Diaco Presser
- Thread starter Archie Graham
- Start date
Yep. You know what would be the greatest thing to happen to college football in the past 60 years? If all so-called sports journalists would follow Ed Cunningham's example and quit.
Now don't you go bringing logic into this. These days you either hate "the media" or you're a commie. Make your pick.
This is the internet age. Coaches could stream updates directly to all kinds of social media and web news platforms. They could open their press conferences and let in the first 20 average fans from off the street to ask questions.
Obviously I am being cheeky. But only a bit ...
I don't hate journalists. In fact I love journalists. I just wish there were some around in the sports world. I don't see many. What I see instead are local and national hacks posturing as journalists.
I don't think it is a conspiracy of some kind either. I think it is laziness, greed, and a general lowering of standards.
The going off half cocked by the media without asking someone first why Diaco didn't talk to the media immediately after the game was not professional IMO. IMO, the media needs to issue an apology. Period. Would bet we'll never see it.
Maybe you wouldn't.
Kidding, kidding. But I think you know what I'm getting at. The media over-reacted to sell papers and get clicks. And that's about all they seem interested in doing. I get it. But I don't have to appreciate it.
Couldn't we afford a boom mike, allowing us to hearthe questions?
We'll see improvements & new opportunities next week.
GBR!
We'll see improvements & new opportunities next week.
GBR!
Wait...an apology from the media? The DC at Nebraska runs by reporters asking him questions and utters two words in response to those questions, "Excuse me" and they should apologize? The asst. athletic director tells the media that Diaco would be speaking to them and they wait and get nothing and they should apologize? Coordinators have spoken during Riley's tenure and before but they get blown off by Diaco and they should apologize?
What freaky world do you live in?
This stuff happens far too often. Both coaches and the media need to get a thicker skin.
Sounded like the media went through the normal channels to talk to him. IF he was told he didn't have to do pressers then that main contact person should have known and end if story. The entire thing is fishy. Why did he come out to defend himself and then give a presser? If you agreed to not do them then don't.
As a coordinator he should do them though in my opinion. Why not? Sure you will some dumb questions, so what. You are responsible and should be in control.
There is a difference between analysis of players, schemes, performances and such with all the praise and criticism that might entail, and getting your panties in a wad over a coach (as it turns out, reasonably) declining a post-game Q&A.
Tom you appear to have the ability to only believe what you want to believe. This was his first game at Nebraska. By multiple accounts he was told he wasn't going to speak to the media after the game. I doubt he knew that for the past 30 years the coordinators spoke to the media at Nebraska. He said that he asked the media relations people and the head freaking coach if he needed to go do the media stuff. Neither said yes. He was stuck in a freight elevator. For the love of all things big and small, this is not some sort of conspiracy theory designed to hide from a few guys who think they know more football than they do.
You are putting a different spin on it. He has been doing post practice pressers all fall long. He never said he didn't have to do pressers, just post game pressers. Monday's presser was his normally weekly presser that they moved to Monday from Tuesday, so he could address the situation. Again nothing sinister.
To the bolded point, he said plainly why he came out and did the presser... Riley told him and he agreed that it would be a good idea. He normally goes on Tuesday, but he went on Monday because of the accusations going on.
If we are to take him at his word, he didn't agree to not do them, he was told he didn't have to do them. And it sounds like he will be available after games in the future.
Yah, we've been blasting our cupcake media for years for the lack of tough questions to Pelini, Riley and others. Telling them if they want to see a real fishbowl, go to the SEC or NYC or something.
And now all of a sudden, the staff is supposed to be afraid of these powder puffs.
Can't have it both ways.
The Associate Athletic Director in charge of media (Keith Mann) asked him to go do the interviews that very night. Did you miss that part? Diaco strong-armed him and said, "No, I don't do that" and am going to the coaches locker room. If you really "need" me to do those you can find me there. Ummmmm...Bob, you were asked to go do the interviews by the AD's office.
P.S. In the end Keith Mann won.
Keith Mann won what? Diaco didn't do the post game interview. All he did was reschedule a Tuesday press conference to Monday.
Keith Mann said are you going down to do the post game press conference, Diaco said I was told I don't have to. Maybe in the church world that is strong arming. Not sure that qualifies in this case."No I don't do that" does not equal, " I was told I have no post game media responsibilities"
Edit - Sounds to me like Keith Mann and the rest of the press did some assuming and assumed Diaco would be there for the post game stuff.
Last edited:
I doubt any of the coaches are afraid of the sports columnists who cover them. I suspect the outlook ranges from willingly providing information or a take on a game to suffering fools, gladly (see Riley, Mike) or not so gladly (see Pelini, Mark).
Way to change his words just enough to fit your narrative...
His exact words... "I was told I didn't have to do the post game media. But I'll be up in the coaches lockerroom if you need me. If you need me to do it I will come down and do it."
Strong arm? "No I don't do that"? You got that from these exact words I quoted? Wow...
Maybe you wouldn't.
Kidding, kidding. But I think you know what I'm getting at. The media over-reacted to sell papers and get clicks. And that's about all they seem interested in doing. I get it. But I don't have to appreciate it.
You say "the media" like they all did it, like they all are interested in selling papers. I don't deny that may have been an influence in this case and is a poor reason for writing an article. To your point, I'd agree that an article written solely with that motive in mind is a poor article not worth reading because it's fabricated BS intended to sell papers.
What I don't agree with is the sentiment that all media members can be lumped into such a classification, i.e., that selling papers is a journalist's sole or even primary motive. I also think it's possible for one to write a thought-provoking, well-reasoned, objective article that would sell papers because it's analysis is compelling. If that's possible, writing an article to sell papers and writing a good article are not mutually exclusive.
(In this particular case, it seems to me there was some good analysis, but it was based on a mistaken presupposition. Pointing out that Diaco cannot preach accountability and then shirk his responsibilities as a coach is a good point to make. But, per Diaco, he had no such responsibility, so it was based on a false belief, and for that reason the analysis was flawed. It was a bad article not because it didn't make a good point but because the point it made rested on an assumption that wasn't true.)
What I am not willing to do, and what I think many are too quick to do (especially these days) is assume journalistic analysis is always flawed because journalists want to sell papers (or, alternatively, reaffirm the beliefs of their readers). Maybe the desire to sell papers is the reason no one apparently thought to ask the question: is Diaco required (or expected) to give post-game interviews? Maybe it wasn't. (Maybe it was simply the fact that coordinators have traditionally done post-game interviews -- actually, I'm not sure if that's true, anyone know?).
So, yeah, I think I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment. I don't agree with the generalization because I think it amounts to an overstatement, but for all I know you agree with that as well.
If the D did great, I'd have no problems with skipping the post game press conference. Fans want an explanation, they want to get a feel if it was poor scheme or poor player execution, or both.
I'd assume our players will get mentally quicker as the season goes on, how much?. Not sure how much of mental slowness caused the problems last game or if it was just physical inability, or both?
If the coaches would simply embrace the idea of access their lives would be so much easier. Why a school like NU doesn't do 10 minute webisodes each day during the season is beyond me, the exposure the fan interest the ability to also control (with so much more ease) what goes out...take it on and use it. Shoot go as far as to joke around with it, have the coaches read mean tweets about them, have them "follow" one fan each week on twitter, have a QandA over twitter where a different coach takes 5 questions. Stream it for the fans.
Us Husker fans would have freaking KILLED to have a "Being Mike Riley" show on ESPN this summer.
Any fan that is pretending like they want less access is lying about it, I know they are because they are posting on a Huskerboard all day long.
Us Husker fans would have freaking KILLED to have a "Being Mike Riley" show on ESPN this summer.
Any fan that is pretending like they want less access is lying about it, I know they are because they are posting on a Huskerboard all day long.
Great, but that isn't what this discussion is about. You seem to be in the camp that believes Diaco is lying. I am in the camp that is giving him the benefit of the doubt because, at Nebraska, he hasn't shown that he doesn't embrace all of the responsibiltes associated with his job. He came out to a press conference, explained his side and its time to move on.
This isn't about skipping a press conference, like he knew he had to do it and just didn't want to.
Keith Mann won the fact that Diaco will be doing interviews. He is the guy who sets them all up. He had them set up for Diaco. When he found out about Diaco's little stunt he went and confronted him. If this really was some agreed upon thing, why did Mann not know this?
Keith runs a pretty tight ship there and has been there for about decade. He is well respected by both sides and I know was not happy with this little stunt.
P.S. It was cute how you said that the media relations people never said "yes" to him needing to do interviews in your post above.
If he runs by the reporters just the same on a day he's not required to give an interview after they have a shutout, I'll believe it was all just one big misunderstanding.
Take my exact quotes of Diaco and defend your interpretation that Diaco said "No I don't do that." Also tell us how he strong armed Keith Mann with my exact quote of Diaco.
You are sliperrier than an eel to pin down with how you sidestep specific questions posed to you.
If I didn't know better I'd say you are strong-arming me here...
To be clear, I'm referring to some of the local sports writers. I just posted in haste.
Big? Diaco knew what he was/wasn't supposed to do. The media didn't. End of story.
