Next you said that local sportswriters try to "cover every base" in presenting opposing viewpoints about the NU program.  I do not believe this is true, thus I asked for any evidence that local newspapers were critical of the Bo Pelini firing, Mike Riley Hire, or Rhule Hire at the time, since all of these were being talked about by fans and blowing up over message boards.  You won't find them, because they don't reflect the views that the AD's departments approved of at the time.  Only 5 - 10 years later do they get discussed if at all.  You have yet to present any of this evidence.  

 

You then moved onto polling other's opinions above underlined: "Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers).  This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. "  I agree with Enhance and others that this behavior by sportswriters is typical in most other places (to write positive coverage initially, and slowly drain the kool-aid at the end).    

 

My point was, and still is, that fans should take a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what is printed by local sportswriters, and trumpeted by the AD.  I think the reason you see Pelini or his rhetoric as "ugly and self-centered", or that your head flashes to angry Bo yelling at a ref, instead of seeing a coach who allowed young Jack Hoffman to run a Touchdown in the Spring game, or had a similar first few years to a young Tom Osborne is due to some of the excuse-making coming out of the ADs office and sportswriters.

 

I know you (and Enhance and others) strongly disagree with my opinions in bold, but I don't think you are going to change your opinion, or change mine.  I do respect that you think my "excuses" were "reasons" for Bo to be fired, even if I don't agree.  In that case why don't we just agree to disagree?  

 

You've used a lot of words to say you think Bo Pelini was unjustly fired. You're certainly not alone. 

 

But please don't insult me by claiming my negative impressions of Bo Pelini could only come from a local media doing the bidding of the Athletic Department, the very people who promoted the living daylights out of the Jack Hoffman event, and indeed Bo Pelini himself. You just blamed the AD and sportwriters as if I was unable to witness any of it myself.  

 

You're looking for criticism of Rhule and Riley's hiring, but there was little criticism of Pelni's hiring back in the day, too. In terms of firings, the Riley and Frost exits weren't considered any prettier than Bo's, except for Bo's parting gift of an exit speech. Those were Bo's words unfiltered, and yeah, they were ugly and self-centered. I think we've established that everyone wants to start with optimism until proven otherwise. 

 

We can agree to disagree, but I have a generic problem with fans blaming the media and the refs to avoid larger truths. 

 

 

[Mavric]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

 I think one man's excuses are another man's reason. As I mentioned earlier, it's all about perspective.

Exactly this. 
 

The only difference between a reason and an excuse is whether you believe it’s valid or not. 

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, JeffKinney87 said:

My point was, and still is, that fans should take a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what is printed by local sportswriters, and trumpeted by the AD.  I think the reason you see Pelini or his rhetoric as "ugly and self-centered", or that your head flashes to angry Bo yelling at a ref, instead of seeing a coach who allowed young Jack Hoffman to run a Touchdown in the Spring game, or had a similar first few years to a young Tom Osborne is due to some of the excuse-making coming out of the ADs office and sportswriters.

 

I know you (and Enhance and others) strongly disagree with my opinions in bold, but I don't think you are going to change your opinion, or change mine.  I do respect that you think my "excuses" were "reasons" for Bo to be fired, even if I don't agree.  In that case why don't we just agree to disagree?  

FWIW I don't inherently disagree with what you put in the bold. I've just never looked at Pelini, his tenure, or his firing as an either/or situation. Meaning, that one either supports it or does not. Pelini was a polarizing figure. He did a lot of good things as head coach, and objectively speaking, did some not so great things. Really it's just a matter of perspective as to which direction one leans, and I don't think anyone who disagrees with his firing is completely wrong to feel that way.

I think my only real disagreement is with the rhetoric. I think some fans may be benignly influenced too much by the opinions of sports writers or narratives coming out of the AD, but I think most fans (or, at the very least, the average fans) are free enough thinkers to form their own opinions. I just don't really agree with the underlying (perhaps even unintentional) theme here... that if you supported Bo's firing, you bought too much into what sportswriters and athletic officials were negatively saying, and that if you didn't support Bo's firing, you were a free and independent thinker. I think that's disingenuous but, again, that may not be your intent at all. I think it's just being interpreted that way, hence some of the consternation.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Does anyone have an example of local media criticism of Bo Pelini that seemed unfair? 

 

If I remember TapeGate 1 correctly, the fans came down harder on the leaker of the tape than they did Bo. 

 

The national media had a bit of a field day with it. And I think that's part of the issue. When negative Osborne and Bo and Frost stories went national, Husker fans tended to circle the wagons. Bad news has a way of traveling faster and we blame the media for stoking the fire. But it's still news and we eat it up when it's someone else. 

[JeffKinney87]

 

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

FWIW I don't inherently disagree with what you put in the bold. I've just never looked at Pelini, his tenure, or his firing as an either/or situation. Meaning, that one either supports it or does not. Pelini was a polarizing figure. He did a lot of good things as head coach, and objectively speaking, did some not so great things. Really it's just a matter of perspective as to which direction one leans, and I don't think anyone who disagrees with his firing is completely wrong to feel that way.

I think my only real disagreement is with the rhetoric. I think some fans may be benignly influenced too much by the opinions of sports writers or narratives coming out of the AD, but I think most fans (or, at the very least, the average fans) are free enough thinkers to form their own opinions. I just don't really agree with the underlying (perhaps even unintentional) theme here... that if you supported Bo's firing, you bought too much into what sportswriters and athletic officials were negatively saying, and that if you didn't support Bo's firing, you were a free and independent thinker. I think that's disingenuous but, again, that may not be your intent at all. I think it's just being interpreted that way, hence some of the consternation.

 

I have a colleague at work who strongly thinks we should have fired Bo for his sideline behavior, long before we did.  We are both friends and we agree to disagree.  He also doesn't read the newspaper, or listen to press conferences.  People can certainly support Bo's firing and be a free and independent thinker.

 

At the same time I do think public opinion regarding coaching can and is shaped by the local sportswriters, and AD's office. Obviously they can only do so much, and they are not all powerful. It is my OPINION that too many Nebraska Football fans go along with the latest excuses that come from the newspapers and AD's office, without thinking critically about the source and expertise of those giving the information.

 

[JeffKinney87]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Does anyone have an example of local media criticism of Bo Pelini that seemed unfair? 

 

If I remember TapeGate 1 correctly, the fans came down harder on the leaker of the tape than they did Bo. 

 

The national media had a bit of a field day with it. And I think that's part of the issue. When negative Osborne and Bo and Frost stories went national, Husker fans tended to circle the wagons. Bad news has a way of traveling faster and we blame the media for stoking the fire. But it's still news and we eat it up when it's someone else. 

 

https://dirkthetroll.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-troll-of-nebraska-look-at-dirk.html  This post references specifically an article from September 24, 2014 in the Omaha World Herald, with direct quotes.

 

https://www.cornnation.com/2011/10/13/2488145/dirk-chatelain-apologizes-for-cheap-shots-at-taylor-martinez  Here is Dirk's non-apology/apology from 2011

 

https://www.cornnation.com/2012/12/11/3755268/chatelains-vendetta-against-pelini-continues more articles referenced

 

https://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/55111-barfknecht-peevish-postgame-does-nu-no-favors/page/5/ Huskerboard subject discussing Barfknecht' article, with takes for and against.

 

Again, I want to make it clear.  I AM NOT BLAMING THE MEDIA FOR FIRING BO PELINI.  I am just saying that my opinion is that *SOME* portion of the fanbase choose to look at these sportswriters, and statements by the AD with an uncritical eye. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I didn't read him much myself, but I do remember the near unanimous consensus in here that Dirk Chatelain sucked balls. 

 

When I revisit old threads, I see I started developing some concerns about Bo after the 2010 season myself, but gave him the benefit of the doubt at the start of every season, including 2014. I also liked Taylor Martinez and really wished he'd had a healthy senior year. That might have changed things. Or not. 

[Lorewarn]

The media, locally and nationwide, as well as the fanbase, were all more than fair and complimentary towards Bo and his staff, if that's an argument being made.

 

When the post-OSU game hot mic was leaked the fanbase largely centered their anger on the leaker more than on Bo. We all ate up late-in-his-tenure positive PR campaign featuring FauxPelini's cat in the spring game, surprising a family with their dad coming home from serving overseas, etc. No one ever held Carl or Marvin Sanders accountable for their presumably explicit and outrageous off the field habits. 

 

There are plenty more examples of the positive or silent responses to Pelini's tenure that, if we're suggesting the fans should look at more critically, would have led to his seat being much hotter much sooner than it was. Rremember when he nearly hit a ref with his hat, described the officiating as 'chickens#!t' in his post game presser and then actually dared Eichorst to fire him after 2013 and he didn't get fired?