When Bo Pelini Talks, People Hear What They Want To Hear

[kchusker_chris]

I'm talking the difference between argument and fact.

I don't know how you can possibly empirically quantify at what point Bo "lost his cool", or at what point the team "lost its cool." The author seems to flippantly decide the case of the latter by looking at penalties prior to and during the fourth quarter. And he dismisses the notion of Bo losing his cool prior to the 4th quarter by simply dismissing the halftime interview and claiming, I think, that Bo didn't lose his cool prior to the 4th quarter, based on a review of the TV footage.

* Oh, and never mind the fact that the team committed more penalties during the 4th quarter than they had averaged during the first three.

* I also reject the notion that Bo's "losing his cool", if it happened, could be attributed to one blowup, which is what this article is based on. If Bo lost it that game, it was more than just one or two highly visible moments -- those are mere symptoms. And the buildup and other symptoms of that are the things that the team would can feel, being around him on the sidelines and in that halftime locker, but not something we can just "tell" from checking out the TV coverage.

Granted: I think you'd have to be entering pretty speculative waters if you tried to ascribe a team's struggles to volatility from the head coach. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. So I don't really disagree with the premise of the article. I completely disagree with the notion that his conclusions are fact.

Maybe we're dealing with semantics, but I think you set that stage. I don't particularly think the team melted down as a result of Bo checking out, but whether or not you're in agreement, one thing that should be clear is that we do not have, as you suggested, all the facts.

You're arguing that the sky isn't blue. Technically, you are correct. It isn't. But when looking at the big picture, and reality, yes, when you look up, it's blue.

If there's a spelling error in a textbook, that doesn't invalidate the whole thing... There may be some incorrect statements in his article, but IMO, the main point stands.

The whole point of the article, is that certain media members (and fans) have pre-determined thoughts on Pelini. They bend facts, or outright ignore them, just to solidify their opinion. It's not about being truthful, it's about shock jocking your way to increased numbers. There are people who will never be happy with anything Bo does. The same people who literally bitched because Bo hired Terry Joseph 3 days after saying he was going to take his time. Hell, there's people that don't like TO. Those are the types that hear what they want to hear.

As opposed to those that support Bo entirely, stand up for each of his tantrums - and defend each of his decisions with the overused: "I trust Bo" (usually followed by: "if you don't then you aren't a fan")? They are much more sound in their judgement in your opinion (since they agree with you) - so obviously it's only the other side that hears what they want to hear. Goes both ways, and I listen to you form entirely differing opinions about many of the articles posted on here than myself and many others. Doesn't mean either side is right or wrong, they are just opinions - but it does go both ways. You are clearly in that camp having formed a very specific opinion from the article above - taking it as fact rather than the commentary that it so obviously is. Whether you agree/disagree w/ the premise is irrelevant at this point...you are exactly what the article mentions - just on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[zoogs]

There may be some incorrect statements in his article, but the main point stands. If there's a spelling error in a textbook, that doesn't invalidate the whole thing...

There aren't a lot of incorrect statements in the article. He lists out a lot of factoids. And then he makes an argument, based off of those. It's not a spelling error in a textbook, it's an argument advanced that, while persuasive, is hardly all-encompassing or definitive.

You are saying that we have all available facts in order to make an informed decision about whether or not the team's poor performance was a reflection of the coach's demeanor during the game.

We simply do not have all the information. Maybe if we conducted an honest poll of all the players...I mean, frankly, there's no way to tell, ever. We lost after a decent start, everybody gets a share of the blame but who gets the bigger portions, it's a ton of guesswork and opinion.

The whole point of the article, is that certain media members (and fans) have pre-determined thoughts on Pelini. They bend facts, or outright ignore them, just to solidify their opinion.

Oh I agree with this, absolutely. You're just missing the other side of the coin. There are people who want to believe a better in a more hunky dory scenario and look only at the facts that might support that when making their case... and subsequently present their take as absolute reality.

I am all for that up until the last part. It is the same thing, seeing what you want to see. Very well it could be argue that it is fundamentally better to see, and therefore believe, in the better of possibilities. That isn't the argument though.

 

[1HuskrFan]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

 

[kchusker_chris]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

Huh? (u must have been w/ those HuskerPedia guys in their new hangout)

1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1

Please take note of the rankings too....

 

[Saunders]

I'm talking the difference between argument and fact.

I don't know how you can possibly empirically quantify at what point Bo "lost his cool", or at what point the team "lost its cool." The author seems to flippantly decide the case of the latter by looking at penalties prior to and during the fourth quarter. And he dismisses the notion of Bo losing his cool prior to the 4th quarter by simply dismissing the halftime interview and claiming, I think, that Bo didn't lose his cool prior to the 4th quarter, based on a review of the TV footage.

* Oh, and never mind the fact that the team committed more penalties during the 4th quarter than they had averaged during the first three.

* I also reject the notion that Bo's "losing his cool", if it happened, could be attributed to one blowup, which is what this article is based on. If Bo lost it that game, it was more than just one or two highly visible moments -- those are mere symptoms. And the buildup and other symptoms of that are the things that the team would can feel, being around him on the sidelines and in that halftime locker, but not something we can just "tell" from checking out the TV coverage.

Granted: I think you'd have to be entering pretty speculative waters if you tried to ascribe a team's struggles to volatility from the head coach. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. So I don't really disagree with the premise of the article. I completely disagree with the notion that his conclusions are fact.

Maybe we're dealing with semantics, but I think you set that stage. I don't particularly think the team melted down as a result of Bo checking out, but whether or not you're in agreement, one thing that should be clear is that we do not have, as you suggested, all the facts.

You're arguing that the sky isn't blue. Technically, you are correct. It isn't. But when looking at the big picture, and reality, yes, when you look up, it's blue.

If there's a spelling error in a textbook, that doesn't invalidate the whole thing... There may be some incorrect statements in his article, but IMO, the main point stands.

The whole point of the article, is that certain media members (and fans) have pre-determined thoughts on Pelini. They bend facts, or outright ignore them, just to solidify their opinion. It's not about being truthful, it's about shock jocking your way to increased numbers. There are people who will never be happy with anything Bo does. The same people who literally bitched because Bo hired Terry Joseph 3 days after saying he was going to take his time. Hell, there's people that don't like TO. Those are the types that hear what they want to hear.

As opposed to those that support Bo entirely, stand up for each of his tantrums - and defend each of his decisions with the overused: "I trust Bo" (usually followed by: "if you don't then you aren't a fan")? They are much more sound in their judgement in your opinion (since they agree with you) - so obviously it's only the other side that hears what they want to hear. Goes both ways, and I listen to you form entirely differing opinions about many of the articles posted on here than myself and many others. Doesn't mean either side is right or wrong, they are just opinions - but it does go both ways. You are clearly in that camp having formed a very specific opinion from the article above - taking it as fact rather than the commentary that it so obviously is. Whether you agree/disagree w/ the premise is irrelevant at this point...you are exactly what the article mentions - just on the other end of the spectrum.

First, let's address the Bo Pelini cult strawman. Also known as the sunshine pumper or koolaid drinker. They get discussed all the time, but I've still never seen one to the degree of 100% agreeing with Bo. It's like snipe hunting. Let me know when you have a live one. And if they do exist, they're blind.

Second, my "clearly formed opinion" regarding the article above is based on observation of media trends. Do you, kchusker_chris, believe that members of the media bend, distort, cherry pick, or outright ignore facts or the truth, to create a bigger story? Do you believe that ESPN is a news network, or an entertainment network?

I've been critical of Bo, he's far from perfect. Just a couple examples. His handling of the backup QB spot was less than ideal. Locking down practices is weird. Fighting having the Spring Game televised the last 4 years because "we don't want gametape out there" is laughable. I'm not sold on Beck as OC, or Papuchis as DC. Beck's shown flashes, and the DL sucked last year. Bo speaks with so many vagaries, it's hard to take him serious sometimes.

How does that make me a fanboy?

 

['SkersRule]

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

If someone "misreads" Bo's statements how exactly is that his fault?

When a message/statement can legitimately be interpreted in multiple ways, its the reciever's fault if he/she doesn't grasp the intended meaning?

Yes. Because if you're not understanding then you should ask follow-up questions. Let me give you a personal example: While I was in school, almost 20 years ago now, I was doing an internship at a company and while walking down the hallway I met my program chair who was speaking to another person at the company that he knew. He had come to check up on what I was doing and ask my supervisor about my performance since I was at about the halfway point of the internship. I told my program chair that the classes and training in this program were a fantastic prep for what I would be doing in this particular industry and I also commented that I could even take over as the manager because I already knew so many of the real world policies and procedures. I was complementing my program chair and the program. However, the person whom my program chair was speaking to took what I said as an insult to the current manager's competence. I only found this out a day later when I stepped into my program chair's office to discuss some homework. It was then that I found out that the person he was talking to was greatly offended. In other words, he took what I said, and filtered it through his own anger at God only knows what and decided to form an erroneous opinion of me based on his own stupidity and preconceived notions. To the point about Bo, certain people are like the person my program chair was talking to when I encountered them both. They only hear what they want to hear and will try and use any excuse, regardless of how flimsy it is, to take absurd offense and create problems where none exist. Bo isn't perfect but some people just want to take a tiny grain of sand and make it into an entire beach.

 

[caveman99]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

Huh? (u must have been w/ those HuskerPedia guys in their new hangout)

1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1

Please take note of the rankings too....

I am sure TO appreciates you adding 24 wins and zero losses for 1970 and 1971 to his resume. Not sure the Bobfather would approve. I also notice you glossed over the fact that the previous poster hit the 9-3-1 record for one year nearly on the head. Not sure where he got 8 wins though. Looking at those 9-3 records, and there are a few in that list, those are pretty close to 9-4 and TO didn't have a chance at playing 1 more game to lose or win. So who knows what his record over 13 games would have been those years.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

Huh? (u must have been w/ those HuskerPedia guys in their new hangout)

1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1

Please take note of the rankings too....

I am sure TO appreciates you adding 24 wins and zero losses for 1970 and 1971 to his resume. Not sure the Bobfather would approve. I also notice you glossed over the fact that the previous poster hit the 9-3-1 record for one year nearly on the head. Not sure where he got 8 wins though. Looking at those 9-3 records, and there are a few in that list, those are pretty close to 9-4 and TO didn't have a chance at playing 1 more game to lose or win. So who knows what his record over 13 games would have been those years.

He said in the 70's, so I posted all the records from the 70s. And his "almost" hitting it on the head is the point. He said TO only won 8 one year. We never had an 8-3-1 year when we played 12 games, we had a 9-3-1 year when we played 13. If you're going to post BS on this board to support your opinion, play it off as fact....then I'm going to call you out for it. There's a big difference between 8 and 9 games when you're talking about wins at Nebraska.

And I don't care if TO got close to 9-4, the fact is he never was 9-4 so who cares. And he was rarely ranked outside the top 10 - which is even more dominant than the wins/losses.

 

[caveman99]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

Huh? (u must have been w/ those HuskerPedia guys in their new hangout)

1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1

Please take note of the rankings too....

I am sure TO appreciates you adding 24 wins and zero losses for 1970 and 1971 to his resume. Not sure the Bobfather would approve. I also notice you glossed over the fact that the previous poster hit the 9-3-1 record for one year nearly on the head. Not sure where he got 8 wins though. Looking at those 9-3 records, and there are a few in that list, those are pretty close to 9-4 and TO didn't have a chance at playing 1 more game to lose or win. So who knows what his record over 13 games would have been those years.

He said in the 70's, so I posted all the records from the 70s. And his "almost" hitting it on the head is the point. He said TO only won 8 one year. We never had an 8-3-1 year when we played 12 games, we had a 9-3-1 year when we played 13. If you're going to post BS on this board to support your opinion, play it off as fact....then I'm going to call you out for it. There's a big difference between 8 and 9 games when you're talking about wins at Nebraska.

And I don't care if TO got close to 9-4, the fact is he never was 9-4 so who cares. And he was rarely ranked outside the top 10 - which is even more dominant than the wins/losses.

He was clearly talking about TO's record as a HC in the 70's, not Husker football performance in the 70's overall. Your flippant comment about throwing random BS out to support a point goes both ways.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Nothing better to do during the off season. What a bunch of crap. Facts delivered, observations made by a bunch of know nothing choir boys and band members. How many of you actually played ball? very few by the comments made here. Get a life, talk about something that we can get excited about or cry in our beer about. To much negativity. If the internet existed during the first 10 yrs of TO's coaching career, (Nebraska was his first head coaching job as well) he would have more than likely taken the Colorado head coaching job. I love the Huskers, and I love reading about them. Bashing the head coach when the team doesn't reach fan expectations is usually BS. I read on the board somewhere that Coach Osborne never lost 4 games in one season, I recall at least one season during the 70's he only won 8 out of 12 (8-3-1). One yr the huskers played 13, but usually 12 including the bowl game. TO played basically the same teams every year. Last year we played in bowl games nearly every week. Much more difficult to prepare for from a coaching and player perspective. GBR

Huh? (u must have been w/ those HuskerPedia guys in their new hangout)

1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1

Please take note of the rankings too....

I am sure TO appreciates you adding 24 wins and zero losses for 1970 and 1971 to his resume. Not sure the Bobfather would approve. I also notice you glossed over the fact that the previous poster hit the 9-3-1 record for one year nearly on the head. Not sure where he got 8 wins though. Looking at those 9-3 records, and there are a few in that list, those are pretty close to 9-4 and TO didn't have a chance at playing 1 more game to lose or win. So who knows what his record over 13 games would have been those years.

He said in the 70's, so I posted all the records from the 70s. And his "almost" hitting it on the head is the point. He said TO only won 8 one year. We never had an 8-3-1 year when we played 12 games, we had a 9-3-1 year when we played 13. If you're going to post BS on this board to support your opinion, play it off as fact....then I'm going to call you out for it. There's a big difference between 8 and 9 games when you're talking about wins at Nebraska.

And I don't care if TO got close to 9-4, the fact is he never was 9-4 so who cares. And he was rarely ranked outside the top 10 - which is even more dominant than the wins/losses.

He was clearly talking about TO's record as a HC in the 70's, not Husker football performance in the 70's overall. Your flippant comment about throwing random BS out to support a point goes both ways.

That's what you're concerned about? My cut/paste skills? Did I say those were TO's? Did I need those extra 2 years to support my argument - or disprove his? Was any of it BS? Were any of the records inaccurate? He's another list...find an 8 win season in it. Who cares about who was coaching...

2001 11-2 #7 2000 10-2 #7 1999 12-1 #3 1998 9-4 #19 1997 13-0 #2 1996 11-2 #6 1995 12-0 #1 1994 13-0 #1 1993 11-1 #3 1992 9-3 #14 1991 9-2-1 #15 1990 9-3 #17 1989 10-2 #11 1988 11-2 #10 1987 10-2 #6 1986 10-2 #4 1985 9-3 #10 1984 10-2 #3 1983 12-1 #2 1982 12-1 #3 1981 9-3 #9 1980 10-2 #7 1979 10-2 #7 1978 9-3 #8 1977 9-3 #10 1976 9-3-1 #7 1975 10-2 #9 1974 9-3 #7 1973 9-2-1 #7 1972 9-2-1 #4 1971 13-0 #1 1970 11-0-1 #1 1969 9-2 #11