Since Frank Solich left Lincoln in 2003, the Nebraska Cornhuskers have been in a free fall.
Many of us, myself included, have been in various states of denial about the truth of this, but the fall finally became an undeniable reality yesterday, in the most unlikely of places. West Lafayette, Indiana is not the place where football players from opposing teams go to be humbled. And Nebraska wasn’t humbled, it was decapitated in a real life Halloween massacre.
The Huskers were down 26 points to Purdue to start the fourth quarter. The previous sentence would have been impossible to write, much less comprehend, until now. Now, it’s all too easy to comprehend. The football program is in utter shambles. Nebraska hired an arrogant Loserhan, replaced him with “needs professional help” Pelini, and now Grandpa Riley wanders the sideline, slackjawed and in seeming disbelief.
Whatever Coach Riley is pondering as his team gets pounded on the field is his private reserve. What the public sees is clear as day. Nebraska football is now in the most pathetic, clueless state it’s been in since the late 1950s. The only fans who can relate to this are 60-plus years old. That was the last time the Cornhuskers stunk up the place this badly.
Only once has Nebraska ever had nine losses in a season, which is a very real possibility this season. That was in 1957 under head coach Bill Jennings, who coached from 1957-1961. He was given a long leash, given his record during that span. Leashes do not come in that size today. Today, Nebraska football is a big business and losing is bad for business.
Nebraska let me introduced you to rock bottom. Rock bottom, meet Nebraska.
…There’s no sugarcoating it: Nebraska is no longer a team to reckon with in college football.
It’s important to bring the historical perspective into view. Before Bob Devaney came to town from Wyoming and turned the program around, the Huskers were laggards.
The Huskers are laggards again. For the first time in many fans’ lives the expectation to win when the team takes the field isn’t there. As a fan we wish for a win but we know how unlikely it is.
Michigan State and Iowa are coming to Lincoln this month and they’re not going to show Nebraska any mercy. Unless something major changes today, the team that got pummeled by Purdue will be crushed into oblivion by Sparty and the Hawkeyes.
Where might this change come from, if it comes at all? The Regents, the University’s new President, the A.D. who wants to keep his job? Time will tell, but the clock’s ticking. Football players will go elsewhere, students will go elsewhere, and believe it or not fans will too. Nebraska is the only game in town, and that’s been a large part of its build to national prominence, but football at Nebraska is no longer the only game in town.
Maybe it’s natural and good that football is put in its place. When it means so much, perspective is lost. In the end, it’s a game among many others. At the same time, it would be foolish to deny how Husker pride is about much more than football. Thus, losing football games is about much more than losing football games.
I’m glad Tom Shatel is pissed off. He’s the senior writer on the Huskers’ beat and if he’s not spitting venom after yesterday’s debacle in Lincoln, then Husker Nation would truly be at a loss.
Let’s observe some of Shatel’s keen observations:
Let’s not waste our time talking about bowl scenarios.
Nebraska just lost, 30-28, to a Northwestern team that was beaten 78-10 the previous two games.
And:
The Husker team that showed up didn’t show a great deal of interest in blocking, catching passes, covering kickoffs or making smart decisions with the ball.
Not a lot of urgency, period, and ther’s absolutely no reason for that in this program, ever.
Shatel goes on to question whether Tommy Armstrong will be the QB next year. It’s the right question. I can hardly remember the last time the Huskers had a real QB under center. Let me be generous and give the nod to Joe Ganz. Crafty and intelligent Ganz left the field of play in 2008. Since then, Nebraska has been outplayed at QB in just about every game. It’s more than a little embarrassing.
Will Mike Riley fix this problem at QB? Yes, he already has and we will see the results of this focused recruiting when a real QB takes the field next season. Tommy Armstrong is a tough player. If I was the coach I’d want him on the field, but not at QB. Maybe he can play cornerback? Nebraska certainly needs a lot of help in that area.
Honestly, there are so many things wrong with this team, it is hard to pick the most meddlesome problem to tackle. Nevertheless, let’s select mental toughness or the lack thereof. Maliek Collins—like Alex Lewis before him at Miami—was flagged for a personal foul at most inopportune time possible on Saturday. I’m not hanging these two losses on these two 4th quarter plays. What I will do is point to these two plays and ask, is this the Ghost of Pelini? The fact is Nebraska is playing almost exclusively with players recruited by the coach who can’t keep his composure.
In Lewis’s case, the offensive lineman from the state of Colorado made matters much worse by blasting Nebraska fans on social media. “I’m done playing for the state of the Nebraska!” his Facebook post began. It’s since been deleted. But yes, from the looks of things, he is done playing for the state of Nebraska. The Huskers O-line was completely dominated by Northwestern. It wasn’t pretty, and it’s going to take some time for that particular sting to work its way out.
Here is another fact that no one likes. Mike Riley is left to clean up one of the messiest scenes of his career and redeem a program that has been splintering for more than a decade. To make matters worse, the fan base can’t see why Riley was entrusted with this job, based on his mediocre W-L record at Oregon State.
I saw a comment somewhere in the social stream that this job is going to make Mike Riley old. That saddens me, but I can also see the truth in it. Lincoln is only three hours by private jet from Corvallis, but when it comes to the game of football, it might as well be on a different planet. In Corvallis, it truly is all good, whether the Beavers win or lose. I can see how a competitive man like Mike Riley would want a greater challenge that, and now he has one. It’s clearly not all good in Lincoln, and it won’t be until the Nebraska Cornhuskers blow people off the ball and win.
In the advertising agency business, it’s best to get out before you get old. Or so goes the common wisdom. Naturally, there are many notable exceptions. David Ogilvy was 39 when he wrote his first ad, and he spent the next 25 years of his life actively involved in the making of advertising.
One could argue that it’s a job for young people, due to the late nights, immense workload and high pressure situations that come with landing and keeping multi-million dollar clients.
Joanthan Cude of McKinney believes one must become and then remain “resilient” to survive in advertising.
As I began ruminating on life and advertising, I couldn’t help but think about how, as one ages from 25 to 50, advertising becomes a steep pyramid, and people fall off in droves. It’s not necessarily because their talent dims or because they lose their ability to think critically or because they can no longer connect with young consumers. It’s because, for all the psychic highs an agency career can bestow, it comes with a tremendous amount of wear and frustration. Much of your best thinking and a lot of blood, sweat and tears end up on the proverbial cutting-room floor.
Cude doesn’t mention ageism in his article, or the fact that if you’re over 40 and working in an ad agency, you better be working from a corner office or your days are numbered. Instead, he puts the blame squarely on the people who fail to be resilient. Of course, that POV is a failure in itself. Let me rephrase resilience. Let’s call it shit-sandwich eating, because that’s a lot closer to reality. Some totally sane, resilient people simply opt out, not because they’re beaten down by the ad game. Some people find or create a better game for themselves, which is the ultimate act of resilience.
Also, let’s examine a few cogent facts here. Agency attrition has nothing to do with older people not knowing how to relate, or sell, to younger people. Younger people are clearly not the demo. According to Media Post, Americans older than 50 have double the discretionary spending power of any other age group. The average head of household is 52. The average new car buyer is 56. The average Mac user is 54.
In short, the market for goods and services is dominated by people who are over 50, but the people charged with serving up the marketing strategies, the creative ideas and all the rest that helps drive the economy forward are much younger, sometimes decades younger.
What if young people work in advertising because they don’t know any better? Seriously. It’s easy to be swayed by a decent salary and beautiful workspace, plus the chance to see your work on TV or in print. Put another way, what if young people are the only people agency owners and managers can convince to work there?
When we moved to Oregon, I was 43. I half-heartedly looked for an agency job here. Given the tattered economy and my own disgruntlement with the agency business model, I needed a new answer. For a time, I thought I’d need to leave advertising and start over. Then I saw what I needed to do. I needed to separate what I love about the work, from what I detest about the toxic agencies where it is created. From this initial spark, Bonehook was born.
Bonehook is now the anti-agency. I’m a critic and a practitioner of advertising, and my company is a reflection of me. The agency business is bloated, antiquated and a great waster of the client’s time and money. We start from this premise and ask prospective clients if they’d like the traditional treatment, or if they’d prefer a better way.
“Control for smilers can’t be bought
The solar garlic starts to rot
Was it for this my life I sought?
Maybe so and maybe not.” -Anastasio/Marshall
Trey Anastasio impressed a lot of Jerry Garcia fans this summer with his well conceived and expertly delivered work as lead guitar player in “Fare Thee Well,” a tribute to 50 years of Grateful Dead.
I watched the first three shows via Youtube pay-per-view and felt that the first two shows suffered from a serious lack of Trey. Whether Trey was being overly kind and respectful, or being held back by Bob Weir is a question we can debate over beers. Whatever the reason, the two shows in Santa Clara lacked the confidence and cohesion needed to elevate the music and the people in love with the music.
After also watching the first night in Chicago, it was clear “The Boys” oiled their rusty gears and more importantly, they gave Trey the clear directive to step up, which he did to most everyone’s delight.
For a variety of reasons, I wasn’t interested in attending Fare Thee Well shows in person. I did see Grateful Dead in several large stadiums, but it’s something I stopped doing when the original band stopped touring 20 years ago. Now, I seek out shows at small outdoor venues, theaters and clubs where the venue itself is part of the package. The grassy park that is Les Schwab Amphitheater in Bend is such a place, and with two nights of Phish to open the band’s summer tour, I knew these were the shows for me.
It had been 17 years since I last saw Phish (who took six of those years off themselves, first in a hiatus and then in a breakup). What a time to come back!
Phish introduced a handful of new songs in Bend. Old favorite or new to my ears, I liked most every song I heard. There was no aimless wandering. Everything the four musicians did, they did with purpose. This is mature Phish and I’m all for it.
Following the shows, it was awesome to realize that the code on my ticket stubs entitled me to a free download of the shows from LivePhish.com. I love not just the instant access but the leveling of inane hierarchies. In Grateful Dead days, you had to know a taper to get a first generation audience copy of the show. And so on down the chain…second gen., third gen., forth gen. Grateful Dead fans—like most every scene I’ve seen—can be elitist and exclusive in many ways. By providing instant access to a crispy soundboard of the show for everyone with a ticket, the playing field is leveled by technology and those who would use it generously.
Since returning from Bend, I’ve been buying shows from LivePhish.com that I attended in the 1990s. The Jazz Fest show in 1996 is one I recommend, if you’re looking for some new old Phish. I’ve also been listening intently to the lyrics and remembering how much I loved them in the first place and how fresh and brilliant they remain today. Trey’s prep school buddy Tom Marshall is the Robert Hunter of Phish, and the guy truly delivers lyrical gems.
Earlier this month Nike announced the start of a succession planning process that will conclude in the appointment of the company’s next Chairman.
Enigmatic Phil Knight, Oregon’s only billionaire, will relinquish his powerful Chairman role. At the same time, his son Travis ascends to a seat on the company’s board of directors.
The Oregonian’s editorial board came out in favor of these moves, and in favor of success in general. “Oregon is known as hip, innovative, tolerant and an overall cool place to be. Unlike Nike, it’s not necessarily known for success,” the board argued.
According to the state’s largest newspaper, success is attained by building a great brand, going beyond your natural strengths and not letting mistakes cripple you. All lessons that we can glean from Nike’s path from Blue Ribbon Sports to the global sports powerhouse it is today. Provided we’re willing to overcome any reservations we may have about Nike and Knight.
Despite all his success, Phil Knight was never hugely popular in Oregon, except among fans of Oregon Ducks sports teams. Some of that probably is a product of his personality and some of it because Oregon does not easily embrace financial success. And maybe that’s the biggest difference of all between Nike and Oregon. It’s hard to be successful without fully embracing success.
When you strip out these words and lay them bare: “Oregon does not easily embrace financial success,” they seem absurd. What do Oregonians embrace? Bottomless bowls of granola? Nature, and a more humane approach to work? I think yes, Oregonians do follow their own rules and the rules are relaxed. At the same time, the people of Oregon are complex and can’t be summed up that easily. For instance, the state has a rich industrial history, and we continue to lean heavily on manufacturing today. Locally, “Made in the U.S.A.” means “Made in Oregon.” Nike, of course, manufactures its shoes in overseas plants. That’s at odds with the Oregon way, and you might say the American way. Making shoes in Oregon would reduce profits, but it would win a lot of hearts and minds.
Back to the idea of not embracing financial success. It sounds like a Sunday School lesson from the New England Puritans who came West, not for gold but for a virgin land upon which to imprint their indelible and chaste stamp. Of course, none of that squares with the history of bar owners, loggers, ship builders, fishermen, cowboys, and various other rogues who also made Oregon what it is today. I don’t know if Phil Knight identifies with the Puritans or the rogues. What matters is resolving in some way these conflicting views of ourselves as Oregonians. To truly reject the creation of wealth makes us outcasts in the American experiment. It seems to me what we want is the creation of sustainable wealth through more conscious means.
For too long being pro-business has meant being anti-environment. Here again we find tension between the poles, when what we need is agreement to meet in the middle. We can achieve controlled growth, but it is growth, nonetheless. Ideas about Californians going home are stale. Statistically speaking, no one’s going home. Now, let’s meet the reality of population growth with economic growth, so the great majority can afford to benefit from the world-class schools, healthcare, transportation, food and beverage, architecture, arts and sports that help define Portland and Oregon. The magical beauty and mild weather are gifts. The rest we must work to perfect.
Last Saturday, Restore Oregon hosted a tour of six homes in Lake Oswego and SW Portland, all designed by noted Portland architect Van Evera Bailey (1903-1980).
Brian Libby of Portland Architecture argues, “if Northwest midcentury-modern houses are arguably the most significant and unique contribution that Portland has contributed to world architecture, then Bailey not only deserves his place alongside Pietro Belluschi and John Yeon, but a larger recognition beyond Oregon’s borders.”
All six homes were interesting to see up close, but two homes in particular stood out on the tour—the Bruno Residence (1939) on Ridecrest Drive in Lake Oswego and the Shaw Residence (1957) on SW Hessler Drive in Portland.
Bailey’s clients purchased dramatic hilltop lots and he made the most of the settings. The homes appear to be humble from the street. But open the front door and move through the compressed entries into the expansive living rooms, and any concept of humble is long gone.
The raw wood ceilings are at once soaring and grounding. An architect can’t improve on the natural forest, but he can showcase the raw material in flattering ways, as Bailey has done.
One’s home is one’s sanctuary, and Bailey definitely plays to this ideal. He incorporates Prairie style lines and he places his building on the lot carefully, so it belongs to the landscape.
I couldn’t help thinking about the architect’s state of mind as the nation endured, then emerged from WWII and the Great Depression. Bailey’s homes are for optimists, people able to see the big picture (literally). He worked in California early in his career, and he learned the trade from a student of Frank Lloyd Wright. He wears his influences well.
The remaining members of Grateful Dead are playing five “Fare Thee Well” shows this summer.
According to a statement from the band, it will be the last time the four remaining members play on stage together. Naturally, such an announcement created a sense of scarcity and scarcity lends itself to various forms of exploitation, particularly around price.
The face value of Fare Thee Well tickets is an outrage to begin with, but that’s nothing compared to what’s happening on the secondary market. Currently on Stub Hub, prices for obstructed view tickets at the top of Soldier Field are going for $379 and up, per ticket.
I’m not even going to reprint the obscene prices that people seeking VIP treatment are shelling out for this. Instead, I’ll ask, is there going to be even one hippy within a mile of these shows?
Back in the day, Deadheads would grimace when the band closed the show with “Keep Your Day Job.”
Ring that bell for whatever it’s worth
When Monday comes don’t forget about work
It appears that someone took these lyrics to heart. Not all Deadheads are trust-funders and/or drug dealers. Some actually have day jobs that pay for the extravagance mentioned above.
I think it’s worth mentioning that a lot of Deadheads do not have the means to attend these Fare Thee Well shows, or any concert that costs $80 to $100 per person, per day, as so many shows do now.
It’s also fair to ask, what would Jerry think of the state of the live music industry, 50 years after the first Grateful Dead shows? No one can say for sure. Garcia was a shrewd operator, as was legendary promoter Bill Graham.
Ultimately, it’s not for me to judge. It’s my job to choose, and I did that a long time ago. I understand we all want to have fun. How we choose to do it and how much we will pay for the pleasure, that’s up to each freak to figure out.
President Obama’s speech in Selma, Alabama on Saturday—commemorating the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday”—was a major moment in his presidency, and a reminder to all how far we have come as a nation in 50 years.
The context and setting of the speech helped to amplify the power of the President’s words, which ring poetic throughout.
We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people. That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction, because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it.
The speech contains passage after passage of language artfully rendered. President Obama has a strong vision for America—and his own place in it—which is both remarkable, and proof that we have indeed “broke the old aristocracies,” at least to some degree.
Yet, racism is not gone from the American scene. It is still a daily reality for many Americans. Pick any headline (or personal incident) you want. For instance, David Boren, the President of University of Oklahoma, banned a fraternity from campus on Monday and declared the students “a disgrace” and “not real Sooners”, for singing a racist chant at a frat function.
Hats off to David Boren in Norman, OK. “We know America is what we make of it.” The struggle to make ourselves and our nation better is not easy, nor will it be easy going forward, but it is a struggle worthy of our energy and full attention.
As President Obama said on Saturday, “We are the people Emerson wrote of, ‘who for truth and honor’s sake stand fast and suffer long; who are ‘never tired,’ so long as we can see far enough.”
“Information without context strikes the mind but peters out before the heart.” -Sarah Smarsh
Creative nonfiction is a form I find myself increasingly drawn to. In the hands of a great essayist, we see a real writer struggle with real life.
Sarah Smarsh, for instance. She is a Kansas-born journalist, public speaker and educator, and her recent piece of media criticism in Aeon struck a nerve.
In a media landscape of zip-fast reports as stripped of context as a potato might be stripped of fibre, most news stories fail to satiate. We don’t consume news all day because we’re hungry for information – we consume it because we’re hungry for connection. That’s the confusing conundrum for the 21st century heart and mind: to be at once over-informed and grasping for understanding.
In her essay, Smarsh exposes the mechanics of reporting and the news business as one culprit in the dehumanization on news. She also explores the need for real story, versus packaged up text masquerading as coherent content. Regarding what is sometimes called “hard news” she writes:
…in J-school my peers and I learned never to call 10 inches of lede, nutgraph and body an ‘article’ – true journos, we were told, call them ‘stories’
I hear and admire Smarsh’s call for a higher standard in today’s metric-fed mediascape. Media enterprises need page views, subscribers, events, merchandise and ad dollars to survive. I get that, and most writers get that. We also get that there’s a need to make a product or service out of our writing, and for the most part, we are happy to abide by these terms. Perhaps publishers, editors and writers can begin to work towards more equitable outcomes all around.
Smarsh writes about how we’re “hungry for connection” today. I agree. Imagine hiring a great chef, sous chef, line cooks and prep cooks and outfitting them with all the best kitchen equipment. But then you tie their hands when it comes to ingredients—all this talented crew can make is pork and beans, onion soup and tater tots. Publishers are in a hurry to be mass feeders of media. Conventional wisdom says that’s where the money is.
Brands want a return on content. B. Bonin Bough of Mondelēz International argues that “without the metric of monetization, there really is no way for you to determine whether content is good or bad.”
Media companies also want a positive return on their investment in content. Meanwhile, people find it hard to pay attention, can’t sit still, can’t take it all in. A lot of smart people are working on answers to the media conundrum. I am glad, because it’s easy enough to see the connection between junk media and an unhealthy citizenry.
As a writer, I want to answer Smarsh’s call for more substance and more heart in the pieces we put into the world. As a reader and consumer of media, I want to scroll less and read and think more.
Eminent domain seems unfair and un-American. Particularly, when called upon by a Canadian multi-national oil company to wrestle a rag tag group of ranchers for the last bit of right-of-way for its heinous oil snake pipeline.
According to The Guardian, by law, TransCanada can use the courts to force Nebraska landowners to sell access to their land. Company officials say they still need to acquire 12% of the total land easements from owners who have not yet reached a deal. Some holdouts have said they will not negotiate no matter how much TransCanada offers.
In an unexpected twist, Nebraska state senator, Ernie Chambers introduced a bill on Tuesday that would repeal the pipeline-siting law and bring the project “to a virtual standstill”.
Chambers is the only African-American serving in the Nebraska state Senate. He’s also famously contentious. Frequently employing legislative rules and filibusters to block proposals, his legislative opposition has caused friction with some of his colleagues in the Legislature.
“The pipeline is like King Kong, and the people and farms are like ants and grasshoppers,” Chambers said. “If they get in the way, they will be crushed with no redress.”
“The Great Plains has a rich history of this sort of rabble-rousing individual,” says Gary Moulton, professor emeritus of history at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Chambers’ detractors should take heed of the state’s populist legacy, he says, one that includes William Jennings Bryan and other advocates for the ignored and voiceless. “Ernie comes out of the ’60s, but if you take a step back you can see that it’s another aspect in the same populist vein,” Moulton says.
Let’s hope Chambers’ penchant for obstructionism pays off for the ranchers in the way of this pipeline. The concept of eminent domain makes sense on paper. Private property owners must give up their rights for the good of the larger community. The problem here is the Keystone pipeline is not clearly a seen as a benefit to the community or to the country. In fact, it’s not hard to see the project as the snake it is, carrying 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day through sensitive Ogallala Aquifer-fed habitat.
Everyone knows some of this 800,000 barrels of crude is going to leak into the sandy soil and infect the life-sustaining water underneath. It’s a matter of when, not if.
Could there be armed conflict and sabotage on the horizon? Most Nebraskans are prudent people. At the same time, I’ve always thought of my home state as a Midwestern version of New Hampshire. “Live free or die” is an expression of the granite state’s native extremism. There’s no such expression in Nebraska, but there is a pervasive live-and-let-live/don’t tread on me mentality.
Terms like “patriot” get bandied about in debates like this. The right wing wants to own the term patriot. But who are the patriots in this conflict? Are the politicians with oil money stuffed in their suit pockets patriots? Or are the people of Nebraska and America who say no to another short-sighted fossil fuels scheme that creates virtually no local jobs patriots?
The odd thing is many of the people in rural Nebraska fighting for their land might present as conservatives, but they’re now allied with populists Ernie Chambers and Barack Obama and a bunch of leftist environmentalists.
Political terminology and ideology doesn’t mean much at a time of crisis. It’s all so much simpler than that. “I’m an American, this is my land, and you’re not going to destroy it,” is about all there is to it.
