The thing about Lifeless Lessons, is that it was a blog started long ago and updated not so frequently.
My mind has told me often that I should start a new blog. But what does my gut feeling tell me? Well, nothing. My gut doesnt tell me anything because it's my gut. It's a digestive organ that has no ability to fire neurons to my brain that incite any sort of cognitive thought. Sometimes I believe my gut is telling me that it's hungry. But after further review, im pretty sure that's actually a enzyme in my gut telling my brain something, and then my brain is telling me. So still, even after believing my gut can at least tell me SOMEthing primitive, i realize it cant tell me anything, especially something as complicated as converting thoughts into typed words. So its settled, my gut feeling is nothing. But what's more important than my gut is the fact that i wanna write a little more often for the public forum of discussion!
I hope to update that a little more often. Even if i dont, at least itll be a new look, right?
RIGHT?
So, I'll prolly be changing to word press for this nonsense unless i can design something on here a little more ascetically pleasing. You've all been dealing with neon green and yellows for too long, imo. <----Btw, for future reference, that means "in my opinion." Not sure if you caught that or not. I'll be maybe using that little thing a lot in my new blog. Then again, maybe I won't be. I guess details that small don't need to be worked out yet, imo.
Alright. so be looking forward to that new blog soon. Today might even produce a post??
Now im hungry. My gut is apparently feeling hungry so it told an enzyme about how hungry it was. Now a little enzyme is chirping in my head, releasing a deep seated secret about our mutual friend, my gut. I think i will surprise my gut with a gift. Yes, I will leave a gift of food on my gut's doorstep and ring the doorbell and run away. He'll never know who left that gift for him. He'll prolly suspect it was the enzyme. Nope, it was me.
(Editor's note: After posting this, I forgot to mention that there would be SWEAR WORDS sometimes in the new blog, to better reflect my state of existence. But don't worry, not the bad swear words. Just the good, hearty-type. So if you're a child and you're reading this, then.....add me on facebook and myspace, k?)
22 February 2012
15 January 2012
The End of The Daily Universe: A Less Emotional Response
Late last night, I posted a response to the 'changes' the DU decided to make recently. I say "changes" like that because some are telling me, "The DU is not ending, it's just changing form." In that sense, they're correct. Well, your great aunt Kathy didn't die, she just changed form. And your hard drive didn't crash, it just changed form into a deeper, darker crisp black. Ok, I think it's safe to say "The DU as we know it, is dead." If I say it like that, it sounds much more favorable, right?
If you read my earlier post, you undoubtedly picked up on my emotional charges about the whole situation. Today, I wish to tackle the situation in a more logical manner. Losing eight employees is hardly a matter to ignore, but in this post I hope to disconnect from my personal relationships with those losing their jobs to address other issues.
My first concern about the DU changing form is for the journalism department as a whole. Perhaps the faculty spent too much time teaching us about being idealistic, and not enough on being realistic. After all, in the past, if you wanted to be a real journalist, it took some idealistic values. But what was most stunning to me is the lack of idealistic virtue the journalism faculty held when making this decision.
Now, i wasn't in those meetings when they decided to discontinue the daily part of the daily universe, so I'm not sure what exactly was said. But as mentioned in my previous post, I assume the main reasons for discontinuing The Daily Universe (as we know it!) was because of financial pressures. The DU was costing a lot of money to produce. Other Communications faculty were critical of this. They probably spouted, "Newspapers are dying!" like they are want to do. And so, after much deliberation, over a span of a number of months, journalism professors thought, "Yeah, you're right. They are dying. Here, we'll be hospitable and save the department so much money and change our curriculum. Then you'll be happy, right?" They called it a business decision.
Well, in the real world, newspapers are dying. And logically, it would make sense to change the curriculum to be up-to-date with the world. But in doing so, I worry that the journalism faculty sacrificed far too much, gave up too much ground. If they are to be completely realistic in this world, we must admit that leverage and negotiating power is a chief function of business transactions.
We need only to look at the professional staff of the DU for example, who lost their leverage and negotiating power when they agreed to use "new technology models" and trained students how to use these models to compile a newspaper. For after all, once the students knew how to use a system themselves, the value of the professionals of the old guard had diminished drastically, along with their leverage. They, as we know, soon found themselves without a job.
And that's why I believe the journalism professors relinquished too much, in this instance. If you're going to make budget concessions, you don't start with the "award-winning," hallmark creation of the journalism department. Now what are the professors left with to boast? "We have a really good blog" is just not going to cut it. You can't win real awards for having a blog. In a metaphorical sense, the journalism faculty has handed over the keys to the company car, prime parking space included. What else do they have to negotiate with?
In a few years, when the administration comes down and says, "We need to make some faculty cuts," they'll start with what they believe to be the least important assets. Right now, communications faculty is boasting about how THEY made the decisions to cut the DU (as we know it!), not the administration. If I'm the administration, and I see that the dept. of Communications doesn't even care about journalism anymore, then the first faculty to be cut are the most also expendable--Journalism Professors.
In the not-too-far-off future, it will be deducted that journalism itself is no longer a viable professional field. Journalism faculty will find themselves in a position to argue this against this sentiment. But when they do, they will no longer have a real, physical product that continues to net substantial student readership. They will no longer be able to hang their hat on the number of awards the newspaper has won. They won't even have a newspaper. And certainly, they will have lost their ability to effectively negotiate because they lack sufficient leverage. In time, the journalism emphasis will be non-existent.
And with that, I ask of them: where will THIS leave your students? Employers will deduce that I now hold a degree that lacks value, even to the school that granted me the degree. They won't care if my degree says "Print Journalism" or "Multimedia Journalism," as both will be extinct. If the goal is to change curriculum to match today's standards in order to better prepare students, perhaps the best way to go about it is to continue to produce physical proof that a demand exists! How easy will it be for administration to shut down a website when the time comes? No one will miss the universe.byu.edu URL amongst millions of other URL's. No one will say, "Wait, how else will I get BYU news now that the Universe website has been shut down?"
BYU Sports information has their own website. The dept of communications has their own website. BYU clubs have their own website. Administration has its own website. EVERYONE has a website that I can get information from. The unique thing about the Daily Universe was that NO ONE had their own newspaper, except us. No one had something physical to show for their efforts. And now, the journalism department becomes just another URL to forget.
And besides all of that, I believe students really valued the Daily Universe (as we knew it!). Months ago, many lobbied on Washington to eliminate NPR. It wasn't needful anymore, they said. It takes money from the overall federal budget, they complained. But what is the REAL value of NPR? It is not measured in monetary, percentage-of-the-budget, terms. The value of NPR has always been in the product it produces--a product that listeners and customers really enjoy. Undoubtedly, NPR has had to make decisions based upon budget, but to hand over the radio station and change to web-only seems ludicrous.
A few years back, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a daily newspaper, chose to run as a web-only news source. I can't tell you their numbers, but I can tell you that no one I know (being from Seattle, myself) asks me, "Did you hear about that story in the Seattle P-I?" I'm left to conclude that not that many people read the PI. It's a one paper town now, with the Seattle Times taking the reigns. And if you were to tell me today that seattlePI.com is shutting down, I suppose most of us here in Seattle couldn't care less.
If you read my earlier post, you undoubtedly picked up on my emotional charges about the whole situation. Today, I wish to tackle the situation in a more logical manner. Losing eight employees is hardly a matter to ignore, but in this post I hope to disconnect from my personal relationships with those losing their jobs to address other issues.
My first concern about the DU changing form is for the journalism department as a whole. Perhaps the faculty spent too much time teaching us about being idealistic, and not enough on being realistic. After all, in the past, if you wanted to be a real journalist, it took some idealistic values. But what was most stunning to me is the lack of idealistic virtue the journalism faculty held when making this decision.
Now, i wasn't in those meetings when they decided to discontinue the daily part of the daily universe, so I'm not sure what exactly was said. But as mentioned in my previous post, I assume the main reasons for discontinuing The Daily Universe (as we know it!) was because of financial pressures. The DU was costing a lot of money to produce. Other Communications faculty were critical of this. They probably spouted, "Newspapers are dying!" like they are want to do. And so, after much deliberation, over a span of a number of months, journalism professors thought, "Yeah, you're right. They are dying. Here, we'll be hospitable and save the department so much money and change our curriculum. Then you'll be happy, right?" They called it a business decision.
Well, in the real world, newspapers are dying. And logically, it would make sense to change the curriculum to be up-to-date with the world. But in doing so, I worry that the journalism faculty sacrificed far too much, gave up too much ground. If they are to be completely realistic in this world, we must admit that leverage and negotiating power is a chief function of business transactions.
We need only to look at the professional staff of the DU for example, who lost their leverage and negotiating power when they agreed to use "new technology models" and trained students how to use these models to compile a newspaper. For after all, once the students knew how to use a system themselves, the value of the professionals of the old guard had diminished drastically, along with their leverage. They, as we know, soon found themselves without a job.
And that's why I believe the journalism professors relinquished too much, in this instance. If you're going to make budget concessions, you don't start with the "award-winning," hallmark creation of the journalism department. Now what are the professors left with to boast? "We have a really good blog" is just not going to cut it. You can't win real awards for having a blog. In a metaphorical sense, the journalism faculty has handed over the keys to the company car, prime parking space included. What else do they have to negotiate with?
In a few years, when the administration comes down and says, "We need to make some faculty cuts," they'll start with what they believe to be the least important assets. Right now, communications faculty is boasting about how THEY made the decisions to cut the DU (as we know it!), not the administration. If I'm the administration, and I see that the dept. of Communications doesn't even care about journalism anymore, then the first faculty to be cut are the most also expendable--Journalism Professors.
In the not-too-far-off future, it will be deducted that journalism itself is no longer a viable professional field. Journalism faculty will find themselves in a position to argue this against this sentiment. But when they do, they will no longer have a real, physical product that continues to net substantial student readership. They will no longer be able to hang their hat on the number of awards the newspaper has won. They won't even have a newspaper. And certainly, they will have lost their ability to effectively negotiate because they lack sufficient leverage. In time, the journalism emphasis will be non-existent.
And with that, I ask of them: where will THIS leave your students? Employers will deduce that I now hold a degree that lacks value, even to the school that granted me the degree. They won't care if my degree says "Print Journalism" or "Multimedia Journalism," as both will be extinct. If the goal is to change curriculum to match today's standards in order to better prepare students, perhaps the best way to go about it is to continue to produce physical proof that a demand exists! How easy will it be for administration to shut down a website when the time comes? No one will miss the universe.byu.edu URL amongst millions of other URL's. No one will say, "Wait, how else will I get BYU news now that the Universe website has been shut down?"
BYU Sports information has their own website. The dept of communications has their own website. BYU clubs have their own website. Administration has its own website. EVERYONE has a website that I can get information from. The unique thing about the Daily Universe was that NO ONE had their own newspaper, except us. No one had something physical to show for their efforts. And now, the journalism department becomes just another URL to forget.
And besides all of that, I believe students really valued the Daily Universe (as we knew it!). Months ago, many lobbied on Washington to eliminate NPR. It wasn't needful anymore, they said. It takes money from the overall federal budget, they complained. But what is the REAL value of NPR? It is not measured in monetary, percentage-of-the-budget, terms. The value of NPR has always been in the product it produces--a product that listeners and customers really enjoy. Undoubtedly, NPR has had to make decisions based upon budget, but to hand over the radio station and change to web-only seems ludicrous.
A few years back, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a daily newspaper, chose to run as a web-only news source. I can't tell you their numbers, but I can tell you that no one I know (being from Seattle, myself) asks me, "Did you hear about that story in the Seattle P-I?" I'm left to conclude that not that many people read the PI. It's a one paper town now, with the Seattle Times taking the reigns. And if you were to tell me today that seattlePI.com is shutting down, I suppose most of us here in Seattle couldn't care less.
It's the same thing with the DU. With the effective destruction of the DU (as we know it!), it seems viable that the journalism department has sacrificed its greatest bargaining chip. And for what? To try to talk current and prospective students into believing that they'll be better off if we turn to a web-based training model? They could have easily done that without tearing down the DU.
My whole point here is, I think journalism professors should take a look in the mirror and find out what they just gave up. They lost all future leverage, because no one's going to buy that online journalism is any different than the CHUM major, computers in the Humanities. Or any different than computer science, or graphic design.
But mostly, they're losing a great daily product. A product that continues to have readership, drive discussion, and entertain readers. And that's a sad day for the department and the students in it. Some will continue to say, "we shouldn't have curriculum if it doesn't match up with prospective career opportunities." And then I will kindly point across the path to the JSB building, where religion classes are primarily held for proof that, when you have a good thing going, you should try to keep it, regardless of how it's going to prepare me for a career.
The End of The Daily Universe: An emotional response
"And now, looking back, it's hard to believe that we were building the weapons they would eventually use against us. It's hard to stomach the fact that we helped them along their way. If only we had recognized the slow-burn, the simmer they held us to which led to our eventual demise. But no, this was their plan all along."
Last week, the department of Communications at BYU, the same dept. from which I recently received a degree, announced that they would be changing The Daily Universe into a once-per-week publication rather than a daily newspaper. Accompanying this announcement, it was released that eight employees would lose their jobs by the end of the semester.
Of course, the volunteer and ceremonial dont-shoot-the-messenger-harbinger-of-death spokesperson was "assigned" to present the news in a fashion that only s/he knows how, citing (spinning) the following reason: "We’re making the change to train better journalists and deliver the news the way our readers want it."
Even more, the Department says that the administration wasn't behind this move. Rather, faculty voted on it and presented it to the administration for approval. Oh. Well, in THAT case.
Primarily, I would like to publicly express that I, and many former and current journalism students, believe this is the wrong move. As the faculty waves their hand of dismissal at our opinions and figuratively says, "We know what we're doing here," it's important that at least one voice of disapproval, disappointment and embarrassment find its way to facebook.
We'll start with embarrassment.
Let's not be fooled any longer. This move didn't come just suddenly, or by any sort of accident. The journalism department has been sneaking around, planning this for a long time. It wasn't but last winter semester, when the faculty approached the professional staff (Rich, Kaye, Brandon, RJ, Ellen) and said, "Hey, let's try to use a new online management system for the sports desk. Trust us, we're just going to try it out and see if this works. Oh, and by the way, RJ, will you spend all your time building this new wordpress system? Be sure sure to fix all the flaws ;)"
And despite some kickback from Rich and Kaye about how this new wordpress system wasn't working out, and more kickback from a copy desk that found this new online system to be faulty and difficult to work with, the faculty assured everyone that it would all work out in the end. Trust us, they seemed to mouth.
And then, in the fall, they said, "Hey, i know there were some problems with wordpress last semester, but let's go ahead and make every desk run on this new system. Look, we know what we're doing here. Oh, and RJ, can you train the new students on how to use this?"
And then a new editor-in-chief was installed into the daily universe. To all journalism students, he promptly sent out an email that asked for students to apply to the new DU positions! Happy day! jobs! Hm, that's strange, he's also asking for students that "will help the DU move toward a more web-based focus."
Oh! And RJ, make sure you train all these new employees on the CMS system please?
I'm not exactly sure how long this move has been coming, but it's been a long time coming. RJ, although he may not agree with my analysis, deserves better than this. All eight employees who will lose their jobs deserve better than this. The students deserve better than this. And quite frankly, faculty deserves to treat themselves better than this.
It's just a shame that they've been using student editors and professional staff to implement a system that would eventually cost them their jobs and livelihood. It's embarrassing. And then they cite reasons of why eight people will lose their careers by saying, "We want to deliver news the way our readers want to read it"???
Well, if only I could say: "I want to get an education the way I want to receive it" and have that hold merit enough for eight people to lose their careers. You know, if I had a preference, I wish to receive my education in the Daily Universe newsroom, publishing a daily newspaper, learning the trade from Rich and Kaye and RJ and Brandon. That's how I want to receive an education. That's how a lot of students want to receive it. Who can we fire based upon my preferences?
Also, what kind of smoke screen, David Blaine, Chris Angel deception is being preached by the comms department? The first day of my journalism class after I was admitted to the journalism program, several professors stood before me and told me about how college newspapers weren't dying, and how they continue to have a high readership despite other papers failing. They preached the power of the press and holding a newspaper in your hands. It was magical. Now, a year and a half later, they sing a different tune.
And further, why are people protecting this move? Yeah, we expect to hear from faculty about how much more improved the education will be with our new techy BYU news that is going on the internet (because everyone will be dying to read the daily universe on the slowest server on the planet, with no user-comments allowed. And I'm sure we're all pining to know if they'll move sudoko and nyt crossword puzzles online, too--that way we can just search for the answers on that great website called google! Just the way we want to read our news, remember!) BUT, why are we hearing all this defense from other corners of the world? Why are DU student-editors defending this move? Your journalistic values should tell you right away how wrong this is, and your vehement defense of this is merely giving them more weapons to play with.
And if no one else will say it, I will: The end of The Daily Universe was a formulaic, calculated response to a growing feeling amongst faculty that the Daily Universe was getting too hard to babysit any longer. And instead of standing up for the educational value of a lab of this size, the journalism faculty crumbled under pressure from faculty of other emphasis' who believed the Universe would eventually drain the budget of the whole department.
Look, to most of you, this is just a rant. But to the employees who are losing their jobs, we love you. If students had the chance to grant tenure, we would gladly grant it to you. Ellen, who protected me against the wrath of the broadcast journalists on my many travels to football games, is one of the sweetest, kindest persons you'll ever meet. Brandon, who puts in so much work to make the DU look like an actual paper, and one of BYU's greatest fans, will be missed. RJ, who finds good things to say about everybody and works endlessly to put together a great web product, will be recognized and appreciated magna cum laude at any organization he works for. Kaye, for her kind words, constant stream of encouragement, goofy emails, delicious treats, and a positivity and laugh that is infectious, will always represent a mother away from home to all her students. And Rich, for his realistic values, unique perspective, and the ability to laugh off almost any unfavorable situation, is quite possibly one of the most respected persons in the department. And to the other employees who will lose their jobs, we will miss you all. I am no longer a student at BYU, but I have felt your impact in my life, and I suspect the same can be said for countless others.
Last week, the department of Communications at BYU, the same dept. from which I recently received a degree, announced that they would be changing The Daily Universe into a once-per-week publication rather than a daily newspaper. Accompanying this announcement, it was released that eight employees would lose their jobs by the end of the semester.
Of course, the volunteer and ceremonial dont-shoot-the-messenger-harbinger-of-death spokesperson was "assigned" to present the news in a fashion that only s/he knows how, citing (spinning) the following reason: "We’re making the change to train better journalists and deliver the news the way our readers want it."
Even more, the Department says that the administration wasn't behind this move. Rather, faculty voted on it and presented it to the administration for approval. Oh. Well, in THAT case.
Primarily, I would like to publicly express that I, and many former and current journalism students, believe this is the wrong move. As the faculty waves their hand of dismissal at our opinions and figuratively says, "We know what we're doing here," it's important that at least one voice of disapproval, disappointment and embarrassment find its way to facebook.
We'll start with embarrassment.
Let's not be fooled any longer. This move didn't come just suddenly, or by any sort of accident. The journalism department has been sneaking around, planning this for a long time. It wasn't but last winter semester, when the faculty approached the professional staff (Rich, Kaye, Brandon, RJ, Ellen) and said, "Hey, let's try to use a new online management system for the sports desk. Trust us, we're just going to try it out and see if this works. Oh, and by the way, RJ, will you spend all your time building this new wordpress system? Be sure sure to fix all the flaws ;)"
And despite some kickback from Rich and Kaye about how this new wordpress system wasn't working out, and more kickback from a copy desk that found this new online system to be faulty and difficult to work with, the faculty assured everyone that it would all work out in the end. Trust us, they seemed to mouth.
And then, in the fall, they said, "Hey, i know there were some problems with wordpress last semester, but let's go ahead and make every desk run on this new system. Look, we know what we're doing here. Oh, and RJ, can you train the new students on how to use this?"
And then a new editor-in-chief was installed into the daily universe. To all journalism students, he promptly sent out an email that asked for students to apply to the new DU positions! Happy day! jobs! Hm, that's strange, he's also asking for students that "will help the DU move toward a more web-based focus."
Oh! And RJ, make sure you train all these new employees on the CMS system please?
I'm not exactly sure how long this move has been coming, but it's been a long time coming. RJ, although he may not agree with my analysis, deserves better than this. All eight employees who will lose their jobs deserve better than this. The students deserve better than this. And quite frankly, faculty deserves to treat themselves better than this.
It's just a shame that they've been using student editors and professional staff to implement a system that would eventually cost them their jobs and livelihood. It's embarrassing. And then they cite reasons of why eight people will lose their careers by saying, "We want to deliver news the way our readers want to read it"???
Well, if only I could say: "I want to get an education the way I want to receive it" and have that hold merit enough for eight people to lose their careers. You know, if I had a preference, I wish to receive my education in the Daily Universe newsroom, publishing a daily newspaper, learning the trade from Rich and Kaye and RJ and Brandon. That's how I want to receive an education. That's how a lot of students want to receive it. Who can we fire based upon my preferences?
Also, what kind of smoke screen, David Blaine, Chris Angel deception is being preached by the comms department? The first day of my journalism class after I was admitted to the journalism program, several professors stood before me and told me about how college newspapers weren't dying, and how they continue to have a high readership despite other papers failing. They preached the power of the press and holding a newspaper in your hands. It was magical. Now, a year and a half later, they sing a different tune.
And further, why are people protecting this move? Yeah, we expect to hear from faculty about how much more improved the education will be with our new techy BYU news that is going on the internet (because everyone will be dying to read the daily universe on the slowest server on the planet, with no user-comments allowed. And I'm sure we're all pining to know if they'll move sudoko and nyt crossword puzzles online, too--that way we can just search for the answers on that great website called google! Just the way we want to read our news, remember!) BUT, why are we hearing all this defense from other corners of the world? Why are DU student-editors defending this move? Your journalistic values should tell you right away how wrong this is, and your vehement defense of this is merely giving them more weapons to play with.
And if no one else will say it, I will: The end of The Daily Universe was a formulaic, calculated response to a growing feeling amongst faculty that the Daily Universe was getting too hard to babysit any longer. And instead of standing up for the educational value of a lab of this size, the journalism faculty crumbled under pressure from faculty of other emphasis' who believed the Universe would eventually drain the budget of the whole department.
Look, to most of you, this is just a rant. But to the employees who are losing their jobs, we love you. If students had the chance to grant tenure, we would gladly grant it to you. Ellen, who protected me against the wrath of the broadcast journalists on my many travels to football games, is one of the sweetest, kindest persons you'll ever meet. Brandon, who puts in so much work to make the DU look like an actual paper, and one of BYU's greatest fans, will be missed. RJ, who finds good things to say about everybody and works endlessly to put together a great web product, will be recognized and appreciated magna cum laude at any organization he works for. Kaye, for her kind words, constant stream of encouragement, goofy emails, delicious treats, and a positivity and laugh that is infectious, will always represent a mother away from home to all her students. And Rich, for his realistic values, unique perspective, and the ability to laugh off almost any unfavorable situation, is quite possibly one of the most respected persons in the department. And to the other employees who will lose their jobs, we will miss you all. I am no longer a student at BYU, but I have felt your impact in my life, and I suspect the same can be said for countless others.
23 January 2011
19 November 2010
Gaily bedight,
A gallant night
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of El Dorado.
But he grew old --
This knight so bold --
And -- o'er his heart a shadow
Fell as he found
No spot of ground
That looked like El Dorado.
And, as his strength
Failed him at length,
He met a pilgrim shadow --
"Shadow," said he,
"Where can it be --
This land of El Dorado?"
"Over the Mountains
Of the Moon,
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied --
"If you seek for El Dorado
A gallant night
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of El Dorado.
But he grew old --
This knight so bold --
And -- o'er his heart a shadow
Fell as he found
No spot of ground
That looked like El Dorado.
And, as his strength
Failed him at length,
He met a pilgrim shadow --
"Shadow," said he,
"Where can it be --
This land of El Dorado?"
"Over the Mountains
Of the Moon,
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied --
"If you seek for El Dorado
04 October 2010
BYU's difficulties
Because the Daily Universe does not allow it's beat writers to publish anything that has opinion in it, for reasons nobody seems to know, I submit this piece to my personal collection that might add some depth to your assessment of the 2010 BYU football team.
And Because I signed a letter of nondisclosure, I am not permitted to say anything ill of the paper I write for.
But I'll have you know...I just want to write opinion sometimes. So here:
Following the Utah State game Friday, many fans began to wonder who is to be held accountable, if anyone, for the losses and embarrassment of this year. And although Cougar Board will be flooded with calls for the heads of the Offensive Coordinator, the Defensive Coordinator, and (heaven forbid) Coach Mendenhall, I’m not yet buying that it’s entirely any of these persons fault.
That said, there is a small cause for concern in a certain number of areas with this current BYU team.
For example, fans often attribute youthfulness of the team to future success. As we’ve seen with countless other programs that are rebuilding or reloading, youth doesn’t always translate into success. Sure, some of the freshmen on this team are promising. Jake Heaps, for one, is touted as a quarterback projected to start in the NFL, and he’s only yet completed one touchdown reception. Kyle Van Noy, Cody Hoffman, Joshua Quezada, and many others have seen significant playing time. While each has been recruited based upon his talent, it is easy for fan’s to believe that they are just getting reps to be ready to be the next Halls, Ungas, Pittas, and Collie’s of the world. However, this isn’t always the case.
While it sure is entertaining and reassuring to watch this young team and think of brighter days ahead, there must be caution in doing so. I’m not saying they won’t be a good team in the future, I’m just saying that they haven’t done anything yet.
And with what we’ve seen with these freshmen, there is still no reason to believe they will perform up to expectations. The sample size is extremely small, and we must factor in the time it takes to develop into a contributing player. But even Mendenhall is waiting for someone, anyone, to step up at the tight-end position and stand out. So far, the young one’s haven’t shown anything yet.
Also, I’ve heard some mention that Bronco Mendenhall doesn’t ‘pump’ his team up enough before games. Many talk about Mendenhall’s lack of emotion before, during, and after games.
After standing in on interviews and press conferences, it is easy for me to agree with this sediment. But is his lack of visible emotion a true factor in winning ballgames? There’s really no way to measure that. But it is remarkable to note that when a Bronco Mendenhall team looses a football game, they generally lose by a lot of points.
There are many factors that could contribute to this fact. First, perhaps the teams they lose to vastly overmatch BYU. Or perhaps when BYU is down, they play ‘homerun’ ball to catch up to opponents—they go for big, quick plays that are high-risk, high-reward. By doing so, they allow the other team more opportunities (and time) to move the ball downfield and rack up the score.
But on further look, one might conclude that Mendenhall lacks the power to motivate his team on the sideline. Surely, these lopsided losses aren’t all coincidence.
Lets examine the evidence:
Last year, the Cougars fell to Florida State at home by a score of 54-28, a 26 point spread. They also lost to TCU by a score of 38-7, a 31-point spread.
The previous year, BYU suffered losses to TCU, Utah, and Arizona. The combined score of opponents was 111-52, with BYU’s closest loss being 10 points against an 8-5 Arizona squad.
In 2007, Bronco’s squad only lost two games. The first they lost by ten to UCLA, and the second by 8 to Tulsa.
In 2006, BYU only lost two games by a total of 10 points. Again, Arizona, who finished 6-6 that year, beat BYU by a field goal, and Boston College beat BYU by a touchdown.
In 2005, BYU opponents outscored BYU 220-148 in losses that year.
Overall, the disparity of points in losses in Bronco Mendenhall coached teams is fascinating. Including the losses this year, opponents that have beaten BYU have outscored Mendenhall coached teams by a score of 678-388. Which is a remarkable statistic.
Utah, a comparable team, has only been outscored 499-294 in the same time period. Meaning, their opponent scores about 59% more than them in losses.
BYU gets outscored by 67%.
Kyle Wittingham seems to be more emotional, while Mendenhall seems more static. Is there any weight to this theory? Maybe not. Do college athletes need to be ‘pumped up’ to perform better? Perhaps some of them.
But still, Mendenhall teams seem to lack the ability to come back when down by two touchdowns. Even with the Utah State game, it was hard to imagine the Cougars could overcome the first half deficit.
So let’s hold out on calling for Mendenhall’s head, as there are many things left to figure out with this team. But that said, there are a few things to examine when assessing the 2010 Cougars and the future of this team.
And Because I signed a letter of nondisclosure, I am not permitted to say anything ill of the paper I write for.
But I'll have you know...I just want to write opinion sometimes. So here:
Following the Utah State game Friday, many fans began to wonder who is to be held accountable, if anyone, for the losses and embarrassment of this year. And although Cougar Board will be flooded with calls for the heads of the Offensive Coordinator, the Defensive Coordinator, and (heaven forbid) Coach Mendenhall, I’m not yet buying that it’s entirely any of these persons fault.
That said, there is a small cause for concern in a certain number of areas with this current BYU team.
For example, fans often attribute youthfulness of the team to future success. As we’ve seen with countless other programs that are rebuilding or reloading, youth doesn’t always translate into success. Sure, some of the freshmen on this team are promising. Jake Heaps, for one, is touted as a quarterback projected to start in the NFL, and he’s only yet completed one touchdown reception. Kyle Van Noy, Cody Hoffman, Joshua Quezada, and many others have seen significant playing time. While each has been recruited based upon his talent, it is easy for fan’s to believe that they are just getting reps to be ready to be the next Halls, Ungas, Pittas, and Collie’s of the world. However, this isn’t always the case.
While it sure is entertaining and reassuring to watch this young team and think of brighter days ahead, there must be caution in doing so. I’m not saying they won’t be a good team in the future, I’m just saying that they haven’t done anything yet.
And with what we’ve seen with these freshmen, there is still no reason to believe they will perform up to expectations. The sample size is extremely small, and we must factor in the time it takes to develop into a contributing player. But even Mendenhall is waiting for someone, anyone, to step up at the tight-end position and stand out. So far, the young one’s haven’t shown anything yet.
Also, I’ve heard some mention that Bronco Mendenhall doesn’t ‘pump’ his team up enough before games. Many talk about Mendenhall’s lack of emotion before, during, and after games.
After standing in on interviews and press conferences, it is easy for me to agree with this sediment. But is his lack of visible emotion a true factor in winning ballgames? There’s really no way to measure that. But it is remarkable to note that when a Bronco Mendenhall team looses a football game, they generally lose by a lot of points.
There are many factors that could contribute to this fact. First, perhaps the teams they lose to vastly overmatch BYU. Or perhaps when BYU is down, they play ‘homerun’ ball to catch up to opponents—they go for big, quick plays that are high-risk, high-reward. By doing so, they allow the other team more opportunities (and time) to move the ball downfield and rack up the score.
But on further look, one might conclude that Mendenhall lacks the power to motivate his team on the sideline. Surely, these lopsided losses aren’t all coincidence.
Lets examine the evidence:
Last year, the Cougars fell to Florida State at home by a score of 54-28, a 26 point spread. They also lost to TCU by a score of 38-7, a 31-point spread.
The previous year, BYU suffered losses to TCU, Utah, and Arizona. The combined score of opponents was 111-52, with BYU’s closest loss being 10 points against an 8-5 Arizona squad.
In 2007, Bronco’s squad only lost two games. The first they lost by ten to UCLA, and the second by 8 to Tulsa.
In 2006, BYU only lost two games by a total of 10 points. Again, Arizona, who finished 6-6 that year, beat BYU by a field goal, and Boston College beat BYU by a touchdown.
In 2005, BYU opponents outscored BYU 220-148 in losses that year.
Overall, the disparity of points in losses in Bronco Mendenhall coached teams is fascinating. Including the losses this year, opponents that have beaten BYU have outscored Mendenhall coached teams by a score of 678-388. Which is a remarkable statistic.
Utah, a comparable team, has only been outscored 499-294 in the same time period. Meaning, their opponent scores about 59% more than them in losses.
BYU gets outscored by 67%.
Kyle Wittingham seems to be more emotional, while Mendenhall seems more static. Is there any weight to this theory? Maybe not. Do college athletes need to be ‘pumped up’ to perform better? Perhaps some of them.
But still, Mendenhall teams seem to lack the ability to come back when down by two touchdowns. Even with the Utah State game, it was hard to imagine the Cougars could overcome the first half deficit.
So let’s hold out on calling for Mendenhall’s head, as there are many things left to figure out with this team. But that said, there are a few things to examine when assessing the 2010 Cougars and the future of this team.
10 September 2010
2 long years
It's been two years since I returned home from my 2-year mission to the great states of Mississippi and Louisiana. I talked about Hattiesburg today, and thought about Shreveport yesterday. It's wonderful how you can hold something or someplace in your heart as the perfect memory, despite it's flaws.
But as I think about things, I can't help but to notice and feel like my life has gotten better every single year of my life. Every month, life gets better. If I knew what i knew now while on my mission, I definitely would have been better. But the only reason i KNOW what i know now is because of experiences which included my mission.
Two Years! Two freaking years. It's been a awesome experience, and as I continue in my major work, I find more enjoyment out of working and learning.
Damn, I just love it okay.
But as I think about things, I can't help but to notice and feel like my life has gotten better every single year of my life. Every month, life gets better. If I knew what i knew now while on my mission, I definitely would have been better. But the only reason i KNOW what i know now is because of experiences which included my mission.
Two Years! Two freaking years. It's been a awesome experience, and as I continue in my major work, I find more enjoyment out of working and learning.
Damn, I just love it okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
