Nebraska Cornhuskers head coach Bo Pelini is a fiery, in-your-face, aggressive kind of guy. That’s his shtick, and everyone is more or less fine with it by this point.
To date, he has never walked into a press conference and complimented any of the reporters on their nice polos or the way their eyes sparkle. As far as I know, he has also never told a single referee that their striped shirts are slimming or, asked if they lost some weight.
That's just not his style.
He'd rather ignore or dismiss a reporter than to work with them. He'd rather berate an official than to patiently explain his position. And, mind you, part of that forcefulness is what makes him who he is – what inspires his team to try harder and to play with the vigor that they’re renowned for.
People who have followed Nebraska football over the last few years have had to walk a tightrope between being offended by Pelini’s antagonistic nature and respecting the way it has toughened up his players. The way he has conditioned them to roll with the inevitable punches that are common in any college football season, sort of like quarterback Taylor Martinez did last week. Because, you know, getting harassed in classes over a tough loss isn't as fun as it sounds. To be able to bounce back from that kind of abuse speaks to a special kind of grit.
But then there are times, like after the Huskers’ 34-27 historic, comeback victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes, when it reaches a boiling point. During Pelini’s postgame interviews, he was being his typical self – mildly off-putting, not especially engaging and sort of a jerk. Nothing extraordinarily different than what he has been for years now, really, though he hasn't exactly set the bar for cordiality too high.
On this evening, however, it irked Lee Barfknecht of the Omaha World-Herald so much so, that he felt inclined to write an entire column critiquing Pelini’s hostile nature.
Here is the gist of Barfknecht’s piece:
What makes Pelini's recent behavior newsy is that Nebraska football now operates in a different sphere — the Big Ten.
First impressions matter, and the early returns aren't good.
I've been to Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio State for games, and talked with writers from the major Michigan markets about what they think of Nebraska. The Big Ten media corps, after half a season, already has had a bellyful of Bo.
"Bo Buzzkill'' is what ESPN.com Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg labeled Pelini after a bunch of non-answers to teleconference questions about Pelini's ties to Ohio State.
Rittenberg was among the out-of-town media in attendance Saturday night, many of whom were aghast that Pelini would act as he did after a possible season-saving victory.
What does it matter? Well, the routine has consequences.
Like it or not, the sports media set the agenda and tone for how coaches and programs are perceived. Nebraska's current word-of-mouth and ink-on-paper is far from flattering. That doesn't help in polls, bowls and honors voting.
All of this, of course, brings us to the duality that naturally comes with sports and media. The media expects Pelini to understand that it has to cover things truthfully and accurately, and point out the inherent flaws that plague a team no matter how painful they may be to hear. The media, in turn, must understand that after a week of press folk beating up on him and his players -- whose ages range from late teens to early 20s -- the Nebraska head coach probably doesn’t have the warmest regards for reporters – even if they are just doing their jobs.
Pelini's act is old news locally. Since arriving four years ago, he has told us repeatedly he disdains the press and has indicated on occasion he doesn't care what the fans think, either.
This is the point where all the Bo-lievers jump in and say, "Give it up. We don't care if he talks to you. All he's supposed to do is win.''
Our reply is that Pelini can run his football program any way he sees fit, just as we will do our job.
And therein lays the rub. That theory, obviously, works both ways.
So long as Pelini does his job, which is coaching the Husker players, he is doing all that is asked of him. He is not the public relations head of the school’s program. He is not the greeter at the front door to the stadium. He was not hired to fill those holes and, as we can all see, he doesn’t even attempt to.
He does what he needs to do, and the media does what it needs to do. Either party expecting the other to lay down for them is irrational and nonsensical.
Pelini can be abrasive – we all know this. Barfknecht didn’t need an entire article on the matter, he could have simply posted a video of the head coach chewing out his new favorite quarterback a year ago on national television to emphasize that point.
But by the same token, abrasiveness doesn’t really come with ramifications like worse poll standings or bowl placement. And even if they did, Nebraska isn't anywhere near good enough to suffer them at this point. Come the end of the year, the team will end up where it's supposed to end up.
Or would Pelini only have fallen three slots instead of six in the polls after that Wisconsin loss had he been a little sweeter during the postgame news conference?
Look, in perfect world, Pelini would get woken up in the middle of the night and dragged to a camp for disgruntled college football head coaches. A place where they could learn to relieve their aggression towards the press in a more positive way. Or, if not the camp – maybe charm school.
But that won’t happen (unless any of you know a guy?), he won’t change, and neither will the press.
Like an old married couple, everyone should accept each other for what they are and move on.
Never mind.
Thanks for all the comments, news, and opinions, great to read all the responses-hopefully more people will contribute.
Data Recovery
Finally, enjoy the rest of the season. Stephen
Instead of hand wringing opinion pieces by nervous nellies, here is some poling data just taken regarding Bo's popularity.
Polling: Tom and Bo sure are popular guys
Posted by: Brian Christopherson on October 15, 2011 at 12:40PM CST
Some interesting numbers have come out from Public Polling Policy, a national polling firm which recently put out some data concerning not just how Nebraskans view the local politics, but also the sports landscape.
I'm told the poll was an automated telephone survey of 739 Nebraska voters conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 2.
Among the findings:
"Tom Osborne is the most popular person PPP has ever polled on anywhere and Bo Pelini isn't far behind," wrote Tom Jensen of the polling firm.
Their data found that 86 percent of the voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Osborne. Just 6 percent have a negative one.
As for Pelini? He was seen positively by 70 percent of voters, with 14 having a negative opinion.
"It's rare when we poll a state to find a college football coach that 70 percent of voters have even heard of, much less have a positive opinion of," Jensen wrote."If there's a state in the country that embraces a college football program more than Nebraska does the Cornhuskers I haven't polled it yet."
What's your point Stephen? That popularity equals appropriateness? You know, Adolph Hitler was very popular with the majority of the German people and a large portion of the world prior to WWII and the Holocaust. So he became a monster when he polled low?
"Sometimes a majority simply means that all the fools are on the same side." .. Clyde McDonald
Clyde - Congrats on comparing Bo to Hitler.(Tea Party much?) The title of the article is "Is Pelini's attitude hurting Nebraska". If you read the poll his approval is 70% for to 14% against. So in answer to the question the article asked, the answer is NO, it does not seem to be hurting Nebraska with the people that count, which are Nebraskans. Point made.
Stephen. Read back to me where you say I compared Hitler to Bo? I think this may be my last post to you if you can't show that you're capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. The whole point was about using POLLS TO VALIDATE PEOPLE'S ACTIONS, which was your point. If I wanted to compare Hitler to anyone I would have said it like this--please pay attention. "So and so is like Hitler." That's how it's said. Also, my name is not Clyde. Clyde is the name of the guy who said the quote I was quoting. That's called giving credit to the person who said it. Like if I was to actually write "so and so is like Hitler." .. strong4man (that's my user name Stephen) Try thinking a little before you respond.
I used national poll results to demonstrate that Bo was popular and well thought of in Nebraska by Nebraskans. Where in anything I wrote did it indicate that you needed to bring up the popularity of Hitler with the German people. Think about the number of different areas or examples you could have chosen to use. Literally millions, but instead YOU CHOSE TO USE HITLER in your example to discount the popularity of Bo with Nebraskans.
Let me ask you this Stephen. A hypothetical that actually happens all to often. A drug company puts out a new drug. 70% of the doctors, drug companies and patients suffering from the condition it purports to treat are in favor of it. After a year's use the patients start coming down with pancreatic cancer. So the drug was very popular, but that didn't stop it from hurting people. Woody Hayes and Bobby Knight were both very popular and winning coaches until their unchecked rage led them to smacking their players. Up until they got busted for hitting their players, they were both very, very popular with their fan base, until the bottom fell out. And please, before jumping to the conclusion that I am comparing Bo or the Huskers to drugs or cancer or Hitler, let me give you a little grammar lesson on the use of a very common figure of speech called a metaphor. Here is it's definition. A metaphor: An implied comparison between two unlike things that actually have something in common.
The two UNLIKE THINGS, again, UNLIKE THINGS: Bo and Hitler or Bo and pharmaceuticals.
What they ACTUALLY HAVE OR HAD IN COMMON: rabid popularity that overlooks character flaws (NOT, and I repeat NOT killing Jews or causing cancer).
And just so we are clear here Stephen, when I said "character flaws" I was nonspecific. I DID NOT COMPARE (reread my posts) BO'S CHARACTER FLAWS TO HITLER'S OR DRUGS (which by the way have no character in their flaws). Everyone has character flaws, including me (take your best shot, Stephen), you, Bo and Dirk. I can't and won't be the judge of that, but I do know that when inappropriate behavior (like Bo's publicly directed rage) keeps resurfacing, something's fueling it inside. If you or I acted that way in a position of public trust, and we didn't have the unquestioned popularity, we would be fired. Why? Because we're not popular? No, because without blind popularity, we would be treated according to how we were actually behaving and projecting your rage on other people in public is not acceptable behavior. It's abusive. Popular or not.
You keep trying to use metaphors to make a point. This keeps getting you into trouble since few metaphors are 100% applicable. The other truism is when you keep digging yourself deeper into a hole the best solution is to stop digging. You do not like Bo Pelini and want him to be somebody else, I get it. You have your reasons which are in the small minority, but you can disapprove of whoever you want. Bo is our coach and we approve of him, warts and all. We all knew this when he was hired. Get over it.