Can Bo get it done

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Who seriously cares all that much what other people think about our coach?
They're outsiders with outsider "knowledge" and ignorance. They don't know jack sh#t.

We don't care how the program looks to people outside of its "sphere"? This is odd.

Another conundrum.

Obviously, people inside our "sphere" are going to have the best informed opinion about everything related to our program: what kind of person our coach is, how good our players can be, what kind of people our players are, how good our game day atmosphere is, so on and so forth. We have access to and care to look at and read videos and stories about our program. I've re-watched the Northwestern Hail Mary countless times and I've watched the selection show watch party reaction when the Huskers were selected a dozen times. And access to our program isn't limited to a x-mile radius around Lincoln. Anybody who has access to a computer can glean all the information they want about our program, if they look hard enough. Foppa, I believe, lives in New Zealand and he is as much "inside our sphere" as anybody else.

But time puts such a constraint on our lives. I'm fortunate enough to be a college student who has the time to read articles, watch videos, and really digest what I've read and watched. Was Bo's reaction a product of something external to him, is the local media just plain stupid, et cetera.

Most people don't have that luxury. They either:

1) Aren't in our "sphere" in which case they won't spend much time forming an opinion about our program, its players, its fans, and its staff.

2) Don't have the time in which case they won't spend much time forming an opinion about our program, its players, its fans, and its staff.

3) Aren't in our "sphere" and don't have the time in which case they probably aren't an avid watcher of college football.

This harkens back to the point I made earlier: people give more weight to negatively charged words, events, behaviors, et cetera than they do positively charged words, events, behaviors, et cetera. For those people in our "sphere" who don't have the time and for people who aren't in our sphere but do have the time, their opinion of our program is shaped by very tangible things: media headlines and results of games. And the media reports fall victim to the same bias I mentioned above and so report more negative things than they do positive things. Can you see the vicious cycle?

Here's the caveat, though. The people outside our "sphere," they often have the most power in deciding where our program winds up should it falter in a game or two. So, in the grand scheme of things their ill-guided opiniondoes matter and it probably matters more than our own well-formed opinions.

At the end of the day, what really matters is how you want to be remembered and who you want to be remembered by. If you want to be remembered as a winner, then you win games and don't give a rats a$$ about your behavior. I guarantee you, the people who we remember the most are those types of people. The true icons, however are the people who win and give no reason to think negatively of them (Tom Osborne). I guarantee that Bo Pelini would be fondly remembered by everyone when his time here is over if he didn't make a "horse's a$$" out of himself. We won't fire Tim Miles if he has a few barely over .500 seasons in a row.

Bo has made an a$$ of himself and more times than one. I think he knows that and I think he knows that image is everything. It's all part of the learning process; he's never been a head coach before. He's stubborn to the point that it becomes obnoxious. But I think he's learning and I think he's on the process of repairing his image over the next few years.

I hope so.

 

[zoogs]

I think we all care a great deal about what everyone thinks of the program.

Why does a small school in the middle of nowhere have such a national following? Why are we considered some the classiest fans in America? Why do people say, "College football is better when Nebraska is a powerhouse?" Why does one of the top defensive coordinators in the profession come work here for millions of dollars per year? Because Nebraska football is a big deal, with a sterling tradition in both winning and class forged by a lot of years and by a lot of the great representatives to come through here.

Nebraska could be some insignificant program whose fortunes literally nobody outside its small circle of fans gives any passing thought to. But instead, it's one of the biggest brands in college sports.

Understandably, though, opinions differ as to whether Bo is hurting that shine or not. But, really? The "Why doesn't ESPN give us enough attention" fanbase doesn't care what anybody thinks?

Also, another outstanding post, BB. Great points.

At the end of the day, what really matters is how you want to be remembered and who you want to be remembered by. If you want to be remembered as a winner, then you win games and don't give a rats a$$ about your behavior. I guarantee you, the people who we remember the most are those types of people. The true icons, however are the people who win and give no reason to think negatively of them (Tom Osborne).

 

[Branno]

No, I'm not the one who's contradicting himself.

Enlighten me, please.

 

[kchusker_chris]

...it's one of the biggest brands in college sports.

This is the only response needed for people who can't understand why a fan would care what the 99% of outsiders (those non-Nebraska) fans think of the program. Better brand, more money. And in a day and age where money dictates most everything, we need a solid brand to remain competitive into the future. Whatever that brand is, will be up to the staff/administration. I'd say USC is a bunch of cheaters yet they still have a solid brand. Alabama has a brand centered around winning.

Ask yourself, what's the first thing that you think of when you think of USC, or Alabama, or Oregon (can't talk about branding without talking Oregon), or Florida, or Ohio State --- or Penn State. What do you think the first thing people think of when it's Nebraska? National Championships 20 years ago? Doubt it. Remember, these are outsiders. What's the "first glance" image of Nebraska football to outsiders? It matters, whether people admit it or not. It's why Oregon is relevant today. And it matters more than ever to schools like Nebraska, that have a laundry list of disadvantages built into the program. It's something we can control. It's something we should control.

People used to think Nebraska football and see the program, the winning, the traditions, the fans, etc. Now they see Bo. Even our own fans are split down the middle. Whichever side you fall on, Bo Pelini has become far to big of a chunk of the Nebraska brand. The program is bigger than him, the brand should be the program, not the fiery (neutral word) coach.

 

[Mavric]

So we ARE nationally relevant. Sweet.

 

[kchusker_chris]

So we ARE nationally relevant. Sweet.

We've certainly earned our fair share of time on Sportcenter. Top play of the week for months (Jack) - Pelini's countless tirades. Our national image is like the team, highest of highs...lowest of lows.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

People used to think Nebraska football and see the program, the winning, the traditions, the fans, etc. Now they see Bo. Even our own fans are split down the middle. Whichever side you fall on, Bo Pelini has become far to big of a chunk of the Nebraska brand. The program is bigger than him, the brand should be the program, not the fiery (neutral word) coach.

Are you sure Tom Osborne wasn't a big part of that tradition? Or Bob Devaney?

The good news is the public can be so forgiving. A conference championship and a few good moments and this malaise will start to loosen the tight grip it has had on our program. The question moves from "Can Nebraska return to glory?" to "Can Nebraska sustain its success?" and those two questions lead to vastly different thoughts:

Can Nebraska return to glory?

Return means that there's something going on in the program that has either led to the downfall of the program or something that is holding the program back. In most cases the inherent responsibility for that lies on the coaching staff namely, the head coach. Our head coach just so happens to have also given people more tangibly possible explanations for why we haven't returned to glory.

Can Nebraska sustain its success?

Completely different implication behind this question. This implies that things are going right at Nebraska, that who they have running the show is doing things the right way. There will certainly be people who doubt Nebraska will sustain its success for the very same reasons as mentioned in the prior question, but there is an actual example of "yes, things are being done the right way."

Nobody who is sane in the membrane wants to see Bo Pelini fail. A Bo Pelini failure is a Nebraska failure. But there is a very small minority of people on this board who want to see a Nebraska success for a Bo Pelini success.

Compared to Tim Miles, there's probably way more people who want to see Nebraska succeed so they can see Tim Miles succeed. His personality engenders that type of attitude.

 

[NUpolo8]

You are of course correct that a few successes will put some cold water on Bo's hot seat, much like how people don't get in an uproar over the other hothead coaches who I'm tired of naming. The problem, and the question at hand, is if Bo is capable of putting some of those personality glitches on ice, as they are one of the reasons why he doesn't win.

He can do the easy part, he's proving that.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Why he can't win.

I'm not about to say that Bo's hotheadedness is worse than Nick Saban's, Brian Kelly's, Jim Harbaugh's, Bob Stoops's, to name a few. So the question becomes, how does Bo's hotheadedness prevent him from being a winner, when the same level of hotheadedness has led to success at other programs?

If hotheadedness was a barrier to success, Nick Saban, Brain Kelly, and Bob Stoops wouldn't be winners. Another obvious explanation is talent level, but I'm not about to say that Oklahoma's nor Notre Dame's talent is much better than Nebraska's talent. And the expectations and attention paid to the program is very similar in Oklahoma as it is in Nebraska. So, what gives? What is preventing Bo from being a winner?

 

[NUpolo8]

In my opinion?

His antics are incredibly detracting to the player's performance. VTech 08, A&M 2010, Iowa 2013 all spring immediately to mind. I don't want to hear about any refs calls, conspiracies or whatever. They are not relevant, and you cannot act like that as the head coach of Nebraska. Also, I'm more than a little convinced it only encourages referees to maybe not rule on the side of Nebraska the next time there is a judgement call, and it of course doesn't help the ol' reputation any more.

His arrogance and hubris that he shows leads one to believe he doesn't think he's in the wrong. Too often, when there are questions about performance, a loss, or poor play, its always talk about execution. He's not out there making the plays, sure, but this constant insistence to the media, or to the fans, or to anyone out there in TV land watching that his plan is genius, its just these players (who he recruited, btw) that are ruining his genius vision.

The proof in most of this is what he's said when times have gotten really bad. "You never apologize for ten wins" after Wisconsin put up 70. "I don't apologize for anything I've done" after Iowa. "Well contrary to you guys, I haven't forgotten how to coach defense and stop the run" after a great comeback against Wisc. These thinks invariably get in the way and it leaks down to the players.

And yes, its why HE can't win. Same reason why Tom Osborne couldn't win the big one for a lot of years. I know they're not out there playing, but that's the way the job goes.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Who do you think he means by we when he says "we didn't execute"?

It could mean just the players, or it could mean the whole team. I think he knows that maybe he could've put his players in a better position at some points during games we lose. There's something of an issue with consistency in how he says things. I wonder how he talks to the players post game and I wonder if he puts the blame more on himself than he does when talking to the media.

 

[Mavric]

You are of course correct that a few successes will put some cold water on Bo's hot seat, much like how people don't get in an uproar over the other hothead coaches who I'm tired of naming. The problem, and the question at hand, is if Bo is capable of putting some of those personality glitches on ice, as they are one of the reasons why he doesn't win.

So when it's something good, the program is bigger than Bo. But when it comes to losing, it's Bo that doesn't win?

 

[NUpolo8]

Who do you think he means by we when he says "we didn't execute"?

It could mean just the players, or it could mean the whole team. I think he knows that maybe he could've put his players in a better position at some points during games we lose. There's something of an issue with consistency in how he says things. I wonder how he talks to the players post game and I wonder if he puts the blame more on himself than he does when talking to the media.

It certainly could, it sounds we agree that he needs some help with communication.

But the guy has been head coach for six years, and coaching for 20 under some pretty damn good coaches. I would have hoped he would have learned something on how to talk to the media from Carroll, Stoops, Miles, etc.....

 

[NUpolo8]

You are of course correct that a few successes will put some cold water on Bo's hot seat, much like how people don't get in an uproar over the other hothead coaches who I'm tired of naming. The problem, and the question at hand, is if Bo is capable of putting some of those personality glitches on ice, as they are one of the reasons why he doesn't win.

So when it's something good, the program is bigger than Bo. But when it comes to losing, it's Bo that doesn't win?

Yes the program is bigger than Bo, yes he is responsible for a lot of the factors of the football team winning and losing football games.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Who do you think he means by we when he says "we didn't execute"?

It could mean just the players, or it could mean the whole team. I think he knows that maybe he could've put his players in a better position at some points during games we lose. There's something of an issue with consistency in how he says things. I wonder how he talks to the players post game and I wonder if he puts the blame more on himself than he does when talking to the media.

It certainly could, it sounds we agree that he needs some help with communication.

But the guy has been head coach for six years, and coaching for 20 under some pretty damn good coaches. I would have hoped he would have learned something on how to talk to the media from Carroll, Stoops, Miles, etc.....

We do agree--and I think this is a first-- Bo doesn't communicate in way that is clear. He gives rather ambiguous answers when talking about how the game went and that's the frustrating part to me.

I think it's pretty clear that Bo doesn't have a knack for speaking to people. And learning to do just that probably wasn't high on his priority list when he took over as head coach. Maybe that he's starting to get the program to an "acceptable" place, we'll start seeing more relaxed press conferences and halftime interviews.